So...Dumbledore liked Dudes...

[Maeglin]

Has anyone else heard this news? Apparently Dumbledore was actually gay, as Rowling revealed this past weekend at an open book tour.
Link:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674069,00.html?imw=Y

Any thoughts, comments?

I'm just curious as to why she didn't bother to reveal it within the story. It almost seems like something she just decided to make up on the spot to bring some more attention to the books and/or herself...though I'm sure she doesn't want any more attention. I suppose it would have caused a great deal of outrage with parts of the public, so maybe that is why it was never written into the books. Or maybe because it simply isn't that important to the story in general. But still, it is newsworthy, so I thought I'd post it and see what peoples' reactions are.

[HLGStrider]

I couldn't get your link to work.

[Maeglin]

Should be working now. :)

[Josephine]

In general, I have to say that I like JKR's work, but I can't stand her way of giving information she has never mentioned in her books in interviews and such. She has done so more than once, and I really don't like it. Authors should include the information they want to readers to have in their books and nowhere else. She could have made the epilogue so much better by including... well, not the Dumbledore thing, but other pieces of information she gave later: the professions of Hermione and the boys, for instance.

About Dumbledore being gay: I don't think the idea's too far-fetched, actually. A very good friend of mine started a Grindeldore fic a couple of weeks ago, well before she knew about JKR's opinion on the subject, and she's dealing with the topic in a very sensible and plausible way. Why shouldn't he have been gay? Of course, this adds fuel to the discussion our dear Rita Skeeter started: How much love was there between Dumbledore and Harry? I'm not saying that I think anything would have ever happened between them, but it'll make people wonder.

(Completely random: Does anyone else just get the mental image of Dumbledore sitting in that scene at the beginning of "Little Miss Sunshine", and Olive saying "You were in love with a boy? That was silly..." ? I guess a lot of mothers will have to do a lot of explaining once their children find out about Dumbledore's sexual preferences.)

I don't think JKR revealed it because she craved even more publicity, though. It's mentioned in the interview JKR gave (I wanted to post the link, but the site's not working properly at the moment, so you have to take my word for it.) that she read the script for the sixth movie, and there was a scene in which Dumbledore commented on a former girlfriend of his. JKR told them to cross out that comment, giving the explanation that Dumbledore was gay. I guess she was afraid that someone from the production team would let it slip to the public, so she decided to say it herself once she had the right occasion.

[Barliman Butterbur]

Yes, Dumby's gay! Another article was in UCLA's Daily Bruin (http://dailybruin.com/news/2007/oct/23/irowling-reveals-all-it-too-muchi/).

I'm not sure that I think this news is good news for innocent kids, but the cat's out of the bag now; let the chips fall where they may. On the other hand, many older gay kids will feel pretty OK about this! As for me, I could have gotten along without ever knowing; my attitudes and conclusions about the HP series were long-settled issues and this certainly stirred up the mud at the bottom of the pond! I'd certainly never suspected it.

God knows what else will be revealed. I myself have always wondered about the dark and sometimes questionable themes that run at the back of her mind and just below the surface of her written text. Why all the violence? Why all the blood, gore, death and maiming? These are supposed to be kids' books after all. Or are they? One could argue that they are one vast personal black catharsis which made JK one of the richest women in the world. At least she's giving much of it to laudable causes. But it's like running a child slavery racket and donating money from it to preventing child abuse.

EDIT a day later than the above:

More has come out about the series. Rowling was interviewed by Keith Olbermann of NBC news, and privately she told him that the Potter series is "...a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry [and] to question authority. You should not assume the establishment tells you the truth." She later said this in public.

The bit about Dumbledore's sexuality was a total surprise, but the political innuendos about the Ministry of Magic being a thinly disguised version of the British (and the American) government was pretty transparent, at least to me.

YET ANOTHER EDIT: An article appearing in TIME Magazine: "Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet" (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1674550,00.html) by John Cloud is well worth the reading.

Barley

[Maeglin]

That was a very good read Barli. And call me a bad person, but I found that last line quite amusing, "Leave the old girl to rest in peace." :D

[Barliman Butterbur]

That was a very good read Barli. And call me a bad person, but I found that last line quite amusing, "Leave the old girl to rest in peace." :D

Amen! (But it's too late now, and you can bet that HP fan fiction has found a whole fecundly fertile new direction...)

