Dumbledore is gay -- Rowling

JK Rowling has taken Albus Dumbledore -- the wizard father-figure of her Harry Potter books -- out of the (broom) closet, stating that she always thought of him as gay:

Speaking at Carnegie Hall on Friday night in her first U.S. tour in seven years, Rowling confirmed what some fans had always suspected -- that she "always thought Dumbledore was gay," reported entertainment Web site E! Online.
Rowling said Dumbledore fell in love with the charming wizard Gellert Grindelwald but when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark arts than good, Dumbledore was "terribly let down" and went on to destroy his rival.
That love, she said, was Dumbledore's "great tragedy."
"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," she said.
The audience reportedly fell silent after the admission -- then erupted into applause.

Link (via Making Light)

Update: The LOLcats are all over this one (Thanks, Xeni!)

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

More at Boing Boing

Ants and Stars: Bruce Sterling and Jasmina Tesanovic visit the Sardinia Radio Telescope in Italy

The Snowden Principle

David B.

Well, this is kinda interesting, but I think it reveals much more about Rowling as a writer than anything important about the characters. I’m liking her more and more. I’m looking forward to her next project.

It will be interesting to see if this info has any impact on the last two films…

David B.
schmod

I was actually sort of expecting there to be some sort of gay character in the last book.

Like the above poster mentioned, Lupin would have been perfect for the role. (Alternatively, there were numerous other minor characters that gave off that sort of vibe)

On one hand, I commend Rowling for this, but on the other, I can’t help but think that leaving it out of the book was a cop-our (although she *certainly* doesn’t need or even particularly want any more money).
virgil

Dan, it didn’t sound like she was trying to impress anyone. It sounds like it was something she thought of as a backstory, and unnecessary to broadcast.

Also, I’m not sure gay people need to be informed of their normalcy as much as people who think that gays are not normal. Need to. Be informed, that is. Of normalcy. Theirs.

Help.
KiltBear

There are two issues here.

The first is Rowling’s “possible mistake” at not having any gay characters with relationships to talk about as part of the story. If a romantic relationship is explicitly mentioned in the books, it is always a straight one. She wrote of no gay romances.

The second and more important issue here is everyone else’s damnable assumption that everyone else in the books is straight unless explicitly called out to be otherwise.

ANY of the other adults or kids in the story might be gay too. The problem is less of whether or not Ms Rowling calls their sexuality out explicitly but rather YOUR assumption that unless stated otherwise the character is hetero.

The problem is that YOU ASSUMED that Dumbledore was STRAIGHT. Apparently you were wrong, he was not.

Get over yourselves.
alphaman

I think J.K’s head has been cracked recently. The cultural divide among which these books are read just think of it. I mean its not just UK. People from all cultures and backgrounds read her books. She shouldn’t have done this. And I don’t Believe that. I can believe what ever she says about the story but i REFUSE to believe this thing. And for that I Will right a research paper based of the text from harry potter books. I will PROVE that Dumbly is not a GAY. He might be a “gay”(happy man) but not GAY. And the fact that SHE has introduced an unnecessary controversy and hurt Millions of harry potter fans from esp from diverse cultural backgrounds. I will fight on every forum to prove that Dumbledore is not gay. If you are intrested to join the fight contact me at deathlyblow@yahoo.com.com

How about SIRIUS or the old VOLDY
were they gays too *sarcastic smile*.
looks like her whole book is full of gays. Stupid Woman that JK
Hamish MacDonald

All her epiloguing in the last book involves characters being married and having bred. So I would chalk this up as a lack of imagination on her part: that’s the only sort of happy ending she’s capable of imagining.

And thus another generation of gay people grows up ingesting subtle cues from our meta-narrative that they are somehow shameful and that there is no happy ending for them.

Myself, I’m trying to write novels in which one of the lead characters is openly gay. I know this makes me commercially unsaleable, but I figure it’s my responsibility to be the change I want to see in the world. So I’m writing novels in which characters who happen to be incidentally gay are caught up in a bigger story. (Usually just one of the characters, but that seems to be enough to relegate the thing to the “Gay Lit” genre.)

There’s more fun to be had making up new stories than waiting for table-scraps from people who can’t be expected to understand the reality of it because it’s not theirs.

