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.
1. The presentation of sex and violence to children in book and film need not necessarily be wrong if they are presented in a way that agrees with the beliefs that the family (parents) wants to teach their children. Murder is usually presented as a wrongful act committed by bad people. For most, this message is accurate. Acts of violence committed against another person are wrong. Sex, however and sexual content presented to our children in what they read or watch is usually presented in a way that promotes promiscuity and deviance. This message, for many is a wrong message for our children. Presentation is everything.
2. Rowling presented the idea that a character she created had an orientation society understands as being gay. What she needed was a character that was capable of becoming infatuated and loving another character so deeply that he would loose sight of what was important. Dumbledore lost himself in his love for another so much he neglected his family, was blind to the dark road he was heading down and ultimately suffers from the tragedy that follows. None of this had anything to do with sex or sexual desire. Although it may be difficult to see this in current society, desire for another and the desire for sexual pleasure are separate things. Rowling revealed that a character she created was capable of falling in love with another character. She presents nothing that suggests a desire for a sexual relationship.
3. There are many definitions of natural. Here is another. Natural: in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. To many people, homosexuality is unusual and exceptional. However, most except that it is a fact in that it does exist. Homophobia implies a fear of homosexuals, which some may have but the real thing is that many who oppose it feel that it is immoral. Heterosexual people having sex out of wedlock may be looked at by many as committing a sinful act and therefore immoral. When this is presented to our children, many parents may feel that the message is harmful.
4. See response to number 3.
The media has made this revelation all about sex and society have fed on the dish served. Dumbledore is still about love and Rowling’s view of him was another way to show how deeply his capacity for love is. She used the word “gay” to describe him but what she meant to convey is not so much that he was a homo-“sexual’ but that he was capable of intense love for another that just happen to be the same sex as he. Again, if Grindelwald was written as a witch instead of a wizard would anything else have needed to change? I do not think so.
1. I would agree that sex in hollywood can often be presented as promiscuous, and sometimes deviant. But I also believe that what we view as normal doesn’t stick with us, and what we view as over-the-top does. Ratings exist because there are some things that are over-the-top in hollywood, and that don’t mesh with people’s limited view on the world, so ratings make it possible that only people with objective minds can see this material. Presentation is everything. And the fact that no sex was presented in the book, and heterosexuality was the only sexual persuasion shown (except maybe something with someone and goats, I haven’t read that far), shows that JKR has written books that know how to present a gay character without going too far. Homosexuality as attraction in itself isn’t too far, children’s minds can accept it, they just aren’t ready to know about sex.
2. Love is blind. You are very insightful.
3. Homophobia’s meaning has changed/ is different from it’s etymology. Homophobia as I see it is fear of a world where homosexuality is norm/accepted. Sex has changed, it’s no longer just a means of procreation, it’s entertainment. Not to say it’s JUST entertainment, there are a lot of complicated feelings and risks associated. Whether you are one to believe that sex should be reserved for a higher purpose (I for one), or should be an act of love and fun, no one has a right to regulate what other people can/can’t do based on personal views of what is a sin. While there are a lot of people who believe this country was founded to be a country for God (and follow God by playing a generational game of Telephone), and thus have homophobia, I would say that more agree this to be a country for the people. A land of the free.
Nothing against Christians – some of my best friends are Christian – but please let’s not ignore history. Many, if not most, of the world’s atrocities have been committed in the name of Jesus. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, to name a few. Even the segregationism was spearheaded by so-called Christians. To those who would bash gays and lesbians in His name, beware – history will paint you with the same brush. And, as someone who preached that, of all of God’s laws, to love one another is the most important, you probably have Jesus weeping.
Like JKR said Dumbledore is her character. She can do whatever she wants in her books and say whatever she wants. I always said this that Dumbledore is and always will be my favorite character. I will support him in anyway i can. JKR i really love your books please keep up the great work and i always will be a true fan of yours no matter what.
Thank you very much JK for this revelation into Dumbledore. It makes me love him all the more. And as for the naysayers, just remember that the people that matter don’t mind and the people that mind don’t matter. And honestly I believe that revealing that Dumbledore was gay AFTER THE FACT was a brilliant move. Society is so full of biggots that they won’t give someone, even if that someone is a character, a chance if they know that they are homosexual. You created this kind, wise, and brave character, made everyone fall in love with him, and then revealed his sexual orientation. Society’s and the naysayers’ reactions are simply a reflection of their ignorace: which is the fact that no matter how brave or wise or funny someone might be, if they are a homosexual, then that makes all of their qualities null and void, in their opinion.
So, in conclusion, the negative response to Dumbledore’s sexuality doesn’t point to a problem with Dumbledore or JKR. It points to a problem with those people who cannot look past a man’s private involuntary sexual oritenation to appreciate all the good things about him.
On a side note, I’m a pretty masculine/butch gay male. People who get to know me before I tell them I’m gay, usually find me to be a pretty likable person. Most of them still like me even after I’ve come out to them, if they got to know me before hand. However, if they found out that I was gay before they got to know me, then alot of them wouldn’t even give me a chance in the first place. Why? Ignorace and prejudice and negative assumptions.
No offense, but did anyone else crack up when they found out that DD was gay? I personally found it a very interesting tidbit, on the same level as the Weasley’s hair isn’t really red, they only dye it, or that Hermione’s parents got divorced. It’s not that big of a deal guys.
It´s right for everybody to be what she/he/it wants to be! Cool! I´m not a homosexual but I really thank You, JKR!!! Good luck! Love for personally Freedom!
Why are people still going on about JKR “bringing up” Dumbledore’s sexuality? She DIDN’T, a FAN did. She answered a question.
Seriously. What should she have done, lied to the fan? GREAT loyalty to the fanbase, really.
JRK didn’t introduce jack to the stories. She was asked a question about a character and answered it. Whether you like it or not, the backstory was in the book. You not seeing it right away doesn’t mean it’s not, and you refusing to see it because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not, either. PLENTY of fans saw the Dumbledore/Grindenwald subtext, and in the very first chapter of Hallows, Rita Skeeter’s interview reveals that she’s found something “not right” about DD’s sexuality.
I really think it is time to move off this issue. We know what everyone thinks about it now. Some of my friends were upset about it at first, but now they are over it and they really couldn’t care less anymore. They still love the books. For those of you who think it was wrong for JKR to make Dumbledore gay-alright. great. your entitled to your opinions. but whats done is done, and theres no use arguing over it. Jo is not going to change it. go ahead and stop reading the books and seeing the movies if it bothers you so much. For those who don’t give a hoot-lets continue to enjoy a great FICTIONAL story for years to come. Long live harry potter!
I’m extremely disappointed that JKR decