http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

I am not surprised. Grindelwald apparently.

Discuss.

__________________

I heard this on the radio yesterday.. I thought it was a joke.. it didn't really seem like someething she'd put in.

I think maybe she is joking?
I've got no problem with her putting someone gay in, but he would be the last person I'd have thought.


Edit: I have to say though.. reading the comments on that story is pretty interesting. (Click on "All comments" and read from the bottom up)

I was surprised, I hadn't thought of the sexuality of the characters in any way, shape or form. Now that I know, I'm very pleased that she revealed that piece of information about him. Not only does it give depth to the character but it sends out a positive message to the readers - a central gay character who isn't overly camp or slightly creepy... good on you, JK!

__________________

I'm not sure if any of you visit Mugglenet (the largest Harry Potter site), but the founder of Mugglenet was on TV for about two minutes discussing it. (It was funny, actually, the newscaster pronounced Gellert Grindelwald "Gellard Grindinwald.")
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RGUfK9FOL5c

I don't think that it's a huge deal that Dumby's gay. I was a little surprised because I'd never actually thought about his sexual orientation. But about the mother saying that she wouldn't let her kid read the book because of Dumbledore's sexual orientation... honestly, I think that's completely ridiculous. In the books, I don't think there's been any real evidence that would lead anyone to believe that Dumbledore is gay. Plus, way to teach your kid open-mindedness, tolerance...

__________________

Completely agree with that. Looking on various boards about this topic, so many people are saying parents will stop reading this to their children. But why? Nowhere in the book does it say he's gay, and even if it did, not reading it to them just encourages homophobia, doesn't it?

There's a lot of interesting discussion here about it.
It can get pretty deep now & then, particularly bringing in religious issues as well.

So now that this has been revealed... do you think it'll affect the way Michael Gambon (if he actually holds on until the 7th movie) or any other actor do the Dumbledore role?

__________________

I hope not. I'm not sure if the actor already knew about it - I know the director did because he was going to introduce a childhood love interest (female) of Dumbledore's and JK told him why he shouldn't. I don't see why this would affect the character's portrayal as nothing about him has changed - just something has been revealed.

__________________

Mmm, I was going to say that.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Gambon doesn't read the books or interviews, although even if that's true, I guess someone'll tell him.

Even if it's subconcious, I reckon it will affect it. He'll be like "Wow, I'm playing a gay character now, better play a gay character."

I really really hope he doesn't, though. I already don't think he's that good for the part, and I seriously hope he, or the director, or whoever, doesn't try and make him all camp or something like that. It'll totally spoil it.

I don't think this should affect how Michael Gambon portrays Dumbledore. Again, nothing about Dumbledore is different. Dumby's still Dumby, we just know some extra stuff about him.

Michael Gambon doesn't read any of the books. (Which is why a bunch of fans don't like him.) I think he's a good actor, but he misses out on the quirky, fun personality Dumbledore has. His intensity is great, though.

Anyways, once JKR revealed that Dumbledore was gay, she also said "In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, 'Dumbledore's gay!' " (This can be found in the transcript provided in the link tasha gave.)

__________________

I always thought he looked the type.

__________________
[/url]

Pretty good persuasive writing here - http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection.../defence.shtml

It's a bit long. I scanned through some bits. It mainly sums up why it shouldn't be a huge deal that Dumby's gay.

My favourite bits:
"Doesn't this throw a different light on his relationship with Harry?
No, of course it doesn't. Homosexuals and paedophiles are not the same thing. Dumbledore's relationship with Harry is not affected by Dumbledore's sexuality. If you think that Dumbledore was pursuing an inappropriate relationship with Harry just because you now know that he's gay, surely when you thought he was straight you thought he was doing the same with Hermione or Ginny? This whole argument is ridiculous: just because Dumbledore was attracted to men does not mean he was attracted to Harry, or to young boys in general.
-------------
But now I can't think of Dumbledore without imagining him with other men!
Why on earth not? When you thought Dumbledore was straight, could you not think of him without imagining him with women? Why on earth would you think about that aspect of his life whenever he's mentioned? When he's talking to Harry about Voldemort, or carrying out his headmasterly duties, this sort of thing isn't relevant in the slightest.
----------------------
It wasn't long ago that racism was rampant and accepted as a general part of society; now it is not. The same is true of sexism, anti-Semitism, religious discrimination of other types and so on. I'm not saying that no racists, sexists or anti-Semites still exist, but to be one has become the socially unacceptable stance rather than the other way round.

