I don’t mind that he’s gay. And I doubt that Rowling’s making this up.

I just don’t really like the fact that, suddently, he became a pedophile because he’s homosexual. I mean, Snape and Dumbledore? Harry and Dumbledore? That’s just disgusting.

Dave,

Have you even opened a HP book? If you have then I suggest re-reading it because you missed ALOT of crucial points. If you haven’t, maybe you should.

“Harry Potter and the Author who wouldn’t shut up” is a great article (available online) in which the writer makes the point that once you have written and published your work, you lose the right to determine how readers interpret and understand it. I agree with the author that readers should be allowed to envision their own versions of backstories and future outcomes.

In our imaginations, we can even hold mutiple versions simultaneously (kind of like Shrodinger’s cat!). Thus we can choose to believe that Dumbledore had a great love with a beautiful woman in his youth and she broke his heart or died tragically of consumption, or was, unbeknownst to anyone except DD, killed by Voldemort. Or we can believe DD to be an asexual asetic, a monk-like scholar, untroubled by desires of the flesh, devoting his life to learning and the promotion of good. Or, as Jo does apparently, we could view him as gay. The writer and the reader co-create the story.

The point is that, until she closes off all the other possibilities with post-publication disclosures, we are able to imagine freely.  But the more details she includes in these press junkets, the more she excludes the reader's imaginative contribution.  And, just because it's all in our heads, doesn't mean it isn't real.  Or even that it isn't as real as Jo's (unwritten) imagined reality.

So I say, “No fair, Jo!” Put up (write it into the actual stories), or shut up (let your creations go, and allow us readers to put our own interpretations on the stories and characters). The sooner you get writing on something else, and leave off narrowing our interpretive possibilties, the better.

Something strange happened to the font in the middle of the post above, here is that section again:

The point is that, until she closes off all the other possibilities with post-publication disclosures, we are able to imagine freely.

But the more details she includes in these press junkets, the more she excludes the reader’s imaginative contribution. And, just because it’s all in our heads, doesn’t mean it isn’t real. Or even that it isn’t as real as Jo’s (unwritten) imagined reality.

So I say, “No fair, Jo!”

i’m sorry, but i have to say that i am thoroughly disgusted by this piece of information. i understand that the whole “gay rights” thing is really big right now, and i apologize to any gay person that is reading this, but i think that Rowling has gone too far in this statement. this book is meant for children, and saying that Dumbledore is gay pollutes the wonderful fantasy. i don’t get why everything has to involve homosexuals to be accepted in our society. i am sorry, but this really sickens me and destroys my idea of Dumbledore as Harry’s mentor. (once again, i apologize to anyone who might take offense to this, but i do not feel like this was a smart move. plus, now that it’s been revealed that DD’s gay, what next?)

I have never approved of these books. I am a christian. I always felt they were not just fairy tale sorts, but too dark, too satanic. Now, after 7 books comes the gay announcement. How clever, get people through 7 books and add, by the way DD is gay. I don’t hate gay people. This is America, be what you want. But the Bible is very clear that homosexuality and lesbianism are sins. You can accept or reject this at will. You are entitled to continue on in whatever lifestyle you choose and whatever beleif you feel happy with, I’m not afraid of gays, don’t bash them. But that doesn’t mean I will change my beleifs either. The world is being duped and misled. If this is what you want, then go to it. I felt a little prudish and guilty, but now I feel that I made an accurate assessment all along.

For those who think “gay” is about “love” between people of the same sex, with no sexual connotations: http://gaylife.about.com/b/a/257192.htm

Happy reading. Oh, and dig the interest in the underage Hary’s sexuality. Cpincidence, I suppose

So Dumbledore’s gay, yeah… I was like, OMG does J.K know how some people will react to this?! My head was filled with vision of burning books (my grandmother burned mine before she knew there were gay characters), and nasty web comments and phone calls and a plethora of hate notes to her publisher…

I’m sorry to see that I was kind of right. But then I remembered that she’s already published all the books and has already made [most of] her money, so there! Kudos to her.

In other news, I had to take a couple moments to digest that info and read all the other cool stuff in the article. Isn’t it weird that Malfoy doesn’t have a life debt to Harry?

Good grief. “Courage? Strength?” Phht This is simply another example of the world becoming more and more degraded. It doesn’t take much courage to do this when she is already a billionaire. Since DD is gay I will have to assume there is a good chance that he molested some of the male students, since there is a much higher incidence of pedophilia in the gay community than in the straight. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/articles/14_2baldwin.PDF I really wish this would hurt her book sales though I know it won’t. I am just glad she didn’t write a gay love story in the series. My nagging question is … why was this needed? I didn’t need to know anything about DD’s orientation, no matter which way it went. Way to go JRK.

