Episode #55: Dumbledore is Gay! (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
At the New York City stop on J.K. Rowling’s Open Book Tour, J.K. Rowling announced (in response to a question from the audience) that Dumbledore was gay. For various reasons, this has caused quite a stir. How does this change, if at all, how we perceive Dumbledore, how we view his childhood pursuit of power? Does this change the nature of the books, their appropriateness for children, or their religious character? All these questions, and a few others, are discussed in this week’s episode.
A few relevant links:
- Report from an eye-witness.
- Wikipedia article on “Death of the Author.”
- Wikipedia article on “Reader response theory.”
- Blogdigger blog search for dumbledore gay.
Vote for HPProgs in the 2007 Weblog Awards for Best Podcast!
This week’s poll:
How do you feel about Dumbledore being gay?
You can listen to the podcast with the player below, or download it directly as an mp3.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 am
It seems to me that there are two contradictory issues at hand.
On the one hand in order that we should not feel like this “came out of nowhere” we would have liked to see something in canon.
On the other hand if we want these to reman books for children it is actually nice that there ias no explicit reference.
I feel that Jo is being completely honest as to her interpretation of Dumbledore’s character and i’m sure that is the way she always pictured him. While my interpretation is much different I am glad to hear very intriuging take on the Dombledore plotline. Whether or not we accept her position as ultimative or just suggestive, we can’t say “oh, she shouldn’t have said that” when we are the ones asking the questions and wanting to know what her point of view is.
I am glad that my children will be able to read these books (just as I read Tolkien clueless to Frodo-Sam) without having to confront the issue before they/I are/am ready.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 am
also - the BoSox rock!!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 am
I agree with Penny - the fact that Dumbledore is gay doesn’t serve the plot. I could understand if she had left clues all along and that an unrequited (or perhaps requited love) had been a driver of what had happened in Godrics Hollow. But we don’t really know if that was a motivator or not. And now…what would Dumbledore really have seen in the Mirror of Erised?
Oh and sorry, I have to be loyal to my employer and he’s a Yankees fan. So much for this year.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
First off I think the whole Dumbledore is gay revelation is wonderful. It certainly has gotten people talking and thinking. I see it as kinda the test as to whether people learned anything about tolerance from the books.
Penny, I understand somewhat the discomfort you are having but as to the fact that there wasn’t a clue in the book, there is a good reason. It’s been discussed over and over that the books are, with the exception of a few chapters, written through Harry’s eyes. With that in mind, think back, how interested were you in the sexuality of your junior and senior high school principals? There is no reason for Harry to look for “clues” to whether Dumbledore is gay and if he doesn’t look, we don’t see. It’s much the same as Snape, Harry went seven years never wondering about Snape’s love life when the love of Snape’s life was his mother. He never even asked that much, except for questioning Sirius and Remus after seeing the pensive scene in OTP, his own parent’s relationship. I thik it si a part of the realism, Kids worry about their own relationships and crushes and blossoming love, not what is going on with the old people around them.
At the same time I think that in introducing her gay character in this manner, Jo made sure that Dumbledore was a GREAT man who was gay, not a GAY man who was great. There is a big difference!
And just one other thought, people keep wanting more and more and more from Jo, demanding the answers to minuscule questions and irrelevant plot points. Well, if you go around asking, I kinda feel like you need to live with what you got. As to whether it is cannon, it is. Every other thing she has said has become cannon, Tonk’s house, Luna’s job, Hannah Abbott’s business ventures, all cannon. And if she had said Dumbledore had once been married to Rosmerta’s aunt it would be cannon without a question. You can’t pick and choose.
Dumbledore was gay. Cannon
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 am
‘you know, Leslie, I hate the BoSox on many counts… but you cannot deny they’ve got style…’
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am
Wow, I was going to write a comment, but Bill has already said everything I was going to say (and better than I could have said it).
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I absolutely agree with Penny on this one. It seems as though this revelation of Dumbledore being gay came out of nowhere. That JKR has had seven books (four of which have been over 600 pages) to give us some sort of hint or suggestion of Dumbledore’s sexuality, but choose to only do so in an interview really annoys me.
Why wasn’t something mentioned about it in Rita Skeeter’s tell-all book about Dumbledore? Don’t you think that him being gay would have intrigued Skeeter? She could have mentioned something along the lines that some people questioned Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald, or that the two men were seen as having a tighter than usual friendship. Her readers are a sophisticated crowd; I’m sure we would have come to our own conclusions.
Also, this is not canon. What an author says about their characters in an interview does not make it canon unless it is stated in the books (such as Harry becoming an Auror, Neville marrying Hannah and so forth.) Think of it this way, 60 years from now, when a new generation of children is reading the Harry Potter books, how will they know that Harry becomes an Auror unless they look up JKR’s old interviews? Since it was never mentioned in the books, these children will only be able to guess and conclude for themselves what Harry could have chosen for an occupation.
Additionally, if this statement is deemed as canon, that would mean that every time someone start reading a new book, they have to look up interviews about what that author said about their characters? Before I could start reading Lord of the Rings, I would have to do research on Tolkein to make sure he didn’t give away any additional tidbits on his book. Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?
Yes, I appreciate all the little extra details that JKR shares with us, but unless they are in the book, they are not canon. After all, think of all the people out there that don’t have Internet, or a TV and have no idea of what JKR has been saying in her interviews. To them, Dumbledore could be bi/trans/gay or asexual.
October 22nd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Bill said I think that in introducing her gay character in this manner, Jo made sure that Dumbledore was a GREAT man who was gay, not a GAY man who was great. I can see the difference and there is probably something to that. I found this episode to be quite an emotional rollercoaster. Kinda felt like I was experiencing the different levels of grief lingering a bit to long on anger. I found myself agreeing with Penny whole heartedly until she made the point about how she would have felt the same way had Dumbledore had a thing with Professor Monoigal or if he had been of Jewish faith and allowed these to influence his decisions. That made me look a little more honestly at myself. I really don’t think that those things would have had any impact with me. Therefore I must still have some hang-ups on the whole gay thing even though I would like to think of myself above it. I guess I have no idea what it means to be gay any more than I know what it is like to be Jewish and I need to practice what I preach especially about filling in the blanks with assumptions. Sorry if I offended anyone. I think it’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Also, this is not canon. What an author says about their characters in an interview does not make it canon unless it is stated in the books (such as Harry becoming an Auror, Neville marrying Hannah and so forth.) ”
PM
That isn’t how cannon has ever been defined in the Harry Potter fandom. Pretty much Steve Vander Ark and his Lexicon have defined Cannon and that has always included any information traceable back to Jo—her web page, things she says in the interviews, and things she has approved like the games and the movies. Until now nobody ever challenged that definition. So like it or not, this is, in fact cannon.
