Navigation |
J. K. Rowling Says "Harry Potter" Character is Gay
Rowling responded, "Dumbledore is gay." Some in the audience reportedly gasped while others applauded. The author went on to explain that Dumbledore loved rival wizard Gellert Grindewald who he had long ago vanquished in battle. Said Rowling, "Falling in love can blind us to an extent." She then added, Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down" and that his love was his "great tragedy" According to Rowling, she also revealed the truth about Dumbledore's sexual orientation during the filming of the sixth movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. She had noticed a reference in the script indicating Dumbledore had once been interested in a girl and sent a message to director David Yates.
"There's been speculation in the kids' lit community as to why Rowling's Harry Potter universe didn't include any gay or lesbian characters," said Brent Hartinger, author of the children's fantasy Dreamquest and also various young adult books about gay teens. "Was Rowling just clueless or indifferent about the topic? Or was she making some kind of statement — as hard as that is to believe, given how cool she seems to be on virtually every other social issue? This interesting news about Dumbledore answers these questions, but creates one more: why didn't his sexual orientation ever come up in the books, even in the passing?" That is likely to be the question Rowling will face in the coming days. While gay fans of the books will no doubt celebrate the news, the fact that the information is not found in any of the books or movies will likely diminish the revelation of the impact. As newsworthy as the revelation is, had it come at some point during the publication of one of the seven books, it would have likely generated a larger discussion about what it means.
Submitted by on Sat, 2007-10-20 01:10. |
User login |
I'm a gay fan and I'm not
I'm a gay fan and I'm not amused.
- Firstly how very "nervy" of her to out him *after* all the books have come out and it won't harm her sales.
- Secondly not a single rumour of this in the books. Nothing. In my school the students speculated about their teachers being gay or straight, I'm just saying... So the argument of "Harry's big role model is gay. Hurrah!" is void for me, because Harry didn't have a clue. "Harry's big role model is a gay closetcase", yeah, that's more appropriate.
- Thirdly (oh I'm on a role) in another interview she mentioned "unrequited love for Grindelwald" and "his great tragedy". Seeing what she did to Snape, with his big life-long unrequited crush -who never loved again since he was 6 years old (puh-lease), this probably means that Dumbledore never went looking for love again. Basically we have a 150-year-old closeted virgin on our hands. What a positive message on homosexuality! I know I'm being very critical here, but to me she's saying "oh he's gay, but don't worry, he never did anything with it"
- Fourthly, why didn't she just leave one of her more sexually ambiguous characters ...er, ambiguous. Why marry off Lupin to Tonks, two characters that just *screamed* gay without being explicit. Is it because hey, they're young so they still have sex (homosexuals having sex is soooo not-done), while Dumbledore is so old and 'revered' you can't even imagine him ever naked? It just screams "old Celluloid closet queen" to me, I'm sorry.
To me it's just hypocritical. If she didn't put it in the books, she should not have bothered. (And I don't just mean "Dumbledore being gay", I also mean: not a single mention of any student *not* getting married in the epilogue. )
Greit, this is a good thing...sorry
First, she didn't have to say anything at all. She could have just let the wrters of the screenplay make him straight with a simple comment included in the script but she didn't...she set them"straight".
Second, with the exception of Hagrid and his crush on Madame Maxime (comic relief), and Snapes crush on Lily (part of the story related to Harry) they didn't talk about the personal lives of any of the teachers...sorry, the books just had too much going on to get into the inner workings of the daily school girl gossip. The story was about Harry, not Dumbledore
Third just because his personal life was not discussed from the point of view of kids in a school...doesn't mean he was closeted. You don't think Minerva tried to get a piece of that and had the truth revealed to her? I'm sure his peers were well aware of his sexual orientation.
Fourth...ageism is ugly...You've applied current social age expectations to a fantasty book. He's over 100 years old...he can kick ass with the best of them...you don't think he could have sex? Lame.
I love the fact that she didn't take this to the grave with her. It gives the books a whole new coating...freshened them up a little. When I have kids (if I have kids) and I read the books to them there's a new little tid bit to read to them. The fanbase for these books are huge...the speculation is over...confirmed by the creator herself. This information is not just gonna be a side note because the fans are so dedicated....the fan fiction so enormous...the loyalty so severe it's now law...Dumbledore is a Mo'.
