Rowling: 'Dumbledore's Gay!'

Wonder if we will see a renewed book-burning campaign from extreme Christian groups now?

JK Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has revealed that one of her characters, Hogwarts school headmaster Albus Dumbledore, is gay.

She made her revelation to a packed house in New York's Carnegie Hall on Friday, as part of her US book tour.

She took audience questions and was asked if Dumbledore found "true love".

"Dumbledore is gay," she said, adding he was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who he beat in a battle between good and bad wizards long ago.

"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," she said, and added Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down" and his love for Grindelwald was his "great tragedy".

"Oh, my god," Rowling, 42, concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction".

Fan sites have long speculated on Dumbledore's sexuality as he was known for having a mysterious, troubled past.

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, she saw the script carried a reference to a girl who was once of interest to Dumbledore.

She said she ensured director David Yates was made aware of the truth about her character.

Rowling also did a brief reading from the seventh book in her best-selling series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, as part of her Open Book Tour of the US - her first there for seven years.

She said she regarded her novels as a "prolonged argument for tolerance" and urged her fans to "question authority".

But she added that not everyone likes her work. Christian groups have alleged the books promote witchcraft. The author said her revelation about Dumbledore would give them one more reason.

The seventh Potter book broke sales records on both sides of the Atlantic when it was published in July, selling 11 million copies in 24 hours.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...nt/7053982.stm

So what if was gay? Although Doctor I could think of a new thread in this section that could be made to contain some stories.

Originally Posted by Kiljan Arslan

So what if was gay? Although Doctor I could think of a new thread in this section that could be made to contain some stories.

...What kind of stories?

Originally Posted by SirPaladin

Rowling is starting to make Harry Potter more and more crappy.
I don't have anything at all against homosexuals (though I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the issue), but Rowling has now made a really crappy blend between contemporary liberalism and Tolkien-inspired fantasy. The saviour character, the old wise man, the guardian figure which appears in most stories... I don't think it's a right move to make him gay. Not that being gay is in any way inferior, but this type of character is supposed to be near perfection and a champion of common people; making him gay puts him into a minority, IMO a bad move. I may be wrong in my judgment though.

It's stupid. She should have made Snape gay, or Gilderoy Lockhart. Now that would have been a twist.

Originally Posted by SirPaladin

I made the reference to LotR because while reading it I've found no cheesy pseudo-philosophical references to how beautiful love is and how teenagers start to have sexual fantasies. This whole sexuality problem ruins a big part of Harry Potter. Should Rowling really add a new layer of kitsch to literature? She has, already.

Rowling can write children, but teenagers? No. There's better stuff circulating on the internet. And isn't love wonderful? It will enable our hero to defeat the greatest Dark Lord of all time! Well, that or a 9mm.

Originally Posted by Feliks

So, if Dumbledore was black, would you feel the same?

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?epis...aa0e420608008b

Conan: 'The book's gay!'

*shrugs* so....

i can see what she means about the fan fiction though lol

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

*shrugs* so....

i can see what she means about the fan fiction though lol

So? You seemed excited on Anagennese.

I supposes it explains why he has an unnatural fascination with Harry.

Rowling is starting to make Harry Potter more and more crappy.
I don't have anything at all against homosexuals (though I can't say I'm entirely comfortable with the issue), but Rowling has now made a really crappy blend between contemporary liberalism and Tolkien-inspired fantasy. The saviour character, the old wise man, the guardian figure which appears in most stories... I don't think it's a right move to make him gay. Not that being gay is in any way inferior, but this type of character is supposed to be near perfection and a champion of common people; making him gay puts him into a minority, IMO a bad move. I may be wrong in my judgment though.

but this type of character is supposed to be near perfection and a champion of common people

well, i think Rowling would be the first to say that Dumbledore is not near perfection, but even if he was, how does being gay diminish that..?


Pure tolkien inspired fantasy is the second most prudish form of fiction after bible study. the mere fact that Harry has an interest in girls, and talks about them, and has dates sets this book away from pure tolkienesque fantasy and into you know, the real world, where people actually have relationships before they appear out of no where to marry a main character.

In that regard, she's no different than any other fantasy fiction writer out there who writes tolkienesque, without being, quite literally, puritanical. Sara Douglas, David Eddings, David Gemmel, Neil Gaiman and Trudi Canavan all do the same. Canavan's Black Magic trilogy also has a gay character, Lord Dannyl, though obviously its not expressed in quite those sentiments.

Tolkien's characters aren't so much straight as asexual...

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

well, i think Rowling would be the first to say that Dumbledore is not near perfection, but even if he was, how does being gay diminish that..?