Certainly anyone is free, as Greg suggested, to ignore the information not in the books—you can make your own cannon any way you want but in the Potterverse, on the common ground we all meet to talk, it is now cannon that Dumbledore is gay.
I don’t think at all it means you HAVE to look up anything, you can read the books as is. The point is that many fans want to know more and Jo has provided answers. So you can give Dumbledore (or any character you want) any sexuality you want fan fiction does that all over the internet in a wondrous variety of combinations. ;0) But if you want the facts, the truth, the word of Jo—Cannon so to speak. Dumbledore is gay.
As I said before, you don’t see it because you look through Harry’s eyes and Harry does not see it. Maybe Rita did write a long story about it and Harry missed that issue. Maybe the wizarding world is not as obsessed with sexual orientation as are Muggles. Who knows. Let us remember it is all pretend anyway! ;0).
I know what Penny said about how she would have the same reaction to finding out that Dumbledore is Jewish (and we do not know BTW that he is not) and I accept that is true for her. At the same time, wander around the fan sites, read the comments on leaky and Mugglenet., It is not the case with most people and if we are all honest we know that had Jo told us “Albus loves Manierva” is carved into the whomping willow the reaction would not be the same. And such a revelation would not lead to discussions as to the nature of what is cannon.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Just to clarify (if I wasn’t clear), I wouldn’t feel the same way *just* “if dumbledore were Jewish” or “if he loved MacGonnagal”, but if these things would have shown that the book could be looked at differently or that different decisions could have been made based on these factors- then I’d feel the same way. Once again, if she had stated that Dumbledore was Gay but didn’t mention the love affair with Grindewald, I would have NO issues whatsoever.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I think this whole revelation has made Dumbledore an even more sympathetic and somewhat tragic character. If I were going to strip off the debate of what’s canon and what isn’t and just look at it from a literary standpoint, I’d think back to the 7th book, when I was angry with him because he was a young, pretentious, ivory tower type who got mixed up with the wrong sort and ultimately got his sister killed. Now I’ve had my perspective shifted a little to see that he was not only blinded by the prospect of power (which didn’t totally make sense to me when I was reading it), but love, (which makes way more sense, even if I didn’t see it at the time.) That kind of traumatic event goes a long way to explaining Dumbledore the bachelor/hermit. I get it. I wish there would’ve been hints too, but I’m glad that at least I understand it now.
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I agree that this is causing more discussion than it would if it were not about sexual orientation. I’m pretty sure that gay marriage is legal in England, didn’t Elton John get married a few years ago?
Oh, and I love all the different spellings of Minerva McGonagall (I had to look it up!)
October 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Penny you needed to give a little warning before you made that goat comment. You caught Dee off guard and she passed a 1/2 cup of cofee thru her nose.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Hi all, I’ve listened for a while now, but never posted before. I think everybody has good points about the new Dumbledore relevation. Until I heard the podcast, I was very confused on how to respond to this news and Penny definitely helped me work out how I was feeling this revelation applied to cannon atleast in my mind. I think I understand and agree with Penny’s reaction to Dumbledore’s motivation to avoid Grindelwald and the doubts it places in our minds over whether it was his unrequited love for him and/or the facts surrounding the death of his sister.
Also, thanks go to Greg and Penny for mentioning Travis Prinzi in the prophecy podcast and I really love his podcast and website. swordofgryffindor.com has really good discussions (although fairly heated) on this topic. It also has links to John Granger’s reaction (hogwartsprofessor.com) and Dr. Amy Sturgis’s blog where she has her transcript of how the questions were asked in New York. After reading Dr. Sturgis’s blog, it was very interesting to hear to the context the Dumbledore is gay response was asked in, and I found it very useful. Thank you for all of the great discussion in the blog.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
This is all very interesting and it is great to see everyone’s thoughts on the subject. I guess I look at it a little bit like Penny, if JK had come out and said “Dumbledore is gay” and left it at that, fine it doesn’t change anything about his character or his motivations, but the fact that she has then gone on about his relationship to Grindelwald is what upsets me a little. I had that whole part of the book worked out as just being a “peer pressure’ type situation and it was great because it showed to me that DD was human and had a weakness, but now she tells us that weakness was love and I just can’t work that one out.
As a reader of the books I had panned it all out in my head and my characters all had their own little back storys etc, now she has told me how I should think about him, hmm maybe I’m wrong as she told me how to think about Snape and I’ve adjusted to that well. I guess with Snape we kind of had some sort of thought that something like love for Lily was in the pensieve scenes. Maybe I am just disapointed with DD overall, Book 7 really rocked my whole idea of DD, I just don’t see him in the same way even before JK announced his sexuality.
What I find interesting is that there is no reference to DD and being gay yet she had no problem dropping references to his brother and possible relationships with goats. That to me is a lot more disturbing especially since she alluded to it again after a little girl asked the question.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
See i think if Jo intended in dumbledore being gay throughout all the books she forgot about it during the fourth dook because i rememberd seeing in the movie McGonagall and Dumboledore danceing and in the book he was danceing with madam maxime later he dances with porfesser sprout and so i dont really know if she intended on him to be gay untill later on or if she intended on him to be gay the whole way and just momentarily forgot about it. She may also have been tryingot make it so it looked as if dumoledore was not gay(but i dout that).
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
if you thought harry potter was just for kids, think again.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
yada yada yada… can we please move along??? We have such greater things to discuss.. How the hottest guy on tv is going to be dancing tonight on Dancing with the Stars….. Definately NOT gay….
Did I mention that I am going to be Delores Umbridge for Halloween??
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I dance with my father at weddings, but that doesn’t mean I’m in love with him. Plenty of friendly people dance. Actually, there was something on CNN’s website about how during filming of movie 6 there was an allusion to Dumbledore fancying a young lady in his youth that Rowling asked to be cut because it wasn’t in keeping with the character. Quite different than an innocent dance, but that’s a digression. (I am glad she’s there to consult for the films, though.)
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
fine turn against me but i mean its something.
October 22nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
it was just a suggestion it would have been kool though if dumboledore and McGonagall got married or somthing but like i said it was juse a suggestion
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Families and friends go through the same kind of feelings that this fandom seems to begoing through when they find out a loved one is gay.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Alissa,
I don’t think anyone is “turning” on you. L.Q. is just saying lots of people dance with lots of people. I’m a gay man and I have danced with women lots of times …..but I gotta admit—stereotypes of gay folks aside, I really don’t like to dance, not with women or men! ;0)
Everywhere I see this whole Dumbledore/gay thing discussed people tend to want to look for signs in the books ore “proof’ he was gay. Or not. I don’t think you are going to find it, if it was something you were suppose to learn in the books, you would have. Just like there is nothing in the books that suggests Hannah will run the leaky Cauldron. Or marry Neville.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 pm
elena: That’s a very interesting observation.