But...had she included it in the book I know where I'd have liked her to do it. Mysterious initials carved on a tree...noticed but their meaning never revealed and only now, after her revelation would they make sense. Or, when Harry looked in the pensive...nothing too explicit...just a hint.
The thing I'm most angry
The thing I'm most angry about is that she didn't bother to include it in the book. Sure there was subtext, but there was a lot of Remus/Sirius subtext as well and we know what she did with that. Now if you don't read her interviews, or if you don't want to take them into account, you don't have to be confronted with the fact that Dumbledore's gay. She could've made more of an effort.
Oh; and Dumbledore ending up killing his big crush. Very 1960s-tortured-homosexual.
Technically Dumbledore
Technically Dumbledore didn't kill him. He defeated him to get the wand and Grindelwald was sent to prison. Voldemort killed him in the last book.
While I agree it would've been nice had it been written as more than subtext in the books, I can understand why it wasn't. I mean we really don't get tons of information on most of the other characters' love lives. From what I hear, Rowling will be writing an "encyclopedia" where she's going to go into all the other characters' backstories so I'll only really be annoyed if she still doesn't mention Dumbledore's sexuality and relationships there. I'd be curious if she has anything to say about his relationship with Doge too because I got the impression in the books that there could've been something between them too.
Does she have to spell it out?
Harry news spreads word of mouth...not conventional methods
My boyfriend's nephew knows about it...guess where he heard it? At a school basketball game yesterday, he's 9. All the kids are talking about it. To say:
Go to a blog search engine and enter dumbledore and gay...I would say over 80% of the people who are into Harry Ppotter will know this little piece of info.
Spoken like a Potterhead
Dumbledore was gay--victory for the community! But also, lowered what I thought of JK before this a LOT. She's a coward. But now at least the door is open and it can't be shut. JK better be prepared. Maybe we'll finally get some explanation for the lousy Remus/Tonks relationship.
While I was happy to have
While I was happy to have JKR admit that /someone/ in the Harry Potter universe is gay, there was something that didn't completely sit right with me, and I think you'veput it into words quite well.
Now, if she'd just admit that Sirius and Remus were a couple, I might be able to live with how she treated them. Maybe.
I keep seeing some people
I keep seeing some people (mostly female slashers) claiming to feel betrayed because it was Dumbledore who was gay and not Sirius or Remus and to that I have to say how much shallow can you get? Because, in most cases, it sounds mostly as disappointment that she didn't out the young, attractive males instead of the old, wise grandfather and it's definitely bothersome to see such mentality.
I also want to remind those people that Dumbledore wasn't born a 150 year old man and that, in fact, he meet and fell in love with Grindelwald when he was 17 and the way both young Dumbledore and Grindelwald are described it makes it clear that they both very good-looking young men. So, really, wouldn't that be satisfying for slash fiction writers? Two extremely powerful good-looking men with God complexes and the tragic love affair that ensues? You would think so.
Also, as for saying that it would've taking more guts to out Sirius and Remus, I couldn't disagree anymore. Dumbledore is one of the best known Harry Potter characters to both fans and non-fans. I mean, the general public that doesn't read the books and mostly watches the movies would know who Dumbledore is whereas the probably wouldn't know who Lupin is, so I do think that it takes much more guts to out a very well known fictional character rather than one that isn't, well, that well-known.
Lastly, can I just add that even though I do agree with a lot of people that the Tonks/Lupin relationship was handled awfully, I never once saw any concrete prove for the existance of a possible Lupin/Sirius love affair. If anything, Sirius was completely mad for his best frien James not Lupin. And as for people somehow implying that Dumbledore wasn't as cool as the escaped convinct Black or the werewolf Lupin - uh, the most powerful wizard of all time, 'nuff said.
The thing is, there was a
The thing is, there was a lot of subtext (for me anyway) about Remus possibly being gay, and perhaps even in love with Sirius. After all even though he still thinks Sirius is a crazed murderer out to get Harry, he tells no-one he's an animagus and can get in the castle through the shrieking shack. Not even Dumbledore. Why would he do that? Why risk the life of Harry and countless other students? What kind of friendship is big and overpowering enough (after 13 years) to do that?