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

From today's L.A. Times: "Seven Clues That 'Potter's' Dumbledore Was Gay" (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-showbiz7-23oct23,0,5726083.story?coll=la-home-entertainment)

Barley

[Gothmog]

Interesting Article. I find point 7 to be the best one.

[Maeglin]

I agree, point 7 was very good. Though the bit about his fashion style provided for quite an amusing point as well.

[Josephine]

If all guys with a peculiar dress sense were automatically gay, there would be hardly any straight ones left. ;)

No, seriously, the longer I think about it, the more certain I become that it's a publicity stunt. I don't know about other countries, but the book's coming out (terrible pun) in German tomorrow, and I can't help thinking that the sales figures will rise even more. Many people will want to check the final book for hints whether Dumbledore really was gay.

[Barliman Butterbur]

If all guys with a peculiar dress sense were automatically gay, there would be hardly any straight ones left. ;)

No, seriously, the longer I think about it, the more certain I become that it's a publicity stunt. I don't know about other countries, but the book's coming out (terrible pun) in German tomorrow, and I can't help thinking that the sales figures will rise even more. Many people will want to check the final book for hints whether Dumbledore really was gay.

Somehow I doubt that. The last thing JK needs is more money.

Barley

[baragund]

Point 7 of the L.A. Times article sums up my opinion of the matter. I learned of this reading a small article in The Washington Post last week and my basic reaction was "So what?"

What do you think would have been the reaction if Tolkien had revealed that any of his leading unmarried male characters were gay? Suppose it was 1955 (I think), right after the triumphant publication of ROTK, and Tolkien wrote one of his letters to his publisher or to one of his friends and announced that Gandalf, Saruman, Bilbo, Frodo, Merry, Pippin, Boromir, Legolas or Gimli were gay? Do you think it would have generated what seems to me the rather mild interest of Rowlings revelation about Dumbledore? Or do you think there would have been a more severe backlash, with all of the usual hysteria about children's minds being corrupted and the like?

I am heartened that Rowlings revelation is not causing a greater stir than it has. It indicates that society's attitudes about sexual orientation are evolving. Hopefully, in another generation or two, sexual orientation will be no bigger a deal than a Catholic marrying a Baptist.

btw, Barley, I trust you were not harmed by the wildfires? Hope things are OK in (what's left of) your neck of the woods.:)

[Barliman Butterbur]

OK folks — you asked for it — you got it! Here are fifty-seven articles (http://news.google.com/?ncl=1122180461&hl=en) on Dumby's outing: everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask! :eek: ;) :p

And Baragund: Thanks for asking about us: we live in the L.A. Basin, right between Beverly Hills and L.A. proper, so nothing came our way except the smoke that diffused into the upper atomosphere from all the fires.

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

We are now in the Post Potter Age, and JK has moved on:

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1122180461&hl=en

Barley

[Barliman Butterbur]

The fuss about Albus

Priyanko Sarkar wants Dumbledore back in his white tomb.

The most astounding piece of news for the 2000 lucky fans who got a chance to interact with J K Rowling last Friday at Carnegie Hall in New York was that Albus Dumbledore was gay. Gasps and claps met the announcement and this sharply divided reaction pretty much summed up the response from the rest of the world. There was consternation at what Rowling had done - Christian right-wingers in the US, who have long hated her nasty magic, now had a new stick to beat her with. In other homes and in some gay communities, there was admiration for her courage in outing a character and a curiosity about her motivations for doing so. And inevitably, Rowling was accused of sleight: why had she delivered so disconcerting a bombshell when the series was finished and done with” If she were really so brave, why hadn't she put her money where her mouth is and unlocked the closet in book seven when Dumbledore's dark youthful past was paraded before the reader”

Sudhir Dixit, whose Hindi translations of the first six Potter books have sold over one lakh copies, says that the belated outing is nothing but a stunt to manipulate eyeballs. “In any case, Rowling's view is immaterial since the text is independent of the author,”” says Dixit, who teaches English literature at Narmada University outside Bhopal. “Tomorrow if she says Harry and Ron are gay or Professor Minerva McGonagall is a murderess, it doesn't mean they become so.”

“I don't know how it is going to help the gay community or Potter fans in any way,” says Kalpana Swaminathan, author of a number of children's books. “I can't believe we're having this conversation. This is just a big publicity stunt.”

Up in the hills of Dehra Dun, one of India's most well-loved children's authors, Ruskin Bond, says he's not quite sure why Rowling did it. “In children's literature, traditionally, gay themes have never been made explicit” the bonding between boys is generally a platonic thing with them out to seek adventure. Rowling's comment is either a way of increasing her adult fan base or perhaps she genuinely thought Dumbledore was gay and her publishers didn't allow her to put it into her series. In any case, I don't think she was serious about the whole thing.”

Whatever her reasons, Rowling chose well. Of all the characters in the series, Dumbledore was the most noble. Nobody would've minded if she'd said Tom the barman was gay. Dumbledore was different. From the officious Minister of Magic to the evil Lord Voldemort to the house elves slaving in the kitchens, everyone looked up to or feared Dumbledore. Not only was he the most beloved elder statesman, he was also the kindest and smartest, someone who had answers for everything and a great sense of humour to boot. He was an endearingly eccentric headmaster. He was also Harry Potter's guide and mentor and the orphan's only link to his parents killed by Voldemort.

For many Potter lovers, Dumbledore's disinterest in women was normal. He seemed to have devoted his energies to maintain order among the various warring factions in the wizard world. The love that one associated with him was a deep human love, of which he was the biggest expounder. He repeatedly tells Harry that the chink in his nemesis Voldemort's armour is his inability to believe in the power of love. Did Rowling leave a trail? Perhaps the only pointer for the discerning reader came when Dumbledore says of his best friend-turned-enemy (and now secret lover, Gellert Grindelwald), “You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me.”

Dixit predicts that Dumbledore's holy image will collapse and “his obsessive control over Harry's life will be viewed in a different light”. Already, there are signs of this. At Mumbai's Utpal Shanghvi School, principal Abha Dharam Pal has told the librarian to discourage children from borrowing Harry Potter for the Diwali vacation. Pal hasn't read the series but is quite clear about her decision. “I announced that no child would be given a Potter book, but as it turned out not a single student has asked for the books so far. They know what it will imply,” she says. But a former student of the school finds it completely unnecessary. “This hatred of the educated class to homosexuality is very disturbing,” he says. “In a book I wrote, I had a gay character and I feel we need to practise tolerance towards such issues.”

Tolerance apart, many parents simply don't know how to answer curious questions from their tots. Clinical psychotherapist Seema Hingorrany says that worried parents have been coming to her after the Dumbledore incident. Other parents are simply banning the book from the house. “My ten-year-old daughter was curious and asked me why Rowling had said that Dumbledore is gay,” says Shalini Vyas, a parent in Mumbai. “I just told her they are different from normal people. I won't encourage her to read Harry Potter any more. I might confiscate all her Potter books. There are millions of other books that she can read.”

Adult readers are inclined to be more laidback. Actress Minissha Lamba, a big Potter fan, says, “Children today know more about such things than we give them credit for. Personally, my faith in Dumbledore is unshaken. I always looked upon him as a benevolent patriarch. You don't connect sexuality with such a character. The only thing Rowling's statement has done is to humanise Dumbledore and give her readers an insight into his dreams and hopes and ambition.”

Ungrateful though it may sound, the gay world has been muted in welcoming this famous personality into the tent. Thirty-two-year old Harpreet, who is gay and swears by his seven Harry Potters, explains why: “Initially, we thought Remus Lupin (Harry's Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher) was gay because he's bitten by a werewolf and tries to run away from who he is and people avoid him. These are things gays identify with. But the Dumbledore announcement overwhelmed us. We didn't expect her to be so blase about it. He's the greatest character in the book. It's something to be proud of and she should have had the guts to put it into her book.”

“Falling in love can blind us to an extent,” Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was “horribly, terribly let down” and that his love was a “great tragedy”. That's exactly what this whole episode is: a great tragedy that has left most of Jo's fans feeling let down. Too bad that Butterbeer doesn't exist in the Muggle world.

(The writer of this piece is a big fan of J K Rowling and wants that she should ignite the imagination and not silly controversies)

===============================

Barley

[Firawyn]

Humm....I always seem to forget there's a Potter forum on TTF.

My thoughts on this? I'm thrilled. I'm gay myself so seeing the most popular books of this decade have a positive outlook on the GLBT community just made my day!:D

[Barliman Butterbur]

Humm....I always seem to forget there's a Potter forum on TTF.

My thoughts on this? I'm thrilled. I'm gay myself so seeing the most popular books of this decade have a positive outlook on the GLBT community just made my day!:D

I'm glad you're glad, but my complaint has always been: she should have made it obvious in the book so it would be "official," so to speak; not just dropping this bombshell in a passing remark before a small group. That's just too big and important a fact to keep it in the closet. I think gays would have really felt good about it had she been open with it in the first place.

Barley

[Firawyn]

It's publicity Barley. She keeps her sales up this way.

By dropping the bomb later, she makes people go back and read them again, and she opens a whole new group of people to them, who go buy them. :D

[Barliman Butterbur]

It's publicity Barley. She keeps her sales up this way.

By dropping the bomb later, she makes people go back and read them again, and she opens a whole new group of people to them, who go buy them. :D

Yeah, right... :rolleyes:

Frankly, once I finished the last book (the gay issue aside), I realized that even at the very beginning of the first book, where Harry was just a little boy of 10 that there is a black undercurrent of really vile evil just behind all the (apparently innocent fun) action. It completely changed my relationship to the series. This never happened to me before, certainly not with LOTR. With LOTR, knowing what's going on in advance adds to the fun of re-reading. Not so for me with HP. I think it's all the blood, gore and maiming that lies ahead that makes me feel like I've had my last read of Harry Potter.

Barley

[Eledhwen]

I'm glad Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't mentioned in the books. One only became aware of anybody's sexual preferences when (towards the end of the series) they made them; and that's how it should be.

If 'gay Dumbledore' had been the known character from the beginning, it would have coloured opinions on everything he said and did. Without the 'gay' apellation, no secondary motive or hidden sexual agenda was applied to the storyline by any reader.

Rowling later expressed surprise that no-one had asked her earlier about AD's sexual orientation, which she would have answered truthfully if they had. So it seems she decided that, in a school context, it would have been an inappropriate storyline, but not an inappropriate truth; and I agree (in the story, even the eventual heterosexual activities were clumsy, juvenile awakenings).

[Barliman Butterbur]

I'm glad Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't mentioned in the books. One only became aware of anybody's sexual preferences when (towards the end of the series) they made them; and that's how it should be.

If 'gay Dumbledore' had been the known character from the beginning, it would have coloured opinions on everything he said and did.

I'm not saying the very first mention of Dumbledore should have been "The Flaming Gay Wizard!" But if JKR thought he was gay, then I believe that it should have been mentioned at the appropriate place in the saga, whatever it might have been.

Barley

[Goldberry344]

the person who wrote the article on "The Fuss About Albus" quotes a parent who says “My ten-year-old daughter was curious and asked me why Rowling had said that Dumbledore is gay, I just told her they are different from normal people. I won't encourage her to read Harry Potter any more. I might confiscate all her Potter books. There are millions of other books that she can read.”

What the hell? Gay people are normal. We tend to live normal lives, with jobs and friends and loved ones. Parents make it out to be about a promiscuous life style that exploded in the 70s. The truth is that straight people were promiscuous during that time. Why is it that parents would rather their child come home pregnant at the age of 17 than gay? Which of these two can ruin a life.

In other words....Dumbledore is gay. Who cares?

[Eledhwen]

What the hell? Gay people are normal.It's because of the hideous stereotypes that people hold about gays that make me think it's well and good that this information only came out after the books. Dumbledore would not have been viewed as himself, but as himself with gay stereotype overlaid. Now, even the worst bigot will have to do the most amazing mental gymnastics to convince themselves that Dumbledore was in any way a lesser person because of this revelation.

[Barliman Butterbur]

There was a time in Los Angeles, when we had the "McMartin Pre-School Scandal." Some teacher at this school was accused of molesting a kid and it went to trial and was in the news for months. I forget the outcome; the issue was very clouded. I think that the school was put out of business and the person accused was acquitted.

It also set off a city-wide wave of kids (mainly in middle school) accusing teachers of molesting them, essentially framing them. A lot of innocent teachers had to prove themselves innocent (teachers are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and even then...).

My point: I spent over 30 years in a school where every once in a while, a teacher really was guilty of molestation. In every single case it was a straight teacher. None of our gay teachers was ever even thought of in such terms. They were all fine to exceptional men and women with the highest integrity and were top-tier teachers, respected and loved by parents, kids and faculty.

And in general, it is the straight person (usually male) who's the offender.