Pure tolkien inspired fantasy is the second most prudish form of fiction after bible study. the mere fact that Harry has an interest in girls, and talks about them, and has dates sets this book away from pure tolkienesque fantasy and into you know, the real world, where people actually have relationships before they appear out of no where to marry a main character.

In that regard, she's no different than any other fantasy fiction writer out there who writes tolkienesque, without being, quite literally, puritanical. Sara Douglas, David Eddings, David Gemmel, Neil Gaiman and Trudi Canavan all do the same. Canavan's Black Magic trilogy also has a gay character, Lord Dannyl, though obviously its not expressed in quite those sentiments.

As I said, it puts him in a minority. This is not a good move IMO for the type of character he represents. Dumbledore is a 'champion of Muggle-borns', i.e. common wizards. He is a leader. To put him, a medieval-style wizard, in a minority diminishes the validity of his character.
Do those other writers make such a type of character homosexual?

Tolkien's characters aren't so much straight as asexual...

And I like that. Tolkien was smart and masculine () enough as not to insert cheesy romantic stories within the profound plot just to please 14 year old girls without boyfriends (though I guess Tolkien didn't put it as I did).

Originally Posted by SirPaladin

As I said, it puts him in a minority. This is not a good move IMO for the type of character he represents. Dumbledore is a 'champion of Muggle-borns', i.e. common wizards. He is a leader. To put him, a medieval-style wizard, in a minority diminishes the validity of his character.
Do those other writers make such a type of character homosexual?

So, if Dumbledore was black, would you feel the same?

Originally Posted by Feliks

So, if Dumbledore was black, would you feel the same?

I'm not sure. I think not. Race is less relevant than sexuality in this case.

Originally Posted by the Black Prince

Tolkien's characters aren't so much straight as asexual...

I guess you haven't read The Silmarillion then. LOTR is effectively a war story, though one written within the heroic tradition. Criticising it for not having much romance or many romantic female characters is like making the same criticism of Beowulf or A Bridge Too Far.

The issues of romantic love covered in the stories of Beren and Luthien and in the stories of the children of Hurin or of Earendil and Elwing are far and away more sophisticated than the simplistic stuff in Rowling. Though all of Tolkien's stuff is vastly more sophisticated than those over those over hyped, over-marketed kiddies' books anyway.

Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg

I guess you haven't read The Silmarillion then. LOTR is effectively a war story, though one written within the heroic tradition. Criticising it for not having much romance or many romantic female characters is like making the same criticism of Beowulf or A Bridge Too Far.

One of the worst arguments I have heard defending LOTR's shallow characterizations and complete lack of any believable or deep females.

Steven Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen are effectively "war stories" or more precisely military fantasy and has many female characters, and mature male-female relations.

George RR Martin's Game of Thrones is "effectively a war story" as well, based loosely on England's War of the Roses. Not only are females a big part of the story but Martin has some of the best female characterizations across any genre.

LOTR being a "war story" is no excuse for its simple minded characters and complete lack of compelling important females (Eowyn is the female with most POV? lol) and arguably racist undertones (notice how all the Bad Humans are swarthy dark skinned and all the Heroes are fair skinned, blue eyed elves).

Originally Posted by Lord Consul

The two works cannot be compared.

If LOTR is so much higher level than HP than LOTR cannot be compared with the best fantasy out today, Martin's Song of Ice and Fire and Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen are on such a higher level than LOTR triology its not even funny.

Originally Posted by chilon

One of the worst arguments I have heard defending LOTR's shallow characterizations and complete lack of any believable or deep females.

Steven Erikson's Malazan Books of the Fallen are effectively "war stories" or more precisely military fantasy and has many female characters, and mature male-female relations.

George RR Martin's Game of Thrones is "effectively a war story" as well, based loosely on England's War of the Roses. Not only are females a big part of the story but Martin has some of the best female characterizations across any genre.

LOTR being a "war story" is no excuse for its simple minded characters and complete lack of compelling important females (Eowyn is the female with most POV? lol) ...

Read what I said again. "LOTR is effectively a war story, though one written within the heroic tradition. Criticising it for not having much romance or many romantic female characters is like making the same criticism of Beowulf or A Bridge Too Far."

Is the heroic poem Beowulf bad literature because Wealtheow gets about as much page time as Arwen (and distinctly less than Eowyn)?

... and arguably racist undertones (notice how all the Bad Humans are swarthy dark skinned and all the Heroes are fair skinned, blue eyed elves).

Tell that to Ghan-buri-ghan. Those "swarthy humans" are specifically stated by Tolkien as being deceived, coerced or misled into following Sauron. And if Tolkien was some sort of white supremacist, why aren't his heroes blond? With the exception of the Rohirrim, they tend to be dark-haired.