Interesting-now the whole duel with Grindenwald makes sense, along with Rita Skeeter’s assertions that the duel didn’t actually happen. How do you win an unbeatable wand in a duel? You don’t. You seduce the wielder into dropping his guard, even for a moment, and then you steal it. And yes, I do think that Grindenwald did love Dumbledore-that is why he would rather die than tell Voldemort where the wand went. It is just tht Dumbledore and Grindenwald had incompatibly different morals.

And yes, morality covers a lot more ground than sex. If you believe homosexual acts are sinful, you can still love Dumbledore. He openly admitted that his relationship with Grindenwald was a tragic mistake-you can either interpret that as including the sexual part or not, as you see fit. If you take the Bible as your reference for rejecting homosexual acts, then you have to also read the part where it says that Jesus was tempted in all things yet was without sin-either you really believe it was “all” things or it wasn’t—in which case you have to accept that Jesus had a bisexual orientation. Therefore orientation in itself does not make a sinner, only acts. We have no proof that Dumbledore led anything but a celibate life after Grindenwald disappointed him. And if you don’t believe the Bible, then what are you fussing about? There are no other grounds for rejecting homosexuality.

(The idea that pederasts are more often gay than straight is nonsense. Statistics show otherwise. And I tend to believe the statistics, because I’ve known at least a dozen people who were molested in childhood, and only two of them were violated by the same sex.)

Anyway, whether homosexual acts are sins or not, we already knew Dumbledore was a sinner, anyway-he used and manipulated people, put children in danger, practiced deceit, etc.-in other words he was human, flawed, not some deity in a pointy hat. None of that changes the fact that he worked tirelessly towards good, and felt remorse for his failings, and ultimately triumphed in achieving the good to which he devoted his life. If you reject every single person who makes a choice that you don’t approve of, you will wind up with nobody left to love-not even yourself! God doesn’t do that-why should anyone who loves God do that?

As for Aberforth and the goat, I admit that I’m rather disappointed that my speculation didn’t prove correct. I thought that Aberforth, being rather a poor student, had stumbled upon a happy accident in attempting to turn a goat into a still. I thought that he’d wound up with a hybrid who looked and acted like a nanny-goat, but when you fed her mash, you could milk out whiskey—an excellent dodge for paying alchol taxes, useful to a barman. Until he got caught, of course. I daresay wizards have to pay the same taxes as everybody else.

I am really happy about Neville Longbottom and Hannah Abbot. They were both shy, so it’s not surprising that they didn’t notice each other in their school days. They were both underachievers (Hannah didn’t wind up in Hufflepuff for nothing) who later discovered their talents in the D.A. And they both proved their courage in battle. Hannah was almost a Gryffendor, and Neville was almost a Hufflepuff—indeed, he later became professor of what had previously been a Hufflepuff specialty. It makes sense.

I really wonder what became of Winky. Could nobody cure her alcoholism, for all their charms? Couldn’t somebody simply order her to never drink alcohol again? Why did those in power over her life neglect her so badly?

I don’t know what marriage customs house-elves might have, or be allowed, but she and Dobby seemed to be mates. I hope she had his child, and I hope she sent the child to Harry.

And what became of Dudley? Dumbledore’s comment about the monstrous damage his parents did to him seemed to have hit home for him. How far did he reform his life? Did he ever meet Harry again? And considering how a recessive wizard gene might well lurk in the family (all of those squibs sent off to lead muggle lives come to mind) what would he do if he had a witch daughter?

WHY DOES JK HAVE TO SAY THAT? THIS IS NEGATIVE ATTENTION AND PARENTS WON’T LET THEIR CHILDREN READ IT

I found an interesting survey that discusses Rowling outing Dumbledore, it’s definitely worth a look.

http://blog.globaltestmarket.com/2007/10/26/fun-online-survey-is-albus-dumbledore-gay/

Alas, those who would cry that there should be tolerance all around, ought to be more tolerant of me. Sure, I wanted total domination. You would too if you were me (and could achieve it)(You get the best tables at restaurants and other people pick up the bill). The Malfoys tolerated me. So did sweet Bellatrix. I think you should feel more tolerance for evil. Right? No? Why, maybe one should not think of tolerance in and of itself as the supreme good. Being tolerant of evil is evil. How about THAT? O, what am I saying!!! Please, go on tolerating evil and everything else. Anything goes when you have no values.

being gay is not cool it is gay

I agree with the person who wondered why JKR even had to mention this. I do not consider myself naive, and throughout the entire series the suspicion that Dumbledore might be gay never even entered my mind. And I have read all 7 books at least twice apiece. Even the idea that other people have been speculating about this came as a surprise to me, and a disappointing one at that. It seems that people are determined to make things controversial and sordid rather than assuming pure intentions and motives. I do not see this “revelation” as anything to rejoice about. Although to me it means almost nothing (as I see no reason to change my perception of DD’s character), it is now ruining the character for future generations and introducing a subject to younger children that should by no means be forced on them at their age. WHY did you feel it necessary to say this, Ms. Rowling? Why can’t Dumbledore’s character just stand as it is and let people speculate as they may. This was completely unnecessary.