I had believed that we were moving in the same way with homophobia, and that it was becoming a social taboo to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation (which after all hurts nobody else and involves activities between consenting adults only). This is certain true to an extent, but it only takes an event like the announcement about Dumbledore for it to become clear how much work still needs to be done in accepting everyone as equals regardless of their sexuality.

The bottom line is that discrimination, of all forms, is unacceptable. Very few people these days think it is acceptable to treat somebody unfavourably because he is black, or because she is female. JKR herself, during her US tour, described the HP books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance", where she has quite deliberately moved to make her characters real and human, with all the idiosyncrasies that come with it. She has, at every turn, resisted making her heroes square-jawed hunks with copper-flecked eyes, and her heroines images of perfection that shine with radiant beauty. This is one of the things that made Simon Walters' 2006 attack on her portrayal of overweight characters (which resulted in our "Fat is a Feminist Issue" article in defence of JKR) so ridiculous. Dumbledore's sexuality is part of this process of tolerance that Jo is promoting.

__________________

I think someone stated as a possible reason Rowling didn't say Dumbledore was gay was because it would decrease in the books popularity. While that may be true, others have already pruasively stated it just never needed to come out in the books. This revelation doesn't matter at all; he's still a kickass character :). And even though I've seen people actually say they'll get rid of their HP books and prevent their children from reading them, I'd just like to say they're dimwitted close-minded people.

__________________
Credits go to Demented for the pie!

Oh, is it really

Anyway, I find the announcement a bit strange because an author can put all he wants into a story when he constructs the discourse (the books, in this case). The story we access is something we construct on the base of what we read. I never got the impression that the Harry Potter world was supposed to exist outside the books and the films, and I thought that creation and expansion was to be limited to JK Rowling's books (and possibly the films' adaptations of these books). Now, all of a sudden, she gives more insights into the world she's created. That in itself is not strange, but the world in the Harry Potter series was not quite as important as, say, in Lord of the Rings. I am therefore not at all surprised that Tolkien included appendices with additional information on the world the events take place. In Harry Potter, however, the world seemed more of a vehicle for a specific adventure -- which is a lot more shallow and does not require descriptions that the story itself did not demand for a coherent narrative.

Because of this, I feel that my reply is close to "So, what?".

And sorry, I'm in the middle of a final on Narratology (it's one I have to finish over the course of 4 days, at home, oddly), so I'm extending all this to you, poor readers.

__________________

homophobia is such a strong word, innit? I wonder why its used in all contexts. I mean, there's racism, and there's xenophobia. Racism is bad, as its a willful choice to be a git. Xenophobia is an irrational fear. A phobia. Tantamount to an illness really.

Anyway... as much as it is anyone's right to live the way they choose, shouldn't it also be anyone's right to disagree with other people's choices if they so wish? And if they are genuinely phobic, perhaps those people should be extended the same consideration as the people they are afraid of?

In the case of Dumbledore, he's a very old man and the thought of him doing any sexual activity gives me the willies. hehe Like imagining your grandparents at it or something... *shudder*

There was never any sexual reference to Dumbledore (or any characters??) that I recall. So I think if JK had turned round and said 'Dumbledore's heterosexual' - its just gonna conjure (magic reference. check me.) up thoughts of sex. Pointless really I think.

I waffle.

Ta.

__________________

There are clear distinctions between racism, xenophobia and homophobia. (i've gotten in trouble for stating this before). One can be xenophobic without being racist or homophobic, and same goes for the other 2 distinctions.

Homophobia on dumbledore would be kinda pointless. If in the mind of the reader/fan there's a social stigma that homosexuals are by default perverts, sex addicts and generally sick people, then Dumbledore's in trouble. But nothing in the book suggests that he falls into any of those categories, thus cancelling out any reason to be homophobic towards dumbledore, as he's neither a pervert, a sex addict or hes going to try and convert anybody into a homosexual, like most homophobics fear homosexuals will try do to them (and i think most homophobes secretly eroticize, and perhaps secretly act on this fear). And this might help the homosexual community in its efforts to destigmatize being gay, because, come on, they're people like everyone else.