I thought it was great: reading between the lines, nothing else had to be said. I could have my cake and eat it (Remus is gay! Remus is gay!) and other people would be happily convinced he was straight.
But then JK Rowling went for the whole Tonks/Lupin thing and I thought "ok, I (and countless others) have read things into this, (or JK Rowling is bigoted and is doing this in reaction to the questions she gets on Sirius/Remus, that was another hypothesis) moving on".
Book 7: a lot of Dumbledore subtext. And it's there, between the lines. Just like -for me- Lupin's gayness was there, between the lines. And JK doesn't confirm or deny anything, like she did with Lupin. So I thought "there we go again, moving on".
But now, two, three months after book 7, when asked a question (I wonder was she ever going to say anything if the question wasn't asked), she says "oh he was gay" (the question was "did he ever find true love", she didn't answer that).
No, it didn't have to be in the book, but -after the Remus subtext- the book really wasn't enough to be "sure" (I mean, she's more upfront about Aberforth's liaisons with a goat than about Dumbledore and Grindelwald, however hilarious that was).
I just wonder when she was ever going to say anything if not for that question, if it was really as thought-through as she says, and hey, I do want to know if Dumbledore ever did find true love (I also read his love for Grindelwald was unrequited). Or if he shares the same fate as Snape (and Harry, Ron, Hermione) of only ever really loving once in their lives. (And in Dumbledore and Snape's case, having it end horribly.)
I can completely see where
I can completely see where your coming from regarding Lupin's sexuality. As for me, though, I did see deep affection for Sirius, surely, but more than anything the way *I* saw it was as Lupin still being extremely loyal to his friend, even after being let down. You see, JKR once mentioned that Lupin always tried extremely hard to be liked by other people ad that when he found his friends, he clung to them because it was all he had and no matter if he disapproved of their actions, he still stood by them (the bullying of Snape, the prank, etc). So, even while believing his friend was a murderer, he continued guarding their secret. That's how I viewed Lupin. I do think that Sirius maybe had a thing for James, though. I guess we can all agree on something, the Lupin/Tonks relationship was handled horribly. In my honest opinion, actually, most of the romantic relationships were handled badly... don't even get me started on Harry/Ginny. In fact, my two favorite canon pairings are the ones that were shown to us in the 7th book and ended up quite tragically: Dumbledore/Grindelwald and Snape/Lily.
Ok, I won't bore you again by stating that I liked the manner in which JKR answered the question she was asked and made such revelation because I think (or hope) I've made myself clear, but I do want to point out some minor things about what JKR actually said because the initial report jumped the gun on several of her statements. So, having found a trascript of the question she was asked, I would like to point out JKR was actually asked whether Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fell in love himself, not if he had found true love. And she did answer the question she was asked; she answered, of course, by revealing Dumbledore's gay and added that he had fallen in love with Grindelwald, therefore, answering the question she was asked. Also, in the original transcript there's no mention of Dumbledore's love being unrequited, she said he was terrible let down by him, which doesn't equate unrequited and probably had more to do with being let down by his dark ambitions. I'd like to think his feeling were reciprocated for various reasons that I read in the 7th book, but I don't want to bore you with that. I'm fairly positive it wasn't unrequited but I'm sure the question will pop-up in her next reading in Canada, so we'll know for sure.
K, enough fanspeak! And now I've completely forgotten what else I had to say...
I am a Fan and I was amazed
I "got" that he was gay.
She is subtle, you know.
The plum suit????? Hello?
The exquisite manners?
How closeted is that???
And, for crying out loud, Dumbledore is in charge of the well-being of the children of an entire nation. How cool is that? Who cares who he makes out with?
Grubbly-Plank is gay and she is also written as entirely competent and trustworthy.
Sirius and Lupin and Tonks would be cartoon characters if they were gay. As they are written, they achieve depth.
We need to be human and complex FIRST.
Sexual orientation is not who we are, just an orientation of a facet of who we are.
