Btw, I agreed a lot with what Penny had to say.

To be completely honest, and IMO, the announcement of Dumbledore being gay seemed merely an afterthought, rather than an actual component that makes up the awesome character of Dumbledore. Dumbledore’s sexuality never came into play during the whole Saga. Of course, all in my opinion.

How people react to this will of course be different. Some people could just look at it as a PERSONAL opinion from the author herself. I think if the orientation of Dumbledore was important enough or that it should of been known, it would have been implied MUCH more clearly.

Other people could think that this ruins the image of the Dumbledore that they had previously casted. Which is a shame to some extent. Because honestly, having to question on a character that you had such a firm view on isn’t very comfortable. It sure wasn’t for me.

So to really sum up of my opinion on the announcement:

It doesn’t change my opinion whatsoever on Dumbledore. As his orientation isn’t made clear or even implied all that strongly. So, I shall keep Rowling’s comments seperate from the story. Dumbledore remains the same to me, and always will. Thanks for listening to the rant

-Mike

As an author, I know that the writer always knows far more about her characters than what ultimately appears on the page, so if Jo says Dumbledore is gay, that is definitely canon. And I suspect that CantorAmy had a good point in suggesting that Jo’s publisher may have stopped her from being too explicit about Dumbledore’s love life (I know my publishers are often difficult about things in my books, as I also write for young readers, and twice I have had to take my manuscripts to different publishers to leave in things I wanted – one of those manuscripts went on to win an Edgar Allan Poe Award for YA mysteries, but I digress). Several commenters here have also pointed out that, since the books are (mostly) from Harry’s point of view, the issue of sexuality, or even personal life, is never raised about any of the professors at Hogwarts until Book 7, when we learn about Snape’s love for Lily. There’s no way that Dumbledore’s love life or sexuality could, or should, have been raised earlier in any blatant form.

I think the real questions are: did Dumbledore display a gay sensibility throughout the series? and do we have that sense of “ahh – I get it now!” when we re-read the earlier books and some of Dumbledore’s actions make more sense in light of Jo’s revelation.

As Bill has so ably pointed out in these comments, there are many types of gay people, with many sensibilities, but one overriding aspect of a gay sensibility, I believe, is acceptance of people the way they are – and we see that time and again in Dumbledore’s attitude. He gives everyone a chance until they prove themselves evil, for example, all the Slytherins, even Tom Riddle.

He doesn’t blush at McGonagall’s compliment because he’s gay or straight – but because he’s deeply ashamed:
“You flatter me,” said Dumbledore calmly. “Voldemort had powers I will never have.”
“Only because you’re too – well – noble to use them.”
This is an “Ahh – I get it now!” moment. McGonagall’s reply is made with no knowledge that the teenage Dumbledore was not too noble to go along with Gellert. And his flippant reply about Madam Pomfrey praising his new earmuffs draws a sharp look from McGonagall, hinting to the reader that there is something more to this comment, and it’s not that Dumbledore is enamoured of either Madam Pomfrey or Professor McGonagall.

So much discussion has been focused on Book 7 since July, that I don’t know how many people have gone back and re-read the earlier books in light of the later revelations. As we do, I suspect we will see more “Ahh – I get it now!” moments. The one that struck me with the most force was at the end of Book 1, when Dumbledore awards Neville his points at the banquet:
“There are all kinds of courage,” said Dumbledore, smiling. “It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom.”
Clearly, Dumbledore is acknowledging that he did not have the kind of courage it would have taken to stand up to Gellert when it counted, before his friend raised the wizard war that killed so many innocents.

Of course, this raises the question of the word “friend” – Harry and Ron are friends, and they are straight. Just as Greg and Penny analyze the various meanings of the English word “love” in the next episode, the English word “friend” has different meanings, and one of them has historically been the British use of “friend” for the more recent American word “partner” (which also has a multitude of meanings) – in other words, a beloved of the same sex. Neville turns out to be straight, but many readers of the earlier books believed him to be the gay character in the series, if Jo intended to have a gay character. Could Dumbledore have wondered the same thing, and praised Neville for doing what he had been unable to do? Just a thought.

I think the saddest thing is Dumbledore’s reaction to his love of Gellert – he tells Harry that because of what happened between them he rejected power – he saw how weak he was to be tempted by it, and he turned down requests to become Minister of Magic because he feared what he would do with too much power. But power is not all he rejected – I do not believe he loved sexually after Gellert betrayed him, just as Snape never loved anyone after Lily.