HamishMacDonald.com if you want to read them.
virgil

V(irtual) D(espot);

Don’t be so paranoid. In no way was I implying that gay people should keep their sexuality under wraps. Be as demonstrative as you want, when you want, and where you want, and I and all my friends, straight and gay, will cheer you on, if we can be bothered to tear our attention away from our own lives. But you’re living in real life, with real human rights.

We’re talking about an authors choices about the structure of a work of fiction. And this particular author seems to have decided that this particular facet of this particular character’s story didn’t need to be in the foreground of this particular story she was telling. Why? Was she afraid? Was she bored? Was she made overly horny? I don’t know and neither do you. It’s a book. Author’s choice. Sorry, Charlie.

There are lots of chracteristics, positive and negative, that might be important to some readers, and not to others, that never make it out of the author’s head and onto the page. Someone’s an alcoholic. Someone writes beautiful poems. Someone’s moonlighting in another book altogether.

She was asked about it, and she readily and simply agreed that it was part of his backstory, without over- or de- emphasizing it. Call it cowardice if you want, but I think you’re getting somewhat overly serious about a fictional wizard in a kid’s book.

What exactly is it that you wanted anyway?
Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator

Everyone agrees that Rowling doesn’t need to worry about money or critical reaction, so let’s assume that she doesn’t. As far as I’m concerned, what she’s done is waited until the book was out, shipped, sold, and read by bazillions of kids … and then revealed that Dumbledore is gay.

What this means is that there’s not a thing their parents, librarians, or teachers can do about it. The book is out, and Dumbledore is too. Score one for J. K. Rowling.

Franko (3): clearly, the thing to do now is figure out what Tonks and Dumbledore were up to.

Alphaman (18), you can write whatever you want, but that non-gay Dumbledore is your invention, not J. K. Rowling’s. She’s the author. Your Dumbledore can’t usurp the place of hers. All the Harry Potter books you’ve read and enjoyed still have a gay Dumbledore in them.

I have some questions for you:

– What do you mean by “cultural divide”?
– Do you identify with Dumbledore as a character?
– How do you think this revelation has hurt Harry Potter fans?
– What does the fans’ “diverse cultural backgrounds” have to do with it?
– How do you know other characters aren’t gay as well?

And the big question:

– Why should gay characters only appear in works of fiction when their being gay is relevant to the plot?

I remember when people said almost exactly the same things about including “unnecessary black characters” in movies and TV shows. I don’t see much difference between those opinions and yours.

HJ03 (24), what determines whether a gay character’s sexual orientation is “integral to the plot”?

VD (25), care to comment on that article CammoBlammo linked to?
yurei

Wow…he’s gay…who really cares? He’s a fictional character in a book written at a twelfth-grade reading level. A person’s – or in this case a character’s – sexuality should not define them as a person or their role in life, especially when it becomes a stereotype for the sole purpose of sensationalism.
MOONBAT

Harry Potter and the Velvet Goldmine
neven

Good luck righting your paper, Alphaman. I suspect there will be many wrongs in it to keep you busy.
Flying Squid

I’ll definitely read the paper. I read anything where LOTS of various WORDS are CAPITALIZED for EMPHASIS.

I’ve been lobbying Nature to do that for years, but they’re too set in their ways.
PatGund

“And I don’t Believe that. I can believe what ever she says about the story but i REFUSE to believe this thing.”

You can prove it all you want. However, *She’s* the author of the books, (I seriously doubt Christopher Marlowe wrote them), and she can do whatever she wants *with* them. If she says that Dumbledore was better at the swish than the flick, then guess what? That’s canon, it’s straight from the author’s mouth, and she’s the only one who can say otherwise.
abb3w

Err, no offense to any other senior bachelors out there, but it seemed rather likely to me. He’s over a hundred, world-famous, respectably employed, and there’s no hint of any female love interest having ever been in his life since his sister died?

To quote PvP’s Francis Ottoman, “Gaayyyy….”
Flying Squid

Usually when a gay man is said to have a beard, they mean his show wife/girlfriend…
Carlos

Just want to point out that the sentence right after the one Cory quotes is the one I found the most releaving in the article:

“Rowling, 42, said if she had known that would be the response, she would have revealed her thoughts on Dumbledore earlier.”