"So powerful is the light of unity, that it can illumine the whole earth." Baha'u'llah
I am going to take a more positive
spin on this revelation than Griet. I agree it would have made more sense to reveal his true sexual orientation earlier in the series, but when you come to think of it Dumbledore comes from a generation in which homosexuality was not likely spoken of even in the make believe world of wizards. Think of the late Victorian era in his situation! We easily forget that homosexuality has only received some (at times grudging) acceptance in Western society (nowhere else it seems) in the last 15 years.
Cheers
JBE
This only goes to show how important we've become.
I'm quite pleased with her
I'm quite pleased as well
Of course it wasn't mentioned in the books because people forget the crucial detail that they are told from Harry's perspective and he could be rather, uh, well dense. So, it's not surprise he didn't connect the dots. Doesn't mean there we not many, many hints because, really, Grindelwald/Dumbledore was so damn BLATANT but like I said, Harry, from whose perspective we are shown the events, is a dense boys.
As for the announcement, I quite like the way she mentioned it, actually. She didn't make a big deal out of it because, really, it isn't a big deal! His sexuality does not affect the series in any way and I liked it that she mentioned it in such a manner as if she were telling us what the color of his eyes were.
Besides, anyone with an open-mind (this seems to be what most of the folks that are surprised by the revelation lack_ and, well, a brain surely could've told there was something going on between Dumbledore and Grindelwald. In my opinion, it didn't have to be explicitly told in the book because it had no place in the plot but it is nice to actually have a verbal confirmation.
I'm surprised I'm not being harsh at all toward JKR for once. This revelation has make me insanely happy and really, kudos to her!
I will tell you all what's the sucky part about this piece of information: it has brought out the bigots in the fandom. I've already seen plenty of "ew he was so close to Harry EW" because, you know, gay man are attracted to anything with a penis, even little boys.
looking at the glass half full
A lot of folks in fandom...
have mentioned that they got a Dumbledore/Grindewald vibe from the 7th book, even if JKR had never acknowledged it. It seems like she had a sizeable back-story created for all of her characters, and this is just one piece of millions that never made it into the books.
Also, I love every time that you take your journalistic duties so seriously as to call across the house for an expert opinion on young-adult literature. Nice to have such a resource that close by.
I LOVE J.K.!!!!
This is amazing! There was
This is amazing! There was always two gripes I had with JK and her books and they were that she more or less sprung Harry and Ginny on us out of the blue without any believable build up to it and that she didn't include any gay characters when she had already included lots of different races and cultures e.t.c. Thinking about it, it was blatantly obvious that something was going on between Dumbledore and Grindelwald...I can't believe how I didn't notice hehe. JK is so subtle and clever, she's a genius.
Next point...I think whoever has any problems with this revelation, be it that it was never exlicitly referred to in the books or JK's timing in revealing it, are being stupid. You need to keep in mind that JK is British, the Harry Potter Series is British...we British don't need a flashing neon sign that someone is gay, because it is so insignificant. In the same way that there was no big deal when JK revealed that one of Harry's classmates was black. Why did JK have to exlicitly refer to it in the book? She didn't need to. In the same way that she didn't need to refer to Prof. McGonagall's love life...but if you look closely at the wording JK uses in the books when she is referring to Grindelwald and Dumbledore it's quite plain to see anyway. She did it without making a big deal of it and as a result she is setting the perfect example of the right attitude towards homosexuality. The mind boggles at how easy some parts of the gay community can get into a hissy fit about these things. I mean JK is on our side for god's sake! Be grateful she didn't turn Voldemort into a raving homo...I mean fookin' hell.
I do have to admit though, there might have been some trepidation on JK's behalf in the beginning...these are children's books afterall and she did have the American market to cater for. And we all know the amount of bother she would have gotten from that part of the world if she had brought attention to this fact before now. That or she didn't give a damn and the only reason why she didn't mention it was because she wanted to save some tasty morsels of concepts and ideas until after the complete series was published. I mean she's also talked about the parallells with Christianity as well and she said she didn't mention this before because it would have given away the ending. But whatever the reason, why is it such a big deal? I think this was the perfect time to reveal it anyway. Go Jo Rowling! I'm so proud to be British.
