At a press conference this morning in Toronto, author J.K. Rowling was asked repeatedly about the recent revelations regarding the background information on Dumbledore and the fact that she said she felt this character was gay. Saying “I’m not kidding,” about this statement Jo made last Friday in New York, the author went on to note “I know that it was a positive thing that I said it for at least one person because one man ‘came out’ at Carnegie Hall.”
The Star (DH plot spoiler at link!) continues on to note J.K. Rowling emphasized the information was revealed because she was asked a direct question about it, and said “she didn’t feel the need to be explicit about Dumbledore’s sexual preferences because she wanted to focus on character development.
“If you were an author then you would understand that when you write the ending it comes at the end,” she said.”
Update: The entire video press conference with Jo is now online, here. Thanks Mahri!)
Jo continued on to say:
The plot is what it is,” said Rowling. “(Dumbledore) did have, as I say, this rather tragic infatuation but that was a key part of the ending of the story so there it is. Why would I put the key part of my ending of my story in Book One?”
Rowling said Tuesday she found it “freeing” to out Dumbledore, adding that the passages about him will mean different things to different readers.
“I think a child will see a friendship and I think a sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation,” she said.
UPDATE: Reuters has more now from JKR, who elaborated on her decision to reveal the information about Dumbledore stating:”He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him.”
Jo also said again “she might work on a Potter encyclopedia for charity, but only after a long break.”It’s like the break-up of a marriage. It’s a good idea not to see each other for a while, then maybe you can be good friends afterwards,” she said.”
Update 3: Photos of Jo from the press conference in Toronto, Ontario Canada are now up in our galleries, here.
Alex wrote -Gay people should have no need to hide their perfectly natural and normal God-given feelings for those they love.
There is no comparison between acceptance of differences in humanity and those thinking that their way is the only correct way.
Alex what you say is logically impossible. Homosexuals call normal people “straight”; they presumably use the opposite of straight for their behavior.
No one is suggesting or advocating any violent conduct towards homosexuals. Quite the reverse in fact, as they should be treated with sympathy and kindness in the hope that they can be encouraged to voluntarily change their behavior and join the normal world.
If she wanted DD to be gay, that’s fair enough, I have no problems with that. But why not mention it in the book, and not do it afterwards? To me it screams publicity when everything to do with the 7th book was dying down. It hasn’t changed my opinion on the character, but it has on her. What a cop out! There was just no need for that announcement. She needs to get over herself, and quickly. She knew it would cause the discussion it did, yet she’s pretending to be surprised by it all. Whatever.
M Jones, homosexuals do not refer to heterosexuals as normal people, because all human behavior is normal behavior. Heterosexuality is just popular, and normal to you. In the days of slavery, white people were considered normal people, and others dark-skinned. But all skin tones are normal. Sexuality is normal. I do not say anything logically impossible. The normal world is this planet, and everything in it, not what any one human’s limited exposure can show them.
wow i never really thought about untile now. thank you Jo you are the best author to ever live! we need more author like around! i love your book and you you are my number one hero! the amazing thing is i don’t think less of dumbledore he still has the same effect he had before! even if my parents won’t let me read it anymore
Teddy- How can you get so terribly upset with me for saying that JK Rowling has no right… and then turn around and tell me that I have no right to make such statements. Don’t argue with me until you can at least be somewhat logical. As I stated before I am entitled to my opinion.
I have no issues with gays, and I’m glad JKR has announced that Dumbledore was gay. I just think it’s wrong that she waited until it was over to announce it because it felt like I never was “really” able to understand him.
Inteesting to see what the reaction will be forty years from now. I remember a huge outcry against a movie in 1967 called “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” for featuring a relationship between black Sidney Poitier and white Katherine Houghton. Interracial marriage was still illegal in many states the year the movie was released – seems rather silly now, doesn’t it?
Dumbledore is gay? Please! Seems like some have forgotten that Dumbledore is a FICTIONAL character. As such, he could be a transvestite, hermaphrodite or any other crazy attribute that Rowling wants to attach to his persona. What a bunch of rubbish.
It’s true. It’s HER character, and therefore, her choice to say and decide what he is. And for God’s sake, why is it so important that she should’ve mentionned it in the books? Life is more important than sexual orientation, colour or whatever. Get a life, people.
I completly understand why jo didn’t make a big thing about (coming out) with regards to dumbledore, i think it was a case of the individual taking it how they personally saw it and it is really anoying to see reporters blowing it more out of praportion than is needed, and not taking the hints jo was making to move on to another subject but to keep pressing the point is just anoying and i really feel for her having to have a confrence like that and having it end so negativly like that when i thought the hole perpose of it was for he to recieve and award… hmmm… it so annoying the way people are acting and what they are making this out to be, i say to jo, keep your head up your awsome and the true fans will be behind her 150% always…
xx bec
For everyone preaching tolerance: It works both ways. How about some tolerance for those who think it was unnecessary for JK Rowling to explicitly state that Dumbledore was gay?
This is an opinion. That doesn’t necessarily make us homophobes or narrow-minded—many believe it was just not necessary and she shouldn’t have said it. If you assume we’re ignorant or intolerant based on this opinion, then how narrow-minded does that make YOU?
These books appeal to all ages, but were mainly geared toward kids. And, many people believe that (thanks to the media) there’s already way too much exposure to and discussion of sexuality in general, before kids are really ready to handle the topic both intellectually and emotionally. So why bring up his sexuality at all? Gay or not, who cares? It’s not necessary. He was close with Grindelwald—fine…leave it at that, let readers form their own conclusions.
If as she says, the adult reader could have surmised this on their own, then why not let them interpret the writing?
