JK Rowling reveals truth about Dumbledore- He was gay

[Fanticon]

She knows what she's doing...the series is over, and now some people are really upset...even the people that may have defended her against the religious extremists calling her book the work of the devil...and now...more fuel for them...that is all. Darren...you're, a tool.

 

[Darren Daring]

She knows what she's doing...the series is over, and now some people are really upset...even the people that may have defended her against the religious extremists calling her book the work of the devil...and now...more fuel for them...that is all. Darren...you're, a tool.

Could you rephrase this into something that I understand?

 

[Fanticon]

Of all the things to come out and say...long after the last book, she makes a beloved character gay? Maybe you should watch Keith Olberman tonight.

 

[Darren Daring]

She was asked about it.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Of all the things to come out and say...long after the last book, she makes a beloved character gay? Maybe you should watch Keith Olberman tonight.

Does making him gay make him less beloved ?

 

[DOG LIPS]

Does making him gay make him less beloved ?

Only by the womens who's sexual fantasies were crushed.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Of all the things to come out and say...long after the last book, she makes a beloved character gay? Maybe you should watch Keith Olberman tonight.

Of all of her characters that she invented out of thin air from nothing, are there any that you wouldn't mind being gay?
Or should all the characters be straight?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Only by the womens who's sexual fantasies were crushed.

The crossover mystery novel were he has a torrid affair with Miss Marples is off

 

[AhabTheArab]

this thread still has legs eh... surpassed multiple threads with much longer lifetimes.... i love it...

 

[The Mighty Wind]

Not something i necessarily expected, but to be honest, I think in retrospect it gives another layer to his character, specifically involving why he would succumb to Grindelwald. Its kind of a shame really that this has to be such a hot topic issue for fans.

 

[Holly]

lolol you all love a homo. the world is still turning

 

[chaseter]

I can imagine the intense wand fights between Dumbledore and Grindewald...........hint hint wands...HINT

 

[The Lizard]

If it doesn't, then...*b00m*...he could be either.
Now are you going to sit there for 2 seconds and tell me that it would've caused as big a Hullaballumadorble with everyone, and there would be just as many insults hurled her way, and cynical, arrogant pronouncements about her "REAL" inner motives, if she had been asked the question, and had responded:

"Well, sorry to all of you fan-fic fans, but, Dumbledore is Straight. He had an unrequited affair with a witch named Julia Wigglebottom." ?!?

It's all because, Gay = Bad.

No, it's because gay = topic of watercooler discussion and increased news coverage. You, I and Jo Rowling know this. You really are starting to veer into Shyair/Won '08 territory with the contrary bickering and accusations.

In actually reading the books and hypothetically accepting that Dumbledore was attracted to Grindelwald when they were young, that actually raises some sticky, non-gay-friendly questions like:

-Dumby's gay crush not only blinds this otherwise brilliant person to the arrogance of Grindelwald, but actually gets Dumby to consider taking part in some of Grindy's evil, racist, fascist plans?

-After Grindy proves his evil by thoughtlessly killing Dumby's sister, only then does Dumby come to his senses and drop his "crush"?

-Since there is no historical reference to any Dumbledore romantic involvements, do we assume that he just gave up on gay love after the Grindelwald incident? Doesn't that open the door to dismissing the whole thing as a possible teenage phase Dumby went through? Or if not, how pathetic that he never desired to try and find another love after his first crush turned out to be evil incarnate?

...All conjecture of course, but it just shows how this can open up a pointless can of worms when Dumbledore was perfectly fine the way he's presented in the books -- as a mysterious, elderly, asexual Yoda-type character.


And -- I repeat AGAIN -- it doesn't matter what a fictional character's sexuality is, particularly when sexuality has nothing to do with the presentation of that character in the first place. HOWEVER, I have EVERY right to question the motivations and timing of this announcement without the mindless knee-jerk "homophobe" accusation being thrown my way. It's no different than me questioning whether or not George Lucas originally intended for Yoda to use a light saber or for Anakin to be a whiny bitch, or if that just got thrown in later on.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You guys have set it up so that, unless she specifically, explicitly wrote about a character's homosexual desires/experiences, or made a character's homosexuality integral to the plot line, she is not allowed to imagine any of her own characters as homosexual, without it being an ignoble act of imagination with ulterior motives.

