Wow, in a way this kind of makes sense. The most powerful, knowledgeable one is gay. I'm happy someone turned out not-straight. There are so many characters, one of them has to turn out not-straight. To bad it wasn't really in the books that much. I think that J.K. Rowling probably did come to this conclusion while writing the books but didn't want any more controversy or thought that, because HP is supposed to be a children/young adult's book, it shouldn't be in there. She also didn't really spend any time on any of the staff's romances. Except Hagrid's.
J.K. Rowling didn't tack it on into the books. Dumbledore isn't the main focus of the story, nor do we go into his more private life. (The Seventh Book is the closest we really come to him.)
Overall though, Dumbledore is a pretty neat guy, and the gay thing comes across as just another quirk of the greatest headmaster who ever lived.
Awww.... I can sort of sympathize with J.K. Rowling! I have some characters in some of my stories who are gay, but I doubt I can go fully into their stories without ruining the books because they aren't the main characters. Sadness! And she was probably rushed to finish the books that she really didn't have time to put that in.
And, even if she did put it in, I doubt the publishers would have let her keep it in. Because let's face it: we all love Dumbledore and everything, but in the end, Harry Potter is who the story is about. And, by the time of the seventh book, it would have been totally considered an infodump.
But... really, does it matter that much? He is who he is, no? I think it would have been better if she just let us decide what Dumbledore's deal was.
Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est.
"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy. What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the Master calls the butterfly." ~ Richard Bach
I'm not exactly bothered about him being gay or not - but it does feel as though she tacked it on for the sake of it. In a way, I'm disappointed that she didn't at least suggest the idea slightly more whilst writing the books - she didn't have to tell us outright, but she could have made us wonder.
Although, looking back on it (for those of us with a considerable level of immaturity), the statement from Griselda Marchbanks, in book 5 during Harry's OWLs, that Dumbledore had "...done things with a wand I'd never seen before" could perhaps be interpreted as a suggestion towards his sexuality XD
There's always been a lot of tension between Lois and me, and it's not so much that I want to kill her, it's just, I want her to not be alive anymore.
I think it's perfectly legitimate that Rowling doesn't reveal Dumbledore's sexuality in the books. We've all probably noticed that she carefully avoids controversial modern issues like religion (though there are the nutcases out there who say anyone who reads about magic is going to hell), abortion, and gay rights.
I think what she's trying to put forward is that wizards are above petty Muggle controversies, and she also wants to focus on the universal issues that HP brings up--war, terrorism, education.
If she had noted Dumbledore's sexuality in the book, it would have taken focus away from those essential conflicts. There are lots of things we don't know about characters in the books; we don't know about any of the Hogwarts teachers' love lives ('cept Snape and Hagrid), and we don't figure out a lot about Dumbledore until Book 7 anyway. Clearly, JKR didn't feel that his sexuality was that important--and that sentiment is a good thing.
My main fear with her revealing this is that people will accuse her of saying it only to attract more fans (which has already been mentioned in this thread and which is entirely possible, but it will also attract a lot of enemies) or that people will say his relationship with Harry was a matter of inappropriate sexual interest on Dumbledore's part, which is just unkind.
It also says a lot about the emphasis Dumbledore puts on love...he says that it's the most powerful thing in the world, and he would know!
-Colleen
(And yes...the fanfiction...*shudders*)
"My pet, I've been to the devil, and he's a very dull fellow. I won't go there again, even for you..."
I think everyone here is focussing too much on the fact that he was gay, rather than the fact that he loved the man he killed.
And the fact that JK chose not to reveal this piece of information - that he loved the man that he had to kill* - until after all the books were released irks me, because it's such a missed opportunity to add so much more emotion to Dumbledore's backstory.
I can't help but feel that Rowling thought, "Oh noes, they're forgetting about me! Must make statement that will make the news... hmm, who shall I make gay?"
(*I'm repeating myself, because everyone else seems to have missed that point)
Is it just me, or does that make his winks to Harry a little more... awkward?
I don't know. I always saw him as the gentle grandfather figure who could kick butt in a second, and... I'm just not sure the detail fits. (Don't go flaming me and lecturing me about how not all gay men are flowery or whatever -- I know. Believe me, I know. It's just not.... I don't know.)
Really, though, her comment could be taken as sarcasm, too. *shrugs*
Because it wasn't mentioned in the books, I'm going to choose to disregard it. Like Mesh, I'm not really surprised by it, but it still changes my perception of him, and I refuse to change my perception of the characters after the series is over. He'll always remain the same Dumbledore in my mind.
i too wish that this was mentioned even a little bit earlier, but at least his friendship w the man he killed was played up alot. that made me feel bad for dumbledore, that he had to kill his best friend (and his love as we later find out).
o and Cade: yea she didnt mention gay rights or abortion much if at all, but i cant help but think that the whole bit where harry had to die to save everyone was slightly a messianic allusion (therefore religion). but i agree that religion wasn't mentioned until the 7th book. Time Magazine noticed that, idk if anyone read that issue, but they wrote something about how God dies in Harry Potter (this was back b4 the 7th book was out when everyone was wondering who would die) because there is no God that Harry looks up to, and ultimately the higher being is love. i still think there was a slight biblical allusion in the 7th book tho.
I bet she was joking.
And no, I'm not a homophobe or whatever, but that is just too trivial for JKR to say about her books. HP has too much to it to be about sexual orientation. Honestly.
“We’re still here,” he says, his voice cold, his hands shaking. “We know how to be invisible, how to play dead. But at the end of the day, we are still here.” ~Dax
Teacher: "What do we do with adjectives in Spanish?"
S: "We eat them!"
xhalcyonx128 - Oh, I recognize the loads of religious allusion in HP. I was just saying she didn't go into addressing religious conflicts in the books. There are no fights over religion between characters. God is rarely brought up (in book 7, Harry at one point says "Thank God" and I have a whole discussion of why that happens but I won't bring it up now). I realize that there are lots of religious--and thus literary--allusions, i.e. Harry and/or Lily as a Christ figure.
Sureal makes a good point about him having to kill the man he loved; that would, admittedly, have been an incredible thing to learn and think about when it comes to Dumbledore. In a more accepting world, it would have added much more to the book. But as I said before, if Rowling had put it in, it would have drawn focus away from the central points of the book. We also have to remember that Rowling writes for children as well; though the book appeals to all levels of readers, we can't forget that a large part of her audience doesn't really understand homosexuality. And, as Snoink said, it would've been a big infodump.
It certainly shows a lot about Dumbledore's character, and his understanding of love, and why he struggles to impress upon Harry the power of love. "There are worse things...than death..." he says, and that's because he would know.
It might have been better for her to...keep Dumbledore's sexuality to herself. It's entirely possible that she did it for the attention now that the books are over with. I'll never read the books the same way again, and I'm not really sure if that'll be good or not.
I had questioned Dumbledore's sexuality before...he had so many inner struggles, and no romantic relationships with women that we know of, yet he appreciates the power of love, so I wasn't really sure what his deal was, but I didn't think it was important. Of course, now I know it is, because of the whole complicated Grindelwald thing, but that's a matter of love in general, not of homosexuality, and people should think of it that way.
-Colleen
"My pet, I've been to the devil, and he's a very dull fellow. I won't go there again, even for you..."
Gender:
Points: 1090
Reviews: 87