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Bill- I agree with you that we will not find signs about Dumbledore being gay and to look in the books for proof of this would be futile and unnecessary (and for those who were offended at the “knitting” option in the poll, it was meant to be tongue in cheek).
However, (and I know I am perseverating on this-and if people don’t know what that word means, it is my favorite word so look it up) once again, if Hannah running the Leaky Cauldron in the future or Neville marrying her would affect the books retroactively it would be a big deal that JKR told us about the backstories of these characters at this point in time, rather than in the actual series. Once again, same thing with the Grindelwald subplot (and notice that I am no longer even calling it the gay part, to me that is irrelevant).
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Also, GO RED SOXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I have to agree with Bill. I don’t think we were meant to know. I think that in introducing her gay character in this manner, Jo made sure that Dumbledore was a GREAT man who was gay, not a GAY who was great. I’m not for certain this was originally intended but more of a development of the character. I agree that it certainly is a much better explaination for Dumbledore’s allegance then reluctance to confront Grimwald. I find myself wondering why it wasn’t portrayed as such during all the other revealations about Dumbledore? I would have enjoyed the shock. Whoopie. I agree with Elena’s thought as well.
.
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I have to admit that I don’t agree with you about the Grindelwald subplot. I think that if we look closely at how their relationship is described, it is evident that it is a crush, even if he wasn’t gay. It is obvious that Dumbledore had placed Grindelwald on a high pedestal and that he fell from that pedestal the night Dumbledore’s sister died.
What I am trying to say is that the feelings and relationship that JKR describes in book 7, without explicitly saying that Dumbledore has a crush on Grindelwald, are the same as a crush, but not defined as such because we all assumed he was straight.
Think about it this way, how would you describe a crush or infatuation? Does that not fit in with the description of their relationship?
I didn’t get it from the book that Dumbledore was only friends with Grindelwald because he wanted power, but rather because they seemed to want the same thing, and they “clicked” with one another.
I also think JKR mentioned Grindelwald because of the way the question was asked.
Anyways, that’s what I think, it really doesn’t change the way I view that subplot.
And now a good night to all, cause I’m on GMT -1 and have to put the kids to bed.
-MamaeAzores
October 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Well she could have made him bi-sexual. Wonder why He chose to be gay? (sorry bad joke)
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:28 pm
The announcement really isn’t a huge deal to me… someone asked her an honest question and I think she gave an honest answer. I think the one of the main reasons why there is so much controversy and in some cases, animus, is because homosexuality is still such a hot-button issue… and Rowling has inadvertently forced people to take a stand because Dumbledore is such a huge fictional literary icon. It doesn’t really change anything for me… in fact, I think the news really does help to enrich the character. I mean Aberforth talked about Dumbledore having secrets, and perpetuating secrets and I think it is interesting to apply that idea when we consider Dumbledore’s sexuality….. I had always seen Dumbledore as someone who was always a little isolated because of his intelligence and now we have this added insight that he may have been isolated as well because of his sexuality.
As for changing canon or changing our perceptions of the rules behind what is canon and what it isn’t and what it does… all I can say is that we have been clamouring for Rowling to provide more back story on all her major/minor characters. Rowling has delivered on that need with her comments during these book tours- and I think she did the right thing by providing some context for her views on the character (e.g. Dumbledore’s emotional/intellectual connection with Grindelwald)… rather than just putting out a blanket statement that, “I think Dumbledore is gay” and leave it at that. Ultimately, I don’t think that she can be faulted for providing insights into her own intellectual property.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:52 pm
This reminds me of all the fuss when Noddy was outed, didn’t his books all get banned?
MamaeAzores - Can you not be infatuation with someone without being in love with them? or do the two go together, I naively only saw the friendship. Same as in LOTR, I never saw the connotations only the friendship between Frodo and Sam.
Greg in Toronto - You are so right, these as her characters and she can do with them what she pleases. I am going to through something else into the fray though, she has made an awful lot of money through these books and something is nagging me that this revelation has been well timed so as not to hurt her too much financially. If people jump on the band wagon and ban the books now how much harm can be done, a lot of people already own them.
October 22nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Sorry that was meant to read - infatuated.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
although i still want to reread the passages in DH that describe the scenes between Dumbledore and Gindelwald, i remember sensing a great deal of anger and passion (not sexual). This new information can explain such a violent argument and fight that could have led to death. At least, to me.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Penny:
What I am trying to understand is how you feel it changed anything. It seems to me any change YOU are reading into it. It was and still is a matter of young Dumbledores’ emotional evolvement with Grindelwald impacting his choices and ultimately his entire life. You don’t NEED to know that it was romantic love, physical love the love of an intense friendship. The point is Dumbledor’s emotional attachment impacted his life. All knowing that he may have been IN love with Grindelwald means is that you have another lever to ponder but there was no need for you to know while you were reading that Dumbledore may have been in love. What you needed to know was what you did know, was that he was caught up in the excitement of his relationship—friendship, lovers, or the joy in finding an intellectual mate,—-pick any or all, the result is still the same, it colored his choices and that changed his life.
I mean, even though Jo never SAID Hannah was sneaking glances at Neville and thinking up great drink recipes during DA meetings I could argue, a bit facetiously certainly, that I could never read those DA scenes the same again, knowing that Hannah is really looking sideways at Neville , that Cho, on the brink of her kiss with Harry is destined to marry some faceless muggle, that Luna sitting there reading her copy of “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” will find her future with Newt Scamander grandson… But the fact is that knowing those things adds no new dimension to the DA scenes that was not already there and I would argue that knowing Dumbledore’s strong emotional attachment was romantic love vs. deep platonic love really doesn’t add a different dimension.
And…
“Families and friends go through the same kind of feelings that this fandom seems to begoing through when they find out a loved one is gay.”
Elena, that’s a very astute observation…I wonder, for those of us who are gay and lesbian, how much of our visceral reactions to some of what’s been said over the last few days comes from hearing echoes of that time. I certainly think it is true for me. Except now I have 30 plus more years of living under my belt and am a lot more equipped to respond to it all.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Bill- I think I alluded to this in the episode when Greg was pressing me on this and I was trying to verbalize why friendship-love and love-love are different. Perhaps it is just me and my views on love that make me have a hard time wrapping my fingers around this. I am going to try to verbalize this and once again, I apologize if I lack the clarity to do it well.
I can understand that the love you have for your friends can make you do many things. I understand that the best of friends can influence one to make certain decisions in their lives. I used to look at DD and Grindelwalde (I honestly think i spell his name differently every time I write it and I apologize for that- I think I am going to write “D” from now on) as two terribly close friends with similiar ideals which attracted one to the other. DD became disillusioned with G after the Ariana/Aberforth incident.
Now is where it gets tricky for me. When I think of DD and G having a relationship it makes me wonder whether whether DD was truly attracted to the ideals that G espoused or whether it was his infatuation with the man himself which led him to be tempted with the notion of wizard dominance and “the greater good” ideal. Once again, if the Grindelwalde character had been a woman and the books made it seem like the relationship was platonic but retroactively we found out it wasn’t, I think I’d feel the same way.
The reason I feel this way is because to me Harry went through a major internal struggle when he found out about DD and G’s friendship/ideals/planned revolution. I think ultimately when Harry and DD spoke about it and DD spoke of the flaws in his beliefs in his earlier years, this helped Harry with the ultimate maturing process which allowed him to defeat Voldemort.
Harry never struggled with love- it came naturally to him. I think if he had then perhaps the DD/G relationship subplot would have been more appropriate- but we know that Harry has struggled with power and that is why looking at DD and G more platonically between both the book and now with JKR’s commentary works better for me.
I have re-read this and I am really having a hard time expressing exactly what I mean so keep questioning me because hopefully I will be able to fully say what I mean with enough prompts. Thanks for your patience.
October 22nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Hey, Gay happens.
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I think that the fact that JK Rowling says “I’ve always seen Dumbledore as gay” helps explain the relationship between Grendelwald and Dumbledore better. It helps me understand how Dumbledore could be not really see the meanspirited qualities that Grendelwald possessed (and Aberforth could see). As Penny said–love can make you blind to people’s bad qualities until a loved one’s wrongdoing can no longer be ignored. The fact that Dumbledore cared for Grendelwald also explains why he waited until he absolutely had no choice to confront Grendelwald.
JK Rowling never said that you had to believe it–someone asked a question, and she answered truthfully. I think that if JK Rowling had not said this at the book reading, it would have come out when people were talking about the making of the Half-Blood Prince film. Since the books are written mostly from Harry’s perspective, this affects what we as the reader “see” too.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Two things:
Firstly, what always puzzled me was Dumbledore’s reluctance to combat Grindelwald until it was “too shameful to resist any longer” (Bloomsbury edition, p. 575). Dumbledore’s explanation to Harry was that he feared learning the truth about who actually murdered his sister, but knowing what we know now, could it have been that he was so in love with Grindelwald that he didn’t want to fight with him? Is that why Dumbledore only defeated Grindelwald and did not kill him? Hence I agree with Penny’s argument that Dumbledore’s motivations are now unclear in the books.
Secondly, we must not forget that the author’s first responsibility is to her publishers, not her readers (sorry, but I’m a capitalist). Could she have wanted to be more forthcoming about her characters, but her editors stopped her?
Just some thoughts.
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Penny:
I think I sorta understand what you mean, that the nature of the attraction might impact the reactions. I guess I still question that. You see, I read Grindelwald as this very bright, charismatic, attractive young man. Sexual or platonic, I saw it as him having, for a better term, cast a spell —- and not in the magic sense—over Dumbledore yes, but also over a lot of other folks. He was charming, he was likeable, he got by with things but he wasn’t the world’s nicest guy. Sorta Fred and George mixed with Draco with a dash of Cedric. And maybe a teaspoon of Blaise Zabini.
Anyway given who Grindelwald was, the sort of person he was. He attracted others to him. It doesn’t matter the NATURE of the relationship, the fact was that Dumbledore was blinded by his feelings for Grindelwald and then had to live with the consequences. That is the real point. Whether he slept with Grindelwald or just basked in his glow is irrelevant. So I can’t see how being gay or not could impact how you understand that relationship and plot line. Honestly, I see whether Dumbledore was in love with him as potentially much more important in the confrontation that came later when Dumbledore won the Elder Wand. But we never see that so we are all left to decide what we think happened there.
I think the thing we stumble over here is that you think the potential romantic bond is different enough to impact the way things unfolded and I do not.
But talking about it sure is interesting!
I gotta tell you, all this realtionship impact stuff aside, as a…well certainly solidly middle aged gay man..okay 52…. :0)..the totally cool thing is not that there is a gay character, not even that he is the most powerful, wisest, on a frog card important wizard. The TOTALLY ‘WAY cool…..dare I say grooviest…. thing is that he is the OLD guy!!! Despite what the media would tell you, gay doesn’t stop at 32!
October 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Oh, yes–GO RED SOX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I think that there was much more than a potential romantic bond Bill. I think that this bond was instumental in blinding DD to G’s actual intent. Made D accept and veiw things in a way that he would not have otherwise. Only when things got to extremes did D face facts and see his boyfriend was not as he perceived him to be or could not be changed.
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
This whole idea of “the death of the author” or whatever you want to call it made me realize some things.
I, personally, find it matters very much to me what the author’s intent is, what the author’s worldview is. Not only do I want to know how my author views the world, I want to read books written by authors who have a worldview similar to mine. When I read, whether it’s fiction or non-fiction, I am constantly looking for hints about what the author believes. And I look for books by authors that believe what I believe.
As I have shared here before, I am a conservative Christian. I think that it’s more common for Christians to feel the way I do about their reading material than it is for the general public. What I mean is that I think it’s common for Christians to want to read authors who share their values and worldview, more common probably than for those who aren’t Christians. This is the root of why many Christians don’t like Harry Potter — because they suspect the author doesn’t share their worldview.
This is similar, I think, to the reaction many Dixie Chicks fans had when one of them made disparaging comments about our President while they were performing in London. Some people said it shouldn’t matter what a performer believes, what values they hold, you should just enjoy their music or whatever it is they produce or perform. But I really don’t feel that way. For some reason I had made the incorrect assumption that the Dixie Chicks held the same political views that I do, and I was disappointed to find they didn’t. And that’s pretty much how I feel about this Dumbledore thing.
Am I wrong to remember that Dumbledore says something during the very first chapter of the first book that hints that he’s not gay? I think I remember McGonagall saying he has the same skills as Voldemort but he’s too noble to use them, and he replies that he hasn’t blushed so much since Madam Pomfrey said she liked his earmuffs. Did I make that up? I admit I didn’t take the time to look it up, but I tend to have a pretty good memory for stuff like that. Maybe it was just in the movie. . .
I have a question for you, Greg and Penny. If you don’t want to answer, that’s fine, but I’m curious. You said your son doesn’t listen to the news so he won’t know this new information about Dumbledore’s personal life. Does your son go on the internet, or talk to friends? My son is 10, I think that’s a year or two older than yours. I know it’s just a matter of time before my son either reads it on Wikipedia or hears it from a friend. I’m not sure how to handle talking to him about this. I still remember how I felt when I was much older than my son is now, and first understood what it meant to have a homosexual relationship. I think he’s too young to know such things, especially about a character he enjoys reading about.
Thanks for the podcast, I found it very interesting.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:01 am
Hannah and Neville togther was more important to me then Dumbledore’s orientatiuon. I think Hannah and Neville would have made a good pair, after all, she is interested in biology, in POA her theory for how sirius got in the castle was that he turned into a shrub.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:20 am
i think about when my daughter was about 8 years, the news was filled with ellen “coming out”. she asked me, ” mom, what is gay?” i was lucky enough to have co-workers who were child psychologists. they just told me to answer as simply as possible, that most kids don’t need details. children are exposed to and ask questions about all kinds of things, we as parents may not feel comfortable explaining. but as a parent, i have to raise my children to be loving and accepting of all. someone real in their life or even themselves may be gay. what a wonderful gift to give a child, to accept them just as they are.
and like a wonderful teacher once taught us, you can do what is right or what is easy.
ps i plan on using the same approach with my 10 year old son.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 am
I am a christian but I am also pro choice ans tolerant of other religions and all sexualities. I don’t think you can say ‘all christians believe this’ or ‘all adherents of judaism follow this form of ethics..’. Everybody has their own personel beliefs about what is right and wrong. JK is showing tolerance and christianity, which I think is a very positive thing, as some people might have seen religious people as very prejudice, as JK has shown that we are not.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:55 am
Penny- I understand what you mean about thinking that because D was in love with G, it changes his motivations. However, I don’t see it that way. D was ready to accept the ideas that G proposed and had some of his own because of what the muggle boys had done to his sister. I don’t think that D being in love with G, changes his motivations. You think it does. So the what we are really discussing is feelings, admiration, friendship love versus romantic love, crushes, etc. I simply think that in the book we get a good picture of how close their relationship was and what it meant to D, and that knowing that D was in love, or had a crush on G, does not really add or retract from the closeness and dependence that was shown in the book.
Page 293 of the Bloomberg edition “The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore”: “However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man, or fear of exposure as his once best friend, that caused Dumbledore to hesitate? Was it only reluctantly that Dumbledore set out to capture the man he was once so delighted he had met?”
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
“Am I wrong to remember that Dumbledore says something during the very first chapter of the first book that hints that he’s not gay? I think I remember McGonagall saying he has the same skills as Voldemort but he’s too noble to use them, and he replies that he hasn’t blushed so much since Madam Pomfrey said she liked his earmuffs. Did I make that up? I admit I didn’t take the time to look it up, but I tend to have a pretty good memory for stuff like that. Maybe it was just in the movie. . .”
No, that is is the books but how does that suggest he is not gay? Because he responds to a compliment from a woman, one who is a friend and coworker, with a blush? Gay men don’t turn into emotionless stone around women. We remain people, pretty much 24/7. Have you as a woman never responded to a compliment from another woman? I have many friends, gay and straight ,male and female who could get the same response from me.
But my real point is that now we know he IS gay so there is no reason to look for “proof” one way or the other in the books. There is a line from the movie “In and Out” (very funny BTY if you have not seen it) when a high school teacher comes out at his own wedding. One kid says “Face it guys. we had a gay teacher. All year. We just have to accept that and go on with our lives”.
Face it guys, we had a gay Headmaster. All seven books. We just have to accept that and go on with our lives….
:0)
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Mrs. Lovegood- right now our son is pretty naive. When he does go on the internet it is in a very controlled way- only visiting websites that we have pre-marked as “favorites” for him and for the most part his friends are pretty similar to him in that aspect. (In fact, last week he came home very upset because someone in his class said the “S” word to his teacher and we figured out that he meant Stupid).
But, if he would come home with this news and with questions I think I would explain it to him in 8 year old terms- nothing more, nothing less and leave it at that.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I agree with everything Bill said, it doesnt make the story any different it just means that he wasnt in love with McGonagall after all..
I also agree with the person who said to explain it simply. I have been asked many questions by my students some of which I am not sure how to best answer so I give them the basics and go from there. I teach kids with emotional disorders who have grown up in projects but none the less i try to keep it simple.
Anyway,
this sure sparked a fire in everybody..nice job Jo! :o)
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
One of the things I’ve been trying to convey to people who ask me about Dumbledore out here in the offline world is that new knowledge does not change how we read the books. I don’t think the context changes, even given new perspectives.
It just doesn’t matter. Sexuality in the books has always been there, but Dumbledore is the ultimate secret keeper. He keeps secrets even when telling them would benefit the world. That is his character, and nothing we’ve learned since then refutes his secret keeper-ness.
Now, I also look at Penny’s complaint that his sexuality wasn’t referred to in any of the books, or that she could accept it if we just had clues. I’ve been thinking a lot about this idea, because it sounds like a valid argument, but I know there is a flaw in the logic.
There is really no place we would have or should have learned about Dumbledore in the first six books. After that he was dead. Grindelwald was in prison, so who could he tell? The only thing we can do is infer from others that Dumbledore is gay. However, if they don’t know, how could we infer anything? And if they do know, why would they say anything? What purpose would that serve? It doesn’t advance the plot.
When Harry’s “dead” at King’s Cross, I’ve always thought of that place as a manifestation of Harry’s mind. This is a personal reading that wasn’t fully refuted by JKR, so I figure I’m free to use my imagination (ALERT! Imagination in use!). So, as Harry’s talking to Dumbledore, I saw that as Harry’s putting together facts from what he knew. If that were the case, why would Harry include a piece about how Dumbledore loved Grindelwald? I wouldn’t expect Harry to view Dumbledore in a sexual manner, so Harry wouldn’t be thinking about his mentor’s sex life while trying to figure out why he’s not dead.
One thing we never learned about any of the professors was who they were married to, or in love with, or anything. We only knew about Snape, and that was after HE WAS DEAD. Yes, we had clues about Snape, but only because his story is what started Harry’s story. Only in death can these characters be fully understood. In life they keep their secrets close to their souls…literally.
I had a paragraph about love next, but my feeble brain could not reason it out fully, so use your imaginations to decide what I would have said.
Thanks for reading. I always have more to say than I know.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Honestly, we know very little about the professors other than what they teach. Perhaps Flitwick was a vegetarian, McGonagall had 27 cats, and Trelawny was once a famous jazz musician. While this information would be interesting, it really has no place in the books. The fact that DD’s sexuality was never alluded to is not suprising at all. What “proof” is everyone looking for? Do homosexuals have to wear giant rainbows on all their clothing for people to believe that they are gay? I certainly don’t think so.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 pm
When it comes to talking to kids, I gotta tell y’all this…..
I came out to my family when my niece (who is now 33) was less than 2. She cannot remember me without my partner. When she was about 6 or 7 she went to my sister and said “I want to know about Uncle Bill and Uncle Walter!”. So my sister sat her down and gave her a very loving but clear explanation of what gay was and how she had no reason to love us and how we were a family. As she told me later, it was beautiful.