OR, option #2, she MAY imagine a character as homosexual, but she must not ever admit it, even when asked. Otherwise, she is a smarmy, slimy, conniving, pot-stirring attention ****e

Do you realize that? It's insane.


And, me in Shyair country, lol, never heard that one before, nor did I think I would.
Do we have a predetermined number of posts someone can compose on one topic before they break through into severe Shyairity?
'Cause I guess it's more like Shyair resembles ME if we want to look at the malarky of the Bible as a topic.
wow.


The fact that people are SO extremely in denial about the possibility that a pretend wizard might be gay is so telling.
Again, don't tell me you'd say "WTF?!? Dumbledore is an asexual Yoda!!" if she said he had a highschool crush on a chick.

N Way.

 

[nickyg641]

No, it's because gay = topic of watercooler discussion and increased news coverage. You, I and Jo Rowling know this. You really are starting to veer into Shyair/Won '08 territory with the contrary bickering and accusations.

In actually reading the books and hypothetically accepting that Dumbledore was attracted to Grindelwald when they were young, that actually raises some sticky, non-gay-friendly questions like:

-Dumby's gay crush not only blinds this otherwise brilliant person to the arrogance of Grindelwald, but actually gets Dumby to consider taking part in some of Grindy's evil, racist, fascist plans?

-After Grindy proves his evil by thoughtlessly killing Dumby's sister, only then does Dumby come to his senses and drop his "crush"?

-Since there is no historical reference to any Dumbledore romantic involvements, do we assume that he just gave up on gay love after the Grindelwald incident? Doesn't that open the door to dismissing the whole thing as a possible teenage phase Dumby went through? Or if not, how pathetic that he never desired to try and find another love after his first crush turned out to be evil incarnate?

...All conjecture of course, but it just shows how this can open up a pointless can of worms when Dumbledore was perfectly fine the way he's presented in the books -- as a mysterious, elderly, asexual Yoda-type character.


And -- I repeat AGAIN -- it doesn't matter what a fictional character's sexuality is, particularly when sexuality has nothing to do with the presentation of that character in the first place. HOWEVER, I have EVERY right to question the motivations and timing of this announcement without the mindless knee-jerk "homophobe" accusation being thrown my way. It's no different than me questioning whether or not George Lucas originally intended for Yoda to use a light saber or for Anakin to be a whiny bitch, or if that just got thrown in later on.

On the other hand, this all serves to add an interesting layer to an originally somewhat 2-dimensional character. I mean, I would have preferred it to remain as it is in the books (as you put it, "a mysterious, elderly, asexual Yoda-type character"), but, still, it gives something to think about.

And I don't think she did this just to stir the pot. That's just not the kind of person Rowling is. I would think it's probably something that she had been thinking about since about the sixth book.

 

[The Lizard]

OR, option #2, she MAY imagine a character as homosexual, but she must not ever admit it, even when asked. Otherwise, she is a smarmy, slimy, conniving, pot-stirring attention ****e

Do you realize that? It's insane.

Well, ignoring the usual theatrical hyperbole you added there, my opinion that she did this simply because of documented criticism from pro-gay groups concerning a lack of gay Potter characters remains a possibility. Again, we have no way of knowing what's going on in her head.

And, me in Shyair country, lol, never heard that one before, nor did I think I would.
Do we have a predetermined number of posts someone can compose on one topic before they break through into severe Shyairity?
'Cause I guess it's more like Shyair resembles ME if we want to look at the malarky of the Bible as a topic.
wow.

Well Shyair was here long before you, but he usually didn't bring facts to the table during his bicker-fests with the regularity that you do. Mostly he was just faux-condescending arrogance. I like the new avy BTW.

The fact that people are SO extremely in denial about the possibility that a pretend wizard might be gay is so telling.
Again, don't tell me you'd say "WTF?!? Dumbledore is an asexual Yoda!!" if she said he had a highschool crush on a chick.

N Way.

No, I honestly think it's more a matter of having a sensitivity to pandering and manipulation. You gotta admit, the vast majority of posters on these boards are suspicious, untrusting, conspiracy-theory types (regardless of conservative or liberal leanings). So when a celebrity makes some surprise announcment, particularly a controversial one (even if in a perfect world it shouldn't be controversial at all) that grabs the spotlight, it's only natural for us to dissect it and uncover potential flaws.