EDIT: I've just read a transcript of the interview. It can be found here: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
Apparently, 'First, the biggest revelation of the night came when Jo revealed to her audience the fact that Albus Dumbledore is gay and had fallen in love with fellow wizard and friend, Gellert Grindelwald. This elicited a huge reaction and prolonged ovation. So much so, it promoted Jo to say: "If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have told you years ago." '
Hmm, so it looks like that JK was worried about the reaction it would have gotten. How can anyone still be angry at her now? She didn't want Dumbledore to be hated for his sexuality. And also she emphasized that Dumbledore loved Harry like a son. Methinks she was worried about the homophobes jumping on Dumbledore's sexuality and making it out that he was perving on Harry. JK is very perceptive.
Of course JKR was worried.
Of course JKR was worried. And I'm glad she waited until the story was finished, when Dumbledore's a household name and on many a toyshelf and a major studio is still making films.
This does make me think more on how she wrote the Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks relationship, following Sirius' death. Not before. And he was a lousy husband. And Alfonso Cuaron (movie 3 director)'s comments on the character were also noteworthy, and perhaps based on a discussion with JKR: http://www.jonahweiland.com/2004/06/16/audio-interview-with-alfonso-cuaron/
And Colin Creevey. That was one gay kid. His attention on Harry was always paralleled to girls, including the one Harry married.
Would've I have preferred gay characters that lived on? No question but in this genre with stockholder anxiety behind it- I'm glad there's irrefutably gay heroes in what may very well be this generation's Star Wars. No queens. Just guys who swing that way.
It's a step forward towards a better world where we will see gay characters represented fairly and equally in children's media. I'm curious as to how this will appear in the movies, or if we'll see it more realized in a remake 10+ years down the road. It all starts here.
Wins no points
Her unwillingness to mention this in the books is cowardice and perpetuates a "hidden agenda" stereotype. Thanks for nothing, JK Rowling.
It's sad so many are jubilant over this after-the-fact crumb of revelation. Readers of the books will have no broadening of their minds in learning Dumbledore is gay. It's not in the books so it doesn't exist. This only adds further insult to the injury that not one of the students were revealed gay in the epilogue.
I think it's great! As
I think it's great! As someone pointed out, the books are from Harry's POV, and if it wasn't directly related to him, he tended not to notice very much (I mean, he doesn't even notice Ron/Hermione until really late in the books). And none of the teachers had very much focus on their private lives, to put it in the books would have distracted, because it had no relevance to the story whatsoever.
If we didn't live in a time where the internet was so pervasive I could understand people's pints about this fading away, but the fact that it is, and that in the future, kids who love the books will look them up on the internet, and wikipedia them and everything, and that his wiki page already lists him as gay means that it's not just going to fadaway, and future parents will have to acknowledge it to teir kids.
It's about time
My partner thought
there was an undercurrent in the 7th book when he was reading the story of Dumbledore's "close" friendship with Grindenwald. I must admit I can't remember if I thought there was or not I was too busy trying to figure out what was going to happen! You must have good gaydar if you started wondering in the 4th book. The fact is J.K. Rowling had a lot more important things to worry about when writing these books then whether she should be more aggressive in advancing gay rights by outing Dumbledore earlier. After all there popularity I am sure came as a big surprise to her. I always prefer gay or bi authors to write about gay characters anyways, it takes being gay to best understand what it is like.
Cheers
JBE
<<< Her unwillingness to
<<< Her unwillingness to mention this in the books is cowardice and perpetuates a "hidden agenda" stereotype. >>>
If she was unwilling to show Dumbledore's sexuality, then the whole Dumbledore/Grindelwald subplot wouldn't even be in the book for god's sake. If she had just decided it at the end, that 'Ooo I'll make Dumbledore gay just for the sake of it and to satisfy the gay community who have been moaning about me not including a gay character for years' then yeah it would be cowardice. But the fact that it was well thought out beforehand, what with JK's habit of doing a complete backstory for each of her characters, showed that she embraces human diversity in all its forms. The fact that it's in a series of books aimed at children enforces this. I personally think it's sad that people like you tend to slag people off purely because they did something differently to how you would have done it. JK isn't a doormat, she sticks up wholeheartedly for what she believes in. And she deserves kudos for doing that in her own way and in her own time.