At the end she ask my niece if their talk had answered her question. My niece replied “No! I knew they were gay. I want to are they your brother or Dad’s!”
The lousy thing was she was totally disappointed when she found out she was not biologically related to my partner, only me. ;0) And she STILL likes him best!
Have y’all looked at the latest videos and articles where Jo expands her comments? For those of you like Penny who were having trouble fitting it all in, I wonder, does this help or make it all murkier?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I disagree. It very much changed how I read the books and that is what I found to be upsetting. It has completely changed how I look at Dumbledore and his motivations. Most of all I resent that it comes out this way as an afterthought or to make a point that wasn’t there before. I would not have had an issue with it had it been included in the other facts we learned about D but it wasn’t. By not being in the books I find it cheap ploy that is useful for nothing but conversations such as this forum. It wasn’t needed to make the story better and was not present in my mind when I read them. Now it will be and it changes the way I feel about things.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
[...] Potter, anyway? The easy answer is, “whatever appears in the books.” In an especially astute observation by Bill, one of HP Progs’ commenters, he makes the following observation about looking only at the [...]
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I voted “it doesn’t change a thing,” but, I must admit, this revelation only add fuel to my long-sailing Dumbledore-Snape ’ship.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Ok, i’ve been thinking about this a lot today as every news website I go to today is plastered with the reaction to Dumbledore’s being gay. I actually just read a really interesting article on Mugglenet written in response to some of the backlash.
I wanted to ask myself why I reacted like I did because I was shocked. Today I have come to the conclusion that being gay had nothing to do with it, it was me reacting to the disappointment I felt after book 7 with “the great wizard’ himself, maybe if JK had told me during DH that DD was in love with Grindelwald instead of leaving me to make my own conclusion as to his motivations I might have understood his reasons for what and why he did what he did.
Anyway I need a question completely off topic to ask, Why are the boys/men wizards and the girls/women witches? I thought a male witch was a Warlock, DD himself is chief Warlock of the Wizengamot or something similar so what makes a wizard a Warlock or vice versa?
October 24th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Bill- First of all, check out the latest swordofgryffindor.com post- one of your comments here was quoted in it.
But anyway, JKR’s most recent comments from Toronto actually add fuel to my argument (I think. Please feel free to correct me). She says, Dumbledore “did have, as I say, this rather tragic infatuation, but that was a key part of the ending of the story so there it is. Why would I put the key part of my ending of my story in Book 1?”
Once again, I look at “tragic infatuation” more in terms of sexual love than friendly love. This once again brings into question canon and how it seems to have changed based on these retroactive remarks on Jo’s part.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:27 am
I think its great that there is no ‘proof’ that he is gay. When you think about it, there is no ‘proof’ that he was straight. I like that JK is not stereotyping a gay man, Dumbledoir wasnt acting like someone from queer eye or anything.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
What does his sexual orientation have to do with a book for 8 year olds in the first place.. There shouldnt have to be PROOF and this relevation was so unnecessary its actually angered me now to where this publicity ploy by JK has sickened me. Scholastic I know is probably not at all thrilled that this has come about. The stereotypical gay man on tv is always of some fancy pants flaming queen and as portrayed in the books and in the movie ..if we are going to call people out as gay Snape better get his page boy at the front of the line.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Goasher has arrived! Choose the form of your destructor! Choose and perish!
October 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Are you the gate keeper ???
There is no goasher there is only Zeul
October 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
OK Penny (and everybody else who’s irritated),
I’m obviously slow here. How exactly does it change things? I just don’t get it. Could you give me an example of how your new knowledge changes how you read the series?
Also, was there a time when new information from a subsequent book changed how you read the earlier books, or even earlier pages of the same book?
I’m trying to see what you are seeing, and I’m not sure I can without a concrete example of what changed? Was it just your view of the situation? Did the plot change? You mentioned motives earlier. Which motives changed?
Thanks
October 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Elizabeth, I’ll answer for myself, I guess I wish if DD is gay that JK had given me more of a clue when in book 7 seven we went into all the back story about DD and G because if she had told me he did what he did for love it would’ve made more sense for me, I looked at it more that DD was a fool because he was led astray by this character and as I’ve said before I saw it more as a ‘peer pressure’ type relationship. Love is a such a strong emotion and I know myself that I am a romantic and probably would’ve forgiven DD a lot more throughout the book had I known he was in love with G, instead I was left not hating, but not really enjoying his character anymore, lets just say very disappointed in him.
I suppose I could liken it to Snape, I have always loved his character but when you found out that his motivations were love for Lily and that he wasn’t really that bad a person (yes I know some still think he is) you could forgive him for some of the things he had done.
Not sure if this makes sense, I did just think that this was so totally out of left field and I know she was answering a question but maybe it could’ve just be scooted around, like Aberforth and his goats and left for people to allude to rather than now being so black and white. I really don’t have a problem with him being gay its just now I have to re read the book and change in my mind his motivations.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Penny,
I did see the quote….gee, am I famous as well as “astute”?? ;0)
I listen to Travis a lot…thanks to a suggestion from Greg. I am not sure he has gotten this exactly right but I respect his thoughtful approach to what he calls the “Culture Wars”. He certainly is not afraid to take on questions of Harry Potter and Christianity and he does it from an honest stance as a Christian.
Snapes Widow:
“The stereotypical gay man on tv is always of some fancy pants flaming queen and as portrayed in the books and in the movie ..if we are going to call people out as gay Snape better get his page boy at the front of the line.”
Pardon me but I am NOT a stereotypical fancy pants flaming queen but some of my friends are. Pretty much, last time I checked, we gay folks have the right to come in as many flavors, colors styles and varieties as you straight folks. I’m really sorry that some folks are upset—-well no I’m not but it seems the nice thing to say— ;0). The world is not entirely heterosexual and it’s about time some of the stereotypes got busted. And about time that people learned that spouting stereotypes is not okay. I’ve been reading a lot of posts on a lot of places in the last few days and I tell you, I am sickened by the endless stream of people who seem to feel that my right to exist is up for debate! It never seems to occur to a lot of straight people that gayness is not something that is up to Y’ALL to decide about one way or the other. Sorry if I’m harsh but I am totally tired of hearing how “sickened” straight people are! Get over it!
October 24th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I’m torn.
on one hand i think it yeah its great that Jo is trying to preach tolerance. Except that i think she went the wrong way about it. If she really wanted people to know that, she would have actually put it in the books, made it maybe more defined. Instead, i feel that she has just Potter haters more fuel to the fire.