Revealed where, precisely? In the novels, perhaps? Did she withhold this information because she thought it would be unpopular? Backs up what Dan was saying in post 2.

Also, as a side note for you Potter fans: don’t you think this is precisely the sort of detail scandal-loving Rita Skeeter would have revealed in her tell-all biography?

I’m actually kinder to Rowling in my own blog post, but I won’t take up more space here.
june

All her epiloguing in the last book involves characters being married and having bred. So I would chalk this up as a lack of imagination on her part: that’s the only sort of happy ending she’s capable of imagining.

And thus another generation of gay people grows up ingesting subtle cues from our meta-narrative that they are somehow shameful and that there is no happy ending for them.

Because gay people never get married–or if that’s not allowed where they live, live together in a monogamous lifelong relationship; or have children? Umm.

I’m childfree and celibate, and I didn’t get a “subtle cue” that my life is “shameful” and incapable of having a happy ending. Marriage and family are what constitutes a happy ending for the majority of civilization, and I’m not so self-absorbed that I don’t realize that, or demand that popular authors include a female character that lives like I do.
EnglishNerd

Authors say lots of things, and readers do not always listen to them. I think Rowling saying she always thought Dumbledore was gay will send people back to look through the texts for hints and clues to that, and I’m sure people will find them. I don’t remember there being anything specifically one way or the other, so if people automatically assumed Dumbledore was hetero, then that says more about them than it does about the author. And author’s don’t get the last word on their texts, if they did we wouldn’t have an English degree, and we wouldn’t have so many versions of Hamlet. Readers play a vital role in ascribing meaning to texts, and I think by relinquishing that you undercut much of the value of reading.
CammoBlammo

@V(irtual)D(espot)

That’s an interesting point you make about ‘if it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage.’ According to *this article* that’s the exact reason Dumbledore’s heterosexuality never made it to the screen.
Chorske

@V(irtual)D(espot)

Not sure what all of this has to do with taking artistic chances. She never mentioned his sexuality in the books because it was completely irrelevant to the plot. The books are about Harry, not the hot teen years of young Dumbledore.

Rowling has simply stated that she conceived the character as gay, which is pretty much good enough for me.
NarmGreyrunner

I have to say as an outsider looking in, I’ve never been able to get into the Harry Potter series and have been a long time fan of the Forgotten Realms universe of fantasy-fiction, as opposed to Harry Potter’s world.

But like I said as an outsider looking at this I have to say I get a less than ideal impression of Rowling. With the way it has been presented in media and with her quotes it feels more to me that she’s pandering to her audience, also by adding in this last master-stroke of intrigue it’s guaranteeing her books will never be forgotten, because after the series was done she arbitrarily assigned a sexual orientation to one of the main characters.

She may all along have imagined Dumbledore as a homosexual, but to someone not familiar with the series it seems like a sham to make her books seem deeper.

Hamish MacDonald: if your interested in a series that actually used a gay main character, herald mage Vanyel Ashkevron in the books by author Mercedes Lackey was a homosexual character, although there were points where his orientation did play a part of the plot. My brother was a big fan of hers.
dEFROG

Seems like Fox News should be all over this — this is exactly the kind of non-issue Sean Hannity could do three whole hours on. If they can argue ad nauseum over flag lapel pins …

Personally, I subscribe to the “she never mentioned it before because it would have killed the series and it’s all anyone would talk about when Harry Potter’s name came up” theory. I also think that says far more about society than it does about Rowling’s motives. It’s a textbook (so to speak) example of why many gays stay in the closet for as long as they do.
Jesse M.

It’s worth pointing out that Rowling didn’t make a big deal of this “announcement”, it just came up during the course of a Q&A. And since the final book was published she’s been dropping all sorts of tidbits about the backstories of different characters and their fates after the end of the series, this was just another one of those tidbits…see these earlier Q&As with Rowling, for instance:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

http://www.mugglenet.com/app/news/full_story/1156
hjo3

I think it’s great that Dumbledore was gay.

But if it had been mentioned in the books too many people would have focussed on it. Come on, you know they’d have made it a big discussion on The View or FOX & Friends. And that kind of attention would have changed the books’ cultural significance. I, and I’m sure JK Rowling as well, would have hated for the books to simply become known as “that series with the gay wizard.”

This is why gay characters aren’t included in so many works of fiction. Because of the nature of the “issue,” it detracts from the primary story when it’s not an integral detail. Can you imagine how Star Trek: TNG would’ve been treated by society at large if Data had been gay?

It’s stupid that things like that are usually only seen as attempts to “make a statement,” but that’s the world we live in for now.
Santos

The news made my co-worker happy. And led to a discussion about the BBC show Thornwood’s main protagonists being bi. Gay people need to hear that they are as normal as anyone else is.
musicman

I still can’t believe that this is news. Maybe the last book wasn’t selling so well? Or are they keeping it in the media for the Xmas lead up…
gobo

I think it was highly alluded to in the last book, with Rita Skeeter’s expose of Dumbledore hinting darkly at “more than a polite relationship” between Dumbledore and Harry. I doubt she’d have included that if it wasn’t already at least an open secret among her readers.
sexyrobot

That love, she said, was Dumbledore’s “great tragedy.”…

because, of course, gay love is nothing BUT a tragedy…
and he dies before the end, right? thought so.

how exactly is this supposed to be good for the gays?
Dan Wineman

Of course, by never mentioning or alluding to this in the text, she avoided all risk of the controversy affecting sales. How courageous.

What’s next, we find out Rowling is a hero for racial equality because she’s “always thought” of Harry as being black?

Sorry, not impressed.
V(irtual)D(espot)

@ Virgil:

The notion that sexual orientation is “unnecessary to broadcast” is almost quaint in this, the 21st century, and yet still mightily insulting.

Heterosexuals broadcast their sexuality in every conceivable and conspicuous fashion. It’s only when homosexuals do the same that the term “broadcasting” is trotted out, and (well-intentioned) liberals claim orientation-blindness.

This is the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty that Rowling obviously suffered from during the course of her writing, or … perhaps her editing?
chezzo

@ Santos

I think u mean Torchwood?
chezzo

@ Sexyrobot

She meant that the fact he ended up fighting and killing the man he loved was his great tragedy. Idiot.
V(irtual)D(espot)

First, HJO3 (and anybody else who believes the BB headline) – Dumbledore was / is not gay. Rowling’s assertion to the contrary is nothing more than idle speculation. As they say in the theater: If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage.

And never mind your arrogance at concluding a major character’s orientation is “not an integral detail” – do you honestly think that making Dumbledore’s explicit would have reduced the cultural significance of this mega-selling series? If yes, that doesn’t say much for Rowling’s prowess as an author.

Actually, I think it would have lent a little credibility to all the bllsht I and a lot of non-fans politely swallow about that supposed significance. The mere fact that this series sold so well seems to be the primary basis for the claim anyway.

Making art is about (or should be about) taking chances. If making an old fckng wizard in a make-believe universe gay is too great an artistic chance to take … well, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry. Or possibly puke.
chezzo

Oops sorry my bad, he didn’t actually *kill* Grindlewald, just defeated and imprisoned him. But my point still applies.
savage_lucy

@ Gobo – are you saying that Rowling was implying a sexul or romantic relationship b/w Dumbledore and Harry? Considering what kind of response this new information is going to draw from the ultra-conservative witchcraft-is-the-devil’s-work crowd, that would be an absolutely ridiculous thing to do. I guarantee that the mere fact there was an elderly homosexual man teaching at a boarding school will prompt further calls to ban these books by crackpot religious conservatives. Rita Skeeter said a lot of stuff that had no basis in fact, anyway.

I like the idea of Dumbledore being gay, and this having no real bearing on the story – in fictional world populated by so many characters, it stands to reason that at least one or two of them will be gay. However, the way that Rowling now explains the back story, Dumbledore’s love of Grindelward IS relevent to his motivations, and for this not to be clearer in the books is a cop out. It didn’t have to be a big deal, but you know if it had been a heterosexual relationship in which one partner felt betrayed by the other one turning to the dark side, it would have been made loud and clear.
Chorske

@savage_lucy

I think @Gobo was suggesting that Rita Skeeter would be aware of ‘rumours’ surrounding Dumbledore’s sexual orientation, and that her comments about a “more than polite relationship”- which I didn’t catch on to at all when I read the book- would in fact be an attempt to besmirch both Harry and Dumbledore. Such a relationship would of course be frowned upon among Muggles and Wizards alike.