The reason for the fact that the men of north-west Middle Earth are "white" and the people of the south east are darker is that Middle Earth is based on Europe and the Mediterraneanin a period of prehistory. Look at the ethnic make-up of Europe and the Mediterranean, and what do you see? White people in the north-west, brown people in the south and east.

Exactly. Silly, silly argument.

notice how all the Bad Humans are swarthy dark skinned and all the Heroes are fair skinned, blue eyed elves

They are? A selection of "bad" (varying degrees) fair skinned people:

Eöl and Maeglin
Fëanor (and the rest of the Noldor participating in the Kinslaying)
The Sons of Fëanor
Gríma Wormtongue
Ar-Pharazôn (and the rest of the King's Men)
Sangahyando and Angamaitë
The Mouth of Sauron
Herumor and Fuinur
Castamir the Usurper
Denethor
The Gaurwaith (Túrin's outlaws), at least three of which were of the golden-haired House of Hador
Three of the Nazgûl were of Númenórean origin

Those are the ones I could think of right off the bat...

Originally Posted by ThiudareiksGunthigg

Read what I said again. "LOTR is effectively a war story, though one written within the heroic tradition. Criticising it for not having much romance or many romantic female characters is like making the same criticism of Beowulf or A Bridge Too Far."

I did read what you wrote, but what you wrote is simply a very weak defense of LOTR, and it doesn't just have to do with "romance female characters, it has to do with having any important, meaningful female characters receiving POV.

It doesn't change the fact that LOTR is an overrated and garbage pulp fantasy story that doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Beowulf.

Beowulf is a 3182 line POEM and it still contains more important and deeper female characters than LOTR which is prose that comprises 3 books totalling over 1000 pages and is intended to introduce us to this "incredibly detailed world" that Tolkien fleshed out.

To excuse Tolkien's extreme lack of any depth in female characters because it is a "war story" is garbage.

Is the heroic poem Beowulf bad literature because Wealtheow gets about as much page time as Arwen (and distinctly less than Eowyn)?

Sorry, can't compare poems written 1000 years ago with a modern fantasy prose triology written in the 1950s.

Compare LOTR to other modern fantasy series (Song of Ice and Fire, Malazan Books of the Fallen, Zelazny's Amber) and Tolkien's Boys Club style falls flat.

Tell that to Ghan-buri-ghan. Those "swarthy humans" are specifically stated by Tolkien as being deceived, coerced or misled into following Sauron.

And if Tolkien was some sort of white supremacist, why aren't his heroes blond?
With the exception of the Rohirrim, they tend to be dark-haired.

Uh, you forget all Elves =/
Never said he was a "white supremacist" either just that his skin color divide on heroes/villains is a little circumstantially suspicious.

The reason for the fact that the men of north-west Middle Earth are "white" and the people of the south east are darker is that Middle Earth is based on Europe and the Mediterraneanin a period of prehistory. Look at the ethnic make-up of Europe and the Mediterranean, and what do you see? White people in the north-west, brown people in the south and east.

Oh yea, and that silly take certainly explains why it is all the "Southern Men" that are deceived, coerced and misled by evil Sauron while all the noble "Northern" men are pure of heart and fighting the good fight right?

Originally Posted by -apocalypsis-

They are? A selection of "bad" (varying degrees) fair skinned people:

Eöl and Maeglin
Fëanor (and the rest of the Noldor participating in the Kinslaying)
The Sons of Fëanor
Gríma Wormtongue
Ar-Pharazôn (and the rest of the King's Men)
Sangahyando and Angamaitë
The Mouth of Sauron
Herumor and Fuinur
Castamir the Usurper
Denethor
The Gaurwaith (Túrin's outlaws), at least three of which were of the golden-haired House of Hador
Three of the Nazgûl were of Númenórean origin

Those are the ones I could think of right off the bat...

Those examples do NOT come from the LOTR triology.

They come from the Silmarillion.

I am specifically referring to the LOTR triology and not the Silmarillion which is a completely different sort of work.

Does it even matter? The books are done, it's not like the plot is going to change because of this.

It just seems like attention whoring to me, but I don't really care...

This is a meaningless statement. The book stands by itself and Deathly Hallows never gave me the impression at any time that Dumbledore was supposed to be gay - his relationship with Grindelwald is represented as one of intellectual camaraderie and political ambition. It may have been in Rowling's mind while she wrote, but it doesn't come through in the book itself so it is irrelevant.

Too bad Tolkien died before outing practically everyone in his books.