And i am NOT saying that i am against Dumbledore being gay. I just wish that she had been….for lack of better words, more formal in stating it. Which makes it seem more like a publicity stunt than passing of information, if you know what i mean. And i like the idea of our own interpretation of the book. Unless the information comes into the future encyclopedia, right now it should be up to us to decide what our version of characters would be. Like when the movies come out, and you yell at the screen that that is not how the book says stuff happens, sometimes that is because that is how the director or screenwriter saw the book, unless Jo is against or for it. Like how they overdramatized the foreshadowing of the Hermione/Ron Ship.
So that is how it is for me, like the director said hmmm. lets make him gay. Because for me, Dumbledores friendship with Gellert is just that, a friendship, like ron and harry, or James and sirius. It seemed to follow the theme of friendship, and no where had she opened up a theme for accepting sexualities, unless you count aberforth, who doesnt really count because his thing with goats seems more like a comic relief than acceptance preach.
and, by the way, you guys should do a podcast about Lily and Snape, and how their love changed the story, or wherever you guys want to go with that.
October 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
BILL
Pardon me but I am NOT a stereotypical fancy pants flaming queen but some of my friends are. Pretty much, last time I checked, we gay folks have the right to come in as many flavors, colors styles and varieties as you straight folks. I’m really sorry that some folks are upset—-well no I’m not but it seems the nice thing to say— ;0). The world is not entirely heterosexual and it’s about time some of the stereotypes got busted. And about time that people learned that spouting stereotypes is not okay. I’ve been reading a lot of posts on a lot of places in the last few days and I tell you, I am sickened by the endless stream of people who seem to feel that my right to exist is up for debate! It never seems to occur to a lot of straight people that gayness is not something that is up to Y’ALL to decide about one way or the other. Sorry if I’m harsh but I am totally tired of hearing how “sickened” straight people are! Get over it!
I felt as if she was going to portray this character as gay she did him and gays everywhere no justice because she could of portrayed him as the strong wisdom filled wizard that he was. Not as most gays are portrayed on tv and how most people who are homohobic see gays on tv and in movies…
And I won’t get over it.. I am angry at her for going about it this way ..its like oh by the way .. well why didnt she let us know this and write him as such to set an example?????
That is where I was going with that. And those smart articulate gay out men who I know … more power to them .. I just think JK’s way to make a statement did nothing to help promote acceptance and tolerance..cough did I say that word? We shouldn’t have to be tolerant of something that should be accepted and not a subject that is taboo in most circles. So get over that….
October 24th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Do you really think that she did gays justice by making him gay as a afterthought???
that is what I am goin with there..I truely think she could of used the platform of the books in a better manner if this was her orginal intent..I dont believe it was…
TV/Movies have given stereotypes of gays over time .. She could of changed alot of people’s ideas about how it didnt matter to his students .. where it was not what defined him .
I won’t get over it because I know many gay people who don’t push it in my face that they are gay or that I am hetro or whatever .. It shouldn;t of been a issue period. JK wasted a huge opportunity..
October 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“I felt as if she was going to portray this character as gay she did him and gays everywhere no justice because she could of portrayed him as the strong wisdom filled wizard that he was. Not as most gays are portrayed on tv and how most people who are homohobic see gays on tv and in movies
She did portray him as a strong wisdom filled wizard—-who is gay.
“I won’t get over it because I know many gay people who don’t push it in my face that they are gay or that I am hetro or whatever…”
But it is fine for your heterosexuality to be pushed in MY face??? I don’t care about tv or movies. Let’s talk about reality. Fact is I am 52 years old.I have lived with the same man for 32 years. We have a 23 year old daughter about to finish college.I’ve worked at the same job for pushing 20 years. We own a house, have three dogs and take vacations and go to the grocery store. I have never harmed a child or anyone else. I go to my church, I socialize with my friends. I am not some movie stereotype for people to revies. I am not a “hot button issue” nor am I a exercise in moral debate. I am just as much a person with just as much a place in the universe as you. And you tell me you have gayness pushed into your face when I spend my day bombarded by heterosexuality?? This whole debate is happening because people read the books ASSUMING that Dumbledore was a straight man, Why? Because everyone is trained to expect heterosexuality. The bottom line is people didn’t expect him to be gay and that is what they are reacting to. Dumbledore came out. And were he real I know just how Dumbledore would feel because I don’t fit stereotypes—people don’t “expect” me to be gay either. Here is a fact, homophobia and hetrosexims are y’all straight people’s problem. You can choose to get over it or not I suppose but don’t expect to toss around phrases like “some fancy pants flaming queen” and”push it in my face” and imply that the word tolerance has some negative connotation around gay people and not have someone react to you. I’m willing to talk reasonably to anyone but I am not willing to let that go unchallenged.
“It shouldn;t of been a issue period. JK wasted a huge opportunity..”
I agree with that, it should NOT have been an issue. But it was anything but a waste!
Again, Penny/Greg I apologize if my tone is too strong,I have…clearly ;o) strong feelings about this!
October 25th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Bill you are assuming she is heterosexual.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:35 am
As I read the series, I developed in my mind a view of each character as I see them. Often stereotypes I have experienced, usually the first impressions, work their way in. However, after reflecting on what was read, sometimes those impressions do change.
It is accepted what is written in the series is cannon. But what about what discussions/posts/interviews of the author? Is that outside information cannon too? Not all authors will give many details about characters outside of the book or series like JK has done. For me, what is written/stated outside the series is cannon, as it is information that enlightens upon subject matter in the series.
I agree with Bill’s first post that it is “a wonderful thing” as it “has gotten people talking and thinking” about “the whole Dumbledore is gay revelation”. JK did portray Dumbledore as a Great Man, who turned down Minister of Magic several times.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:00 am
“Bill you are assuming she is heterosexual.”
Yeah I am. You are assuming “she “is a she. But I would guess I’m pretty safe as most gay people don’t get too worried about having gayness “shoved in their face”. And even if the person is gay, I would still say the same thing.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Well I will try to add something worth while and you correct me if I am off base. I have already said I have no idea what it means to be gay. I also have no idea what it means to be Canadian because I’m not. My thoughts are influenced by experiences and people I meet some happen to be gay some may be gay, some may be Canadian for all I know. I always do my best to judge a person by their character and actions. By judge I am talking about forming my own opinion about them. I have never seen one sturdy stereo type or trait that identifies a gay person or a bigot. I work with some men and women that happen to be gay and it’s no big thing. Texas Railroaders are not the most liberal minded people and occasionally there is a comment but generally everyone is respected because of hardwork, safe practices and individual personality. Most of the gay coworkers don’t wear signs identifing them as such. I say most because there is one in particular that has the stereotypical mannerisms that are TV show stereotypical. He is subject to being teased but more because he claims to be married and straight. ( His wedding band is a life bond type worn by same sex couples) He is young and probably afraid of the redneck attitude but actually just makes it worse by trying to pretend he isn’t. 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.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Mizz Andy,
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.