As for Grindenwald- at no point does Rowling suggest that he was gay too. She merely says that young Dumbledore was drawn to him, leaving us to speculate about what went down, uh, I mean, what actually happened between them.
franko

being gay, and having dumbledore be one of my favorite characters, i can (uh, excuse the pun) go both ways on this one:

on one hand, i love that she even mentioned that he is, because it shows kids that it’s not a big deal to her. it sets a good example. then again, like #2 above says, how courageous of her to reveal this AFTER the books are done. she had seven books to do it, really, but i agree that he was far to dapper to be NOT gay. maybe we should have just clued in.

to be honest, early on, lupin was the PERFECT gay analogy character, in fact, in the azkaban book (and movie), the subtext is very clear. but then she went and paired him up (ludicrously out of the blue, i think) with tonks.

upon further reflection, i also kind of feel bad about this revelation because it’s another example of the “if your character is gay, you die” plotline that gets put forth all to often. that is NOT a good example.
PatGund

“Also, as a side note for you Potter fans: don’t you think this is precisely the sort of detail scandal-loving Rita Skeeter would have revealed in her tell-all biography?”

Let’s see. His brother has a thing for goats, and other wizards get their blodgers off with giants and veelas….

….I think ever Rita Skeeter knew that Dumbledore’s sexual preferences were a “eh, who cares” in the wizardling world.
Scoutmaster

It’s none of my business what consenting fictional characters do in the privacy of their own home, nor if they want to kiss and hold hands in public.
virgil

(V)irtual (D)espot;

Homophobia, like racism and sexism, is widespread without being universal. Just because someone isn’t attuned to your particular needs doesn’t make them homophobic.

Three points:
I did indeed offer fear as one possible reason. It’s interesting that you ignore that.

The phrase: “If I’d known it would make you this happy” is used to indicate surprise that something is very important to another, not surprise that it wouldn’t make them sad. There’s a big difference. It’s interesting that you interpret it as you do.

Finally, since you seem to be fixated on the notion that she’s using this information in a cynical way; she was asked about this in a public forum by someone who was wondering about it (as had, apparently, a number of people) and she responded to the question. It’s interesting that you interpret that as bragging or being a provocateur, etc.
V(irtual)D(espot)

Chorskewe – if the allusion is good enough for you, it’s good enough for you, and I do think that’s reasonable. Honestly, I don’t give a sht about Dumbledore’s sexuality either way.

What interests me is that Rowling consciously withheld this character trait as a writer, and now gets standing ovations for cynically using it as a provocateur.

“I had to give you something to talk about for the next 10 years … Just imagine the fan fiction now,” she says.

There’s so much wrong with this sentiment that my blood boils. That it was a detail too apparently dirty and untidy to include in the definitive text, that she says this out of the corner of her mouth – suggesting an inevitable turn towards prurience in the fan fiction …

She reminds me of those women who treat their gay friends like little neutered pets, relishing in their self-styled daring while managing to still vote conservative.

And Virgil, I appreciate your response, but dismissing my comment as “paranoid” doesn’t exactly wash. I’m going to tread lightly here and just assume that we experience different political realities, “real human rights” notwithstanding.

However, I think we can agree that homosexuality makes many people uncomfortable, and that many people would rather GLBT people remain culturally invisible and politically impotent. It’s a fact that underlies this entire conversation. Hell, it’s a fact significant enough to have contributed to George W’s re-election. No small feat!

So it’s interesting to me that you ascribe every possible motive for Rowling’s omission of Dumbledore’s orientation except homophobia. I grant you – any one of those motives could be correct. But here’s something else Rowling said:

“If I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!”

Ergo, she assumed it would make her readers unhappy, or at least uncomfortable. And decided to not announce / broadcast it where it counts. In the work. That’s homophobia, in spirit and in practice.

And as for the article about Rowling scribbling Dumbledore’s sexuality in the margins (literally!) …

The fact remains that that particular romantic reference wasn’t righted. It was omitted.
Bellona

Dan, considering that other readers had their suspicions and that the last book dropped some heavy hints about his relationship with Grindelwad, I’d say you just need to reread.