I think it's rather nice she's revealed this bit.

__________________

So it should be sexualitism or something?

Of course, and this was explained in the article posted by gracie. Everyone's got the right to their own opinions, and people keep trying to use the "But we've got freedom of speech" argument to justify their discrimination. Society, however, ranks "The right to freedom from discrimination" higher than freedom of speech.
And rightly so.

Well, yeah...exactly. But she was asked a question about his love life, what's she going to do, lie?

Well there was a fair bit of kissing in the last couple of books...
And again, she was asked the direct question. She's hardly going to lie.

True. Like lots of people have been (wrongly) associating the fact that he's homosexual with him having had relationships with, or feelings for, Harry.
Which is of course ridiculous, because then would you beforehand have said there was something going on between him and Hermione?!

Oh wow, after reading some more responses on this announcement (I don't mean you guys here) I'm quite surprised how people view homosexuality! Is it so hard? Heterosexuality = boy + girl, homosexuality = boy + boy or girl + girl. No further implications.

Jeez, if I were to convert a heterosexual guy into loving me, wouldn't that be even weirder than a heterosexual guy trying to convert a girl into loving him? That's such a bizarre thought!

__________________

From a reader's POV, yes, the books do not need to be explained anymore than they have been in the text. However, from the author's point of view this world she has created is very real and the details that were only ever in her head and never on the page were probably essential to the way she wrote. What she knows about all the characters undoubtedly influenced the way she wrote them and wrote about the things they did and the decisions they made.

With Dumbledore being the age he is/was, there was probably some kind of stigma attatched to his sexual orientation when he was young. Judging from what we read in the books, this additional quality of his character may have affected his judgement and how he viewed himself. Of course, his deep affection/love for Grindelwald (whatever his name is) blinded him to that characters negative qualities, just as everyone is blinded to the unattractive parts of their first love - well, I know I was at least! So yes, the fact that JK knew in her head that he was gay and that this was an explaination for his actions when he was young obviously helped shape the story.

Yes, this book isn't LOTR but I think just as much as JK's soul and thoughts and loving contstruction went into it as JRR's did into his masterpiece. Actually, for me the real wonder of LOTR WAS the amount of detail revealed around the story. The histories, the languages, the geography, the politics etc - so you never know, maybe JK is sitting on a information-mine that is just as rich. I know the writing style is not comparable and that every historical linguistics student for all time will worship Tolkein for his incorporation of certain poems and sagas, but JK's audience was the modern-day pre-teen to teenager agegroup. It's quite a different audience. And call me unsubtle, but I do get a kick out of the mythological references she throws in. So yes, I expect she just would like to share with her fans all the reasons behind the characters, all the details that only she knows. And why not? The annoncement 'Dumbledore is gay' I feel probably dumbs down the original intent for her revelation.

EDIT: Oh, yuk, long post. Thanks Nay for making your point - I miss this kind of discussion!

__________________

JK did a Q and A thing for the school I went to (her daughter goes there). Someone asked how much she was influenced by Greek Mythology and she said not at all, the big liar.

...he looks gay.
(no offense intended)

__________________

Well, if all gay men wear old-fahioned glasses, say the odd non-sensical thing, have a wardrobe full of long dresses and more wrinkles than they should be proud of, they I guess I'm a gay man too... omg so is my mum.

I mean, HOW does he look gay? It's hardly a typical look he's sporting.. :s

__________________

Vik, you liar, you don't have wrinkles!

Yes, how does Dumbledore look gay? I just always saw him as a very cool wizard with an awesome sense of style. I mean, come on. Blue, twinkling robes. Purple robes with gold stars. I love purple.
Dumbledore wore the normal type of clothing for a wizard. He was just described as a little more majestic than others.

__________________

I'm a Harry Potter fan etc. but when I heard of this news..I couldn't help but not care. Dunno but *shrugs* more power to Dumbledore

__________________

Hmm... I think the actor (Michael Gambon) who portrays Dumbledore would take exception to that comment... considering he has been married and recently fathered a child with his lover!

Similarly, Richard Harris wasn't either!

__________________