Unlike Snape, Dumbledore did not become a bitter, mean man – he knew the value of love, and he became and remained headmaster where he could channel that power into a paternal love for his students, but he apparently decided that he was not a good judge of possible lovers and chose not to be tempted by them. In effect, he cut out a piece of his heart so that he could find a way to do good in atonement for what he felt was his greatest mistake – not being gay, but loving the wrong man. He atoned for that all his life. In a way that strengthened him – as much as he loved Harry like a son, he could still raise him to be sacrificed to destroy Voldemort. But it was at a terrible emotional cost to him – I suspect that Albus Dumbledore, as the ultimate secret-keeper, was the loneliest and most unhappy man at Hogwarts.

What would he have seen in the Mirror of Erised? Himself with Gellert going down a different path that did not lead to war? Himself defeating Gellert sooner? Himself with his family, forgiven for having turned away from them? Himself with Elphias Doge, who I suspect was in love with him first, explaining why Doge speaks of Dumbledore so positively and affectionately, but with a hint of sadness? Probably not himself alone, as the respected Headmaster of Hogwarts, given new socks…. For a man who knew the power of love, and also his weakness for power in all its aspects, Dumbledore’s private life was as sad as his professional life was successful.

As an archetypal character, he is unmistakably the Mentor, but he is also human and flawed in the way he closed himself off. On my first reading of Deathly Hallows, I found it impossible to believe that Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of all time, could have been led astray by Gellert Grindelwald’s plan of wizard domination for the greater good. That bothered me throughout the book, and left me dissatisfied at the end, more dissatisfied than his being Machiavellian in sacrificing Harry to defeat Voldemort. But I can understand it if he was blinded by love, and then punished himself for loving “not wisely, but too well.” Dumbledore’s being gay makes him a more believable and more fully developed character, and I can understand him, and like him more now that Jo’s outed him.

The Newest Dumbledore Scandal: Where was DD between 1900-1920?
How did he come to appreciate Muggles?

New evidence that has been uncovered by the Daily Prophet suggesting that during the above period DD was not only involving in research regarding the potential use of dragon blood. Our confidential sources have confirmed a connection between DD and Albert Einstein. This new evidence points in the direction of cooperation between the two mental giants specificallty during the “Miracle Year” of 1905.

Also, we have had a few new commenters during this thread- I just wanted to welcome you all and to remind you that we LOVE getting comments and having everyone join in on the conversation here so please don’t be strangers and don’t limit yourself to commenting only when there is a hot-button issue.

So this may be bad for Dumbledore’s career…….?

;0)

Also – to hit on the canon, not canon issue…..i’m a canon purist. The author is the ONLY person who can speak on canon. If JK Rowling says that Dumbledore was gay, then he was – end of story.

And frankly I really don’t care and wasn’t all that shocked by the news. Mostly I guess because i never really thought about his sexuality either way. If I’d assumed he was straight, I guess i’d be more shocked but the issue of him being sexual AT ALL never really crossed my mind.

Personally i’d check the Red Sox gatoraid for traces of Felix Felicis

I must say I am deeply troubled by the apparent wizarding intervention into our muggle sports world. You think Michael Jordan can walk on air – i wouldn’t be surprised if someone on the sidelines was doing a Wingardium Leviosa on him. Someone definately messed up an Engorgio on Barry Bonds’ poor head, and i’d certainly call in Arthur Weasly for some questioning regarding Lance Armstrong’s bicycle.

anyway, I love you guys, keep it up! sorry if I’m repeating what other people have said.

Dumbledore is still gay and yet life goes on in, remarkably, much the way it did before.

All is right with the world.

;0)

“He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him.”

J.K. Rowling, October 23 2007

‘Nuf said.

Albus Dumbledore.

For any mature student of storytelling, his name joins ranks with Obi-Wan, Merlin, Gandalf, Yoda (2 points for Star Wars), and even Willy Wonka. For Harry Potter he fills the ever-so-necessary archetype of “all-wise-and-formidable-super-old-but-cosmically-capable-mentor.” He’s the one with the answers, the only one who can equip the protagonist and fit him to fulfill his mission. He’s he moral compass, the leader. From The Sorcerer’s Stone on we grew to love the greatest wizard of all time. His pithy words of advice, his sage-like grasp of the mysteries of life, and his incredible skill drew the humble and intimidated the proud. He was an example to be followed, a beacon to be mirrored, and a banner to be rallied behind. Then book seven was released and everything Dumbledore stood for was questioned.