For her to have to tell us he’s gay, to me, just sounds preachy: “See, for all you intolerant people out there, I remind you that intelligent and caring people CAN also be gay!” No kidding JK, thanks for the sermon…and for throwing the topic of sexuality at our kids yet again.
And for anyone who is getting entirely too worked up over this whole thing: get over yourselves already. Stop name-calling and get a life, surely there are other things to worry about.
And for the nitpickers who keep criticizing spelling and grammar—please, get real…it’s a blog, not a spelling test.
To all those who have expressed dismay over the revelation of a fictional character’s sexuality: I’d be interested to know your responses to the following points…
1) The books deal explicitly with murder. No-one has blogged criticising this element of the stories, or suggested that extensive representation of killing will harm children in the way they have homosexuality. Do you think homosexuality is a worse sin than murder? Think carefully before answering….
2) Many have claimed that Rowling’s statement was wrong because it introduces the idea of sexuality to young children. The books (and the films) already discuss this, in the shape of Harry’s heterosexuality. Nobody has suggested that this is wrong, so why is the statement about Dumbledore controversial? Either all sexuality is to be represented to children, or none is.
3) A nonesensical ‘jusification’ for homophobia is that gay sex isn’t natural. The definition of natural is something that occurs in nature. Sex occurs in nature, between consenting adults of different or same sexes, therefore it’s natural. What isn’t natural includes, oh, air travel, television, the internet, wizardry… so ban the books because they describe (unnatural) magic, switch off that (unnatural) DVD and stop blogging on this (unnatural) website, but don’t criticise (natural) homosexuality. Oh, and many heterosexual people have sex without wanting children; are they unnatural too?
4) It is not an example of tolerance to let bigotry pass unquestioned. The perspectives of homophobes make life very difficult for non-heterosexuals; that’s what makes them bigots. If their comments had no effect on the world, then fine, ignore them. But they do. The freedom of a group of people is limited as a result. In contrast, no-one wants to stop people engaging in all forms of consenting heterosexual behaviour, so the homophobes themselves are free to practice as they like. That is the difference, and the double standard revealed in the homophobic (and neo-nazi, racist, misogynist etc.) apprpriation of free speech. If a law is passed banning heterosexuality, then complain of prejudice. Until then, think carefully about what you say.
The Harry Potter Books are primarily “children’s” books, which are written well enough and are rich enough with the familiar hero’s journey to fascinate and entertain adults as well. They do not contain content that most parents would consider inappropriate for their young children (this might not be said of the film versions). They are children’s books but not exclusively children’s books. This is obvious from their popularity amongst all ages. So the question of why didn’t the author include certain details about the sexual orientation she envisioned for a particular character in a book she meant to be read by children seems obvious. As this was to be a children’s book the subject of sexuality, hetero- or homo- really had no place and would have certainly been a big issue with responsible parents.
I was troubled when I heard from a coworker (who was very amused by the story) that J.K. Rowling declared that Dumbledore was gay. I value the books firstly as children’s books. So now they have brought sex into the books. A real let down! I do not think however that Ms. Rowling intended to reveal this news or any other specific detail unless she was asked about that detail. To her the idea of a person with a same sex attraction to another person was not such a big deal so envisioning a character she created with that particular characteristic was natural and to be expected. It is simply how she saw the character to get him where he needed to be at the end of the story. Although she considered him so she did not present Dumbledore as obviously gay throughout the book because his sexual orientation was not important throughout the book nor was it appropriate in a book she meant to be read by children. There were other characters in the series that became attracted to each other and love and falling in love was important to the message presented but sex and sexuality was not.
My impression of her statements concerning the development of the character and plot ending is that in order for Dumbledore, a brilliant young wizard, to be caught up in an obviously questionable friendship\relationship with Grindelwald, he would need to be blinded to his dark side. To be that oblivious to the dark path he was traveling Rowling felt that Dumbledore would need to be in love (Eros) with Grindelwald.
In his book, The Four Loves, Lewis writes: “Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.” Also, Pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
It must be noted, states Lewis, that just as Lucifer—a former archangel—perverted himself by pride and fell into depravity, so too can love—commonly held to be the arch-emotion—become corrupt by presuming itself to be what it is not (“love begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god”).
Eros is not about the desire for sexual pleasure but the desire for one particular individual. If we can allow for Lewis’ description of Eros to be non-gender specific I can see a situation where two potentially great and extreamly intellegent young men (Dumbledore and Grindelwald) seeing themselves as intellecual equals become friends. Dumbledore, capable of great love and devotion as we know, is thrilled at finding an intellectual equal and someone to share ideas becomes infactuated with Grindelwald. This infactuation leads to a true desire for the individual (Eros) and ultimatly leading to his blind devotion of Grindelwald. This blind devotion is the elevation of the love to a god status and ultamately the demon that ends the relationship. The tragedy is the dark road traveled, loosing focus of the really important things (Dumbledore’s brother and sister) and ultamately the death of Ariana.
I think Rowling needed this situation. If Grindelwald had been written as a witch instead of a wizzard would anything else have changed? I don’t think so.
"What did you say you've got at home, Malfoy, a Comet Two Sixty?" Ron
grinned at Harry. "Comets look flashy, but they're not in the same league as the Nimbus."[br]"What would you know about it, Weasley, you couldn't afford half the
handle," Malfoy snapp
Alex wrote -Gay people should have no need to hide their perfectly natural and normal God-given feelings for those they love.
There is no comparison between acceptance of differences in humanity and those thinking that their way is the only correct way.
Alex what you say is logically impossible. Homosexuals call normal people “straight”; they presumably use the opposite of straight for their behavior.
No one is suggesting or advocating any violent conduct towards homosexuals. Quite the reverse in fact, as they should be treated with sympathy and kindness in the hope that they can be encouraged to voluntarily change their behavior and join the normal world.