 

[Carcharodon]

Dumbledore was ****ing fabulous.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

umm lizard... there wasn't that big of a movement to make a character gay... ya theres a big gay following... (theres a big following of everyone), but the book will always be known for a children's book, if she was doing it for attention she woulda put it in the last book

 

[Spade]

You guys have set it up so that, unless she specifically, explicitly wrote about a character's homosexual desires/experiences, or made a character's homosexuality integral to the plot line, she is not allowed to imagine any of her own characters as homosexual, without it being an ignoble act of imagination with ulterior motives.

OR, option #2, she MAY imagine a character as homosexual, but she must not ever admit it, even when asked. Otherwise, she is a smarmy, slimy, conniving, pot-stirring attention ****e

Do you realize that? It's insane.


And, me in Shyair country, lol, never heard that one before, nor did I think I would.
Do we have a predetermined number of posts someone can compose on one topic before they break through into severe Shyairity?
'Cause I guess it's more like Shyair resembles ME if we want to look at the malarky of the Bible as a topic.
wow.


The fact that people are SO extremely in denial about the possibility that a pretend wizard might be gay is so telling.
Again, don't tell me you'd say "WTF?!? Dumbledore is an asexual Yoda!!" if she said he had a highschool crush on a chick.

N Way.

I get the feeling I'm going to get sucked into all of the flaming, but I have to interject: while it may be something we as a heterosexually-dominant society tend to stereotype, most people paired Harry off with a female character in future speculation prior to this book. For heterosexuals, it is the norm to suppose that males pair off with females. I'm not saying that's right, but it could explain the outrage. Whereas the social norm is hetero pairings, insinuations of homosexuality comes with the baggage of stigma.

The idea that Harry or anyone else in the book who is seen as hetero to the reader might have had a relationship with a member of the same sex is seen as some sort of insult to the character. It's a shame, really. I don't have an issue with it. Nevertheless, it's easy for people to claim that she's "ruining the character" when a social stigma is attached to the subject in question. One could compare the reaction to Dumbledore being homosexual to Sirius being revealed to be a lying killer all along, but I doubt even something like that would receive the media attention of this one detail. Why? Easy- controversy sells, and while murder is all over the news an outing always brings attention.

I think this is going to backfire after a while. Potter fans are seen as desperate nerds with no lives as it is- see Toven's thoughts for more. While this should just be seen as a detail to the character we didn't know before, it's just a matter of time before it starts making implications in the mind of heterosexual and cynical people alike about the fanbase in general. The fan fiction and religious movements against the series on mere principal is heavy enough without additional ammunition to fire.

 

[Carcharodon]

umm lizard... there wasn't that big of a movement to make a character gay... ya theres a big gay following... (theres a big following of everyone), but the book will always be known for a children's book, if she was doing it for attention she woulda put it in the last book

Actually, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think what's mostly being said is that she's made this, "revelation," to put herself back into the spotlight after the initial fervor and hype for her and her books had died down.

They're saying that this was a spontaneous revelation, not something that she had planned or initially worked to build up and reveal.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

why is every freaking out about this

 

[Carcharodon]

why is every freaking out about this

Yeah, seriously. Even if she is simply attempting to get back into the spotlight, everybody that cares so damn much is playing right into her hands.

 

[Spade]

Actually, I don't think that's necessarily true. I think what's mostly being said is that she's made this, "revelation," to put herself back into the spotlight after the initial fervor and hype for her and her books had died down.

They're saying that this was a spontaneous revelation, not something that she had planned or initially worked to build up and reveal.

Still, was it necessary? She could have just wrote a book on Dumbledore and come out with this now to draw people in. If this is just to draw attention, it'll be a matter of time before she's a blip on the radar again. At least if she revealed this before a new book she'd draw up some controversy. Alone, as an additional, it just seems sort of...fruitless.

 

[Carcharodon]

Still, was it necessary? She could have just wrote a book on Dumbledore and come out with this now to draw people in. If this is just to draw attention, it'll be a matter of time before she's a blip on the radar again. At least if she revealed this before a new book she'd draw up some controversy. Alone, as an additional, it just seems sort of...fruitless.

The reaction alone would suggest otherwise.

 

[Captain_BluTac]

maybe this was some detail of her character she always had but felt she couldnt reveal prerelease of the final book for fear of censorship series cancellation or even christian activists