Rolwing crafted a real, multi-faceted man. It may have taken thousands and thousands of pages to finally get around to it, but her character was real nonetheless. But how real does a person need to be? In the answer we find the “fall” of Dumbledore. Most sagely types are placed on a very high pedestal. Gandlaf would be a good example of this; his list of faults and poor decisions wouldn’t fill a Hobbit-sized shot glass. Even Fagan (from Oliver Twist) exhibits a one-dimensional moral compass. Though he basically wicked, he doesn’t stray from that path. Let us now consider Obi-Wan Kenobi. He had his faults, but those faults were regretted and eventually recompensed. What about Dumbledore? Throughout the last few books we learn about the weaknesses Dumbledore faces. He informs us of his mistakes but, in true “mentor-archetype” fashion, he regrets them and works to undo their effect. In point, the mentor stands for something. The mentor is the one who helps the hero down the chosen path. The mentor can’t be switching paths on the protagonist! If mistakes are made, and they often are, the mentor distinguishes between what was done and what should have been done and helps to re-focus the hero. In The Deathly Hallows Rowling injects even more anti-sage qualities. By the end of the series, though Dumbledore is still to loved and admired, he’s lost a cauldron-full of respect because the success he had grew out of the monumental mistakes he made. In the end his faults were the foundation of his fame. This is not an honorable role-model.

So at the end of the series our wizened hero has come off of his pedestal and chosen one slightly more “grounded.” That’s a worse case scenario for anyone who’s read the books. But the scandal comes, not from Rowling’s pen, but her mouth . . . .

During a public reading, after the final chapter is printed, Rowling announces that Dumbledore is gay. There are 3 fundamental flaws here.

1. This information is entirely impossible to deduce from the stories themselves. Therefore can it actually be said to be true? Anyone could say that Yoda was gay. Everybody is free to write fan fiction about Willy Wonka being a pedophile . . . but is it true? The answer is no. All you know about a character is what the author gives you over the course of a story. Though there are things about the character the audience will never know, none of those things are important and could be added or subtracted without the character being changed at all. For example, to say that Albus had a cat as a child is no different than saying he had a dog since it has zero bearing on the story. Therefore you will never hear Rowling wasting air-time telling us Albus loves dogs! What an author doesn’t tell you really isn’t important to anyone other than the author. But sexual preference, in the day and age in which we live, is very important to everybody. That’s not a pet preference. That’s not a favorite color or a child’s hobby. That’s a big deal.

2. The second problem grows from it’s revelation. If it was important enough to be in the story she would’ve written it into the story. She saved the revelation for after the books were sold. Hmm. Makes a guy wonder if she was afraid it would effect her book sales? She didn’t write him gay, but she announces he was after the fact. Sounds like pandering to both sides. “Since most of the people who buy my books wouldn’t openly associate with the gay-lifestyle I’ll avoid it. But hey, now that all the books are sold let’s sell a few more copies by causing a scene!” If a character isn’t written gay can it be said that character is gay? If it really had anything to do with the story she would have written it in the prologue. This was a publicity stunt.

3. {Removed for purposes of being ‘politically correct.’

Dumbledore has fallen. He’s fallen in the eyes of millions of fans. Or has he? To be honest, Rolwing’s revelation doesn’t hold any more water than if she tried to convince me that Snape was a cross-dresser or that McGonigal had sexual relations with cats. It’s so far-fetched and unbelievable you’d expect to hear it from a Harry Potter Hater.

Dumbedore isn’t gay. He hasn’t transgressed his character and archetype. He’s who he was written to be. On the other hand, Rowling has fallen. She’s poured the potion, lit the fire, and has climbed into the rolling froth of the cauldron. “Double, double, toil and trouble.” The funny thing is, as a writer she didn’t do anything wrong. But as a poor lobbyist she smeared her own character.

People told the Dixie Chicks to shut up and sing. I say to Rowling, “shut up and write.” If it’s that important to you, include it in the manuscript. Don’t use your fame as a springboard for a pet-sermon if you need to mislead the audience to do it. If you’re a writer than write. If you’re an activist than activate. Mix the two if you want, but don’t write a story that has nothing to do with sexuality and then claim it does after the last paycheck is cashed.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

BTW – there is no “wishing” that Lupin was the “gay one” – it’s Jo’s universe, of which we are merely observers . . . I would have wanted Harry and Cho to get together – seemed a perfect match and ripe with possibilities. Ginny was never a remarkable character, anywhere close to Harry’s level . . .

Back to the matter at hand – IT REALLY MAKES NO IMPACT ON THE STORY!!! The impact is in your headz people, insofar as it challenges your perceived notion of the character and in some cases, personal belief systems. A perfect illustration of how these belief systems colour the way we all perceive and react to the world. I won’t say that a negative reaction to this is “bad” . . . “Tolerance” doesn’t necessarily have to include “acceptance” – we are all entitled to our opinions . . . It really is a personal decision to let this change the story as the story really hasn’t changed – there is yet one more layer of depth in there for you to ponder . . . or not.