BRENT!!
So, I was just arguing with a friend about why JKR didn't include Dumbledore's sexuality in the book, and why or why not that might be justified, and I used Brent as an example. Given his statement,
"Why didn't his [Dumbledore's] sexual orientation ever come up in the books, even in the passing?"
I would like to remind him, as I told my friend, Brent HARTINGER has included gay characters in his books and not identified them as such. I can't find a source for this just now, but I'm nearly certain that somewhere Brent has identified Leon from "The Last Chance Texaco" (and excellent book that everyone should read) as gay without coming out (I'm punny) and stating it in the book.
I'm feeling a little smug just now, but toward whiny members of the HP fandom, not anyone at AE.
Ha! I forgot I outed Leon
Someone has certainly done their homework! I totally forgot I ever said that Leon is gay.
I stand totally and appropriately slammed.
But, uh, the Harry Potter books WERE a series of seven, and The Last Chance Texaco was just one book. ;-)
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com
My sense is that "after the
My sense is that "after the fact" ensured that the books would reach maximum exposure, making Dumbledore a Trojan Horse in a way. Anything before then would have minimized the impact. I mean, if this came out earlier I'm sure someone like my aunt would've stopped buying the books along with many other parents. And maybe she's gotten rid of them by now. LOL
But it's sort of late now, isn't it? Dumbledore's pretty much a pop culture icon. And you should see this place in Santa Monica, CA, filled mainly with Potter merchandise (Whimsic Alley) including "Dumbledore for President" pins. (I'm so getting one now)
And here's a link on a previously creator-outed character, one from Disney: http://s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg/search.php?sid=106646&qid=8320&ppp=1
You make a good point, Harry
You make a good point, Harry Potter *was* composed of seven super-long books. And, you rock, and J.K. Rowling rocks less. But still, I think, not so much apples and oranges and perhaps oranges and mandarin oranges.
And I object a tad to the description that I've done my homework. Quiet obsession with gay!YA novels is more like a hobby. ;-)
Handled perfectly
Scratch that
How DARE she!!
Doesn't JK Rowling realize what an insult she has inflicted on the gay community. I mean she writes the most popular series of books of all time, 7 books, 5 movies, millions of books sold, years worth of publicity and she only outs Dumbledore, the character in the story who is the called the greatest wizard of his age, famous headmaster of hogwarts, sage leader of the order of th phoenix, genius mastermind, selfless leader and kindly father figure AFTER the books are published! What a B*tch! Does she think announcing it at Carnegie Hall (big deal) in front of a few hundred people (a pittance), the press, and by extension, the world, (well I guess thats everyone) is enough?
Now Dumbledore is going to go down in history as a gay ole boy, but we will never get to read all about his love life in the pages of her adventure fantasy kids books! Cuz, you know, when I was 10 years old I was fascinated by romantic stories of 100 year old men. I mean I was just DYING to hear about that. Plus it is just such an integral part of the story. I can't believe I ever bought into the whole good vs. evil thing without knowing as I read that Dumbledore was gay.
JK Rowling has cheated us! Cheated all the gay community of our place in her story. She owed it to us, just like everyone in the world OWES it to the gay community to include us in everything. We deserve to be in everything, we will march her down at her fancy castle in scotland and demand she publish an addendum with all the juicy details!
---
Okay, seriously, some of these posts are just silly. JK Rowling has done the gay community an enormous compliment. In 20 years time there will be an entire, worldwide generation of people who grew up dreaming about these books. Dumbledore is nowing going down in history as a fantastic, noble character, an educator and hero who also just happens to be gay. Just like people just happen to be gay in the real world. No big wup about it. In my mind there can be no greater compliment. I get so annoyed how everything written about gay characters has to be all about how they are gay. Are we not more than that? In her stories JK Rowling has made Dumbledore more than that. That is MASTERFUL use of anti-climax. The world is talking about it. Kids are all being taught that its not a big deal. That its just part of who someone is and thats okay.
I just have one word: Totally, Fricken, Crazy AWESOME!!
the argument about JK Rowling`