I've lived in West Hollywood since 1963, which is considered a gay city. It contains more gay men and women than anywhere outside of San Francisco. In all that time, I have never read about or heard of a gay person approaching a child.

West Hollywood gets better all the time, in culture, in property values, in everything. It's a great neighborhood, a fun place to be, and my wife and I have no intention of living anywhere else.

For the most part, gays have a bad rap, and it's a damn shame. By the same token: I daresay that "good and bad" gays come in the same proportion as good and bad "straights." Sexual orientation has nothing to do with being either "good" or "bad" citizens.

Barley

[Firawyn]

the person who wrote the article on "The Fuss About Albus" quotes a parent who says “My ten-year-old daughter was curious and asked me why Rowling had said that Dumbledore is gay, I just told her they are different from normal people. I won't encourage her to read Harry Potter any more. I might confiscate all her Potter books. There are millions of other books that she can read.”

What the hell? Gay people are normal. We tend to live normal lives, with jobs and friends and loved ones. Parents make it out to be about a promiscuous life style that exploded in the 70s. The truth is that straight people were promiscuous during that time. Why is it that parents would rather their child come home pregnant at the age of 17 than gay? Which of these two can ruin a life.

In other words....Dumbledore is gay. Who cares?

What the hell indeed! That sounds like my mother talking, however she wouldn't let me read them (I read them ANYWAY!) because of her religious beliefs and the whole aspect of encouraging witchcraft. Yeah...

I think that JKR was right to not just out and say "Dumbledore is gay". It's a simple reminder that not all of us (us meaning homosexuals) are the "Loud and Proud" types. I'm not ashamed to be gay, but I'm not out telling everyone I meet, and sometimes not even people I've known for years because I know it'll change the way they treat me and it's none of their dern business anyway. (unless I'm sleeping with their daughter!;) j/k)

[Goldberry344]

I think that JKR was right to not just out and say "Dumbledore is gay". It's a simple reminder that not all of us (us meaning homosexuals) are the "Loud and Proud" types. I'm not ashamed to be gay, but I'm not out telling everyone I meet, and sometimes not even people I've known for years because I know it'll change the way they treat me and it's none of their dern business anyway. (unless I'm sleeping with their daughter!;) j/k)


See, I'm different. I hate the way Rowling told people Dumbledore was gay. She said, in response to a fan asking if Dumbledore ever found true love, "Dumbledore is gay, actually." What the hell kind of answer is that? Its like saying "No, cause gay people never find love."

Aside from that, I'd rather she told us that Draco and Harry had a torrid love affair throughout school.

I think (personal opinion) that it is important for queer people to be visible. My first girlfriend and I were very much in the closet when we were out and about, afraid that someone would see us and tell someone else...you know. But that was high school. I've decided that if straight people can be so "blatant" then I can kiss my girlfriend wherever and whenever I want.

[Firawyn]

See, I'm different. I hate the way Rowling told people Dumbledore was gay. She said, in response to a fan asking if Dumbledore ever found true love, "Dumbledore is gay, actually." What the hell kind of answer is that? Its like saying "No, cause gay people never find love."


I'd be interested in reading the rest of that interview/conversation. Could be it was a misinterpritation, or could be that JKR is a streight prit who doesn't understand the meaning of love.


Aside from that, I'd rather she told us that Draco and Harry had a torrid love affair throughout school.

:eek::eek::eek: WHAT?!?! That's just wrong....Harry and Ron perhaps!:cool:

I think (personal opinion) that it is important for queer people to be visible. My first girlfriend and I were very much in the closet when we were out and about, afraid that someone would see us and tell someone else...you know. But that was high school. I've decided that if straight people can be so "blatant" then I can kiss my girlfriend wherever and whenever I want

I don't dispute that, not at all. But there is a time and a place. Had Rowling said it outright, it would have distracted the flow of the rest of the books. They wern't the 'Albus Dumbledore' books, they were the 'Harry Potter' books. Now had JKR come out after the books were done and said Harry was gay...that might have peeved me a bit.

[Josephine]

I think JKR could have let Dumbledore mention something about Grindelwald and him being more than friends in the King's Cross chapter. At that time, he was already dead, and the book was nearly over. Harry might have said "Oh...", but let's face it, he and also the readers had more pressing matters on their minds than the sexual orientation of his mentor. After the story was over, however, we could have gone back to the passage and think about it more carefully. It would have been much better than JKR simply mentioning it in passing in an interview.