October 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Elizabeth, I guess peer pressure is the wrong term, more like, and I have to re read the chapter but my cousin has the book, I see that this person came into his life who was in a lot of ways very similar to him and a friendship grew and because DD was happy to finally find someone so akin to himself he was easily swayed by some of G’s suggestions as I am sure G was with DD. I see it like those intense friendships you can have as teenagers that are quick to form but also quick to fall apart but I never saw that the two were in love. Funny how we each interpret the same text with our own experiences in life.
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.
October 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Well I will try to add something worth while and you correct me if I am off base…..I always do my best to judge a person by their character and actions. By judge I am talking about forming my own opinion about them.”
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….)
October 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Leave Dumbledore Alone!
my feelings on the topic
October 27th, 2007 at 1:31 am
I have to take back my statement that Jo did this for kicks . . . It doesn’t fit her character or the level of attention and detail she has given to all of the characters in the book. Looking back at the story, the elements were always there, but the personal perceptions seem to be getting in everyone’s way here . . .
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 . . .
October 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
A Hero is Fallen: The rise and fall of Albus Dumbledore
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
October 27th, 2007 at 11:29 am
“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.”
“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.
October 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
The New York Yankees are the best team in MLB history! and before you bring up the whole thing about how the Yankees by all thair players, its not the mony that plays the game. The reason they get payed so much is because they are great players! look at A-rods season last year!
October 28th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Red Sox won three are they going for a sweep?
October 28th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Okay…so we have gotten back to the REAL important stuff…… baseball.
Dumbledore is still gay and yet life goes on in, remarkably, much the way it did before.
All is right with the world.
;0)
October 28th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
A lot of fans have objections with this new information about one of the msot beloved characters in modern literature, but I respect the author greatly for it. I know a lot of people think that if JKR thought Dumby being gay was important enough to say in answering a fan’s question, it should have been important enough to put in the books, but there are many reasons why this is NOT the case.
First of all, this series, the HARRY POTTER series, is written from Harry’s perspective, meaning that we only know things that are relevant to his character. There are very few instances throughout the plot, spanning seven long installments, where we see any scenes other than those Harry himself is a part of. The reason we didn’t learn that Harry’s headmaster was gay is simple, it did not matter! We learned absolutly nothing about Dumbledore’s personal life until the seventh book, and then only because it became an integral part in the search for horcruxes. If Dumbledore had been straight, we would have heard nothing of that either; he was Harry’s TEACHER, they were not friends who shared details of their personal lives. He eventually became Harry’s mentor and a father figure for the orphaned boy, but neither of these positions warrented insight into his love life.
Secondly, hints about Dumby’s sexual orientation are dropped throughout parts of Deathly Hallows, the only book where his personal life is discussed, such as when he and Grindlewald’s relationship is examined. The late night letters the two teenagers sent back and forth were discussed, with one such parchment from Albus reading something along the lines of, “but I do not complain (that grindlewald was thrown out of Durmstrang) for if that had not happened, we would not have met…”. This, thought not an obvious clue of Dumbledore’s affection, indicates, especially with our new found knowledge, that he regarded Gellert as more than just a friend.
Many fans opposed to this notion have also stated that this information is not relevent to the plot, but I disagree whole heartedly. The fact that Dumbledore was in love with the man who caused his sister’s, as well as countless others’, deaths is something that would haunt him everyday. As JK Rowling said, it adds enormous tragedy to an already brutal situation. This love blinded Dumbledore, not allowing him to see that his brilliant companion intended to use his power to inflict pain, rather than bring peace and goodness to the world. This insight into Dumbledore’s character helps us to understand, and in some ways excuse, his behavior.
Finally, tolerance, along with love, loyalty, and death, is one of the great themes of the series, and this latest fact emphasises that. The parallels between the prosecution of “Mudbloods” and “Blood Traitors” and the Holocaust and Nazi Germany has been confirmed as intentional by JKR, but one of the prejudices which always seemed conspiciously absent from the stories, atleast to me, was sexuality, something which is, in many ways, the great injustice of our generation. I also believe that, althought this is wonderful for gay rights and provides another brave gay role model, that was not the reason for JKR’s revelation. I think that, as she said, she simply always thought about her character in a certain way, and had just not said anything about it sooner. It is her right, as the creator and writer of this world for the last seventeen years, to decide who her characters are, and it is no one’s place, and certainly not ours, as readers and fans, to judge her for her convictions and decisions regarding them.
anyway, I love you guys, keep it up! sorry if I’m repeating what other people have said.
October 29th, 2007 at 5:46 am
Sweep it is!!!
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.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
You guys know that I’m ten years old, and I listen to your podcast.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
I completely agree with Bill on this one - the entire series is meant to be told through Harry’s perception - when you are young the idea of your teachers having ANY sexual preference is weird and not something you’d think about. I always got a sort of asexual vibe from most of the adults in the series - including the married ones. The entire subject of actual sex was avoided right up until the very last book - and even then it was very much hinted at.
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.
October 29th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
One more thing - I wonder if this will effect how Dumbledore is portrayed in the upcoming films….
October 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Did you ever see the movie Good Bye Girl where they have Richard Dyefuss’s character Elliot in a play and the director decided that the character was to be played Gay? How terrible it turned out and how it almost destroyed his career?
October 29th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
“Did you ever see the movie Good Bye Girl where they have Richard Dyefuss’s character Elliot in a play and the director decided that the character was to be played Gay? How terrible it turned out and how it almost destroyed his career”
So this may be bad for Dumbledore’s career…….?
;0)
October 29th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I saw that movie and he was a straight man forced to play a gay stereotype. I think it was more for humor than a political statement. My favorite gay theme movie is the Bird Cage. Robin Williams and Nathan Lane dealing with the ultra conservative Senator Gene Hackman. All this Dumbledore talk makes me want to see him doing the YMCA dance in Half Blood Prince though. Ginny my son is 11 and listens to every show as does my whole family. We mostly just sit and scream stuff at Greg though.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:24 am
I just wanted to commend everyone on the maturity and sincerity with which this topic was discussed. I have seen other websites/blogs about this topic and many of the threads were not handled with nearly the amount of level-headedness that was found here. True, there were a few misunderstandings but (to my knowlege) there were no personal attacks- and anything that might have been deemed offensive was usually clarified and explained. So thank you everyone for keeping the quality of discussion here mature and intelligent. I also wanted to thank those of you who spoke personally and honestly about your own reasons for either supporting or not supporting this news.
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.
November 1st, 2007 at 3:49 am
From the newest edition of the Daily Prophet (in print):
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.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:48 am
This is such a complex topic, with so many threads springing from Jo’s answer to a simple question that got at the heart of her series: since love is so important, did Dumbledore find true love?
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.