Funny that Dumblydore’s having been what amounts to a nazi-cum-fascist seems to have less impact on us than his sexual orientation. Given a choice, If I were Rita Skeeter, which would I write about? Doesn’t his sexual orientation pale in comparison to the former? The more I think about this, the more I think Jo has her priorities right and correct …

Bill – hats off to you for being very articulate and patient throughout the conversation here . . .

my feelings on the topic

Aaron,
I think you have the right of it, and you made the point I was going for very well, that there is no “typical” gay person any more than there is a “typical” straight person. My friend George is a total jock and gay, My friend Darrell is a very effeminate , sensitive man. And straight. NONE of the stereotypes work. Not for gay people, Canadians or anyone else. People are not that easy and all one can do is as you said, judge each person by their character and actions. And in that context, I don’t see how Dumbledore being gay has much impact on any plot points of the book.

“Anyways my point is when someone like that comes out. Not a shock. When someone like Cary Grant does it is. Dumbledore was a Cary Grant”

Yeah, It has to do with expectations. I find it interesting now that there is a discussion going on as to Lupin’s sexual orientation based on an interview the actor who plays him, David Thewlis, gave saying that Cuaron told him to play Lupine like a “gay junkie”. (you don’t want to get me started on Cuaron—-I’ve said it before, the man gave us shrunken heads that channel Jar Jar Binks…need I say more!) Anyway it seems a lot of people feel Lupine is a “gayer” character than Dumbledore and it would have been “better” to make him he gay one. Well my first thought is why should there be only one “gay one” but my second is exactly what I said above about my buddies George and Darrell. Making the last one you would pick to be gay the gay one is probably the more accurate thing to do. That is part of why the “shoved in my face: thing really annoys me, Gay people are in everybody’s face all day long–everybody reading this has probably interacted with a gay person today– but because people only expect the stereotype they never see us. Then when we do become visible we are accused of shoving our lifestyle down peoples’ throats and, my favorite, promoting the “gay agenda”. (As a gay man I keep expecting that I will be given at least an overview of the gay agenda for my perusal and approval but I have yet to receive my copy….)

One thing I want to add is that I am finding a lot of the comments being made over this whole “contraversy’ if that’s what it is are quite hurtful for me who is one that is struggling with the news. So many people are quick to say that we are wrong in our opinions and that we should be happy that JK has given us more information. It just feels like a us against them situation and on some of the other websites I feel like I am being told how to feel.
I do not in anyway agree with some of the comments about sexuality but I don’t believe this has anything to do with who DD chooses as a partner it has to do with Love and motivations because of love.

Thank you very much for your answer. I think I’ve read before your view of Dumbledore’s actions as succumbing to peer pressure, so it’s been ruminating in my brain for a while.

I never saw Dumbledore as caving to peer pressure. Dumbledore wanted to enslave muggles with Grindelwald. He was a little more humane about it (whatever), but they had the same main idea. If it was just peer pressure, that might change his motives, but I would have infinitely less respect for Dumbledore in his weakness of not speaking his own mind.

Bear in mind, however, I come from a family where I’m the only one who knows how to say no. I have always viewed those who do things to keep their friends happy as stupid. As such, the idea that Dumbledore was willing to enslave muggles was never peer pressure in my mind.

I suppose if Dumbledore was weak, or content in his hubris, he could succumb to peer pressure. To me, though he was more like a non-insane Tom Riddle. Craving power, wanting to know everything, and maybe wanting to get back at the people who hurt his family. The difference between Dumbledore and Riddle is, when faced with the disillusionment that his very good friend was not a very good person, Dumbldore saw the error of his ways. Riddle was just an idiot whose only thought was ever, “Hey, kill ‘em. That will work.”

I’ve been having difficulty with my anger towards Dumbledore since reading DH. It’s been hard for me to reconcile his past actions and his secret keeping, along with his plan to kill Harry in order to save the world. However, I always had faith he knew what he was doing. But, jeez, even in OotP he says “who cares if nameless wizards die if my plan works”. I wildly paraphrased there. We all should have known Dumbledore’s plan was likely to be cruel to Harry.

As we get more information, it has helped me process Dumbledore’s actions with a more forgiving eye. For a while there, I had even forgiven Snape. Thank goodness that brain freeze ended. I am slowly getting to the point where I can fully accept that Dumbledore’s last 98-99 years on the earth were used to atone for his 18th year. However, the Machiavellian part of Dumbledore that was willing to enslave muggles did not totally die. It simply migrated to another part of his psyche so that when Riddle became Voldemort and tried to kill Harry, Dumbledore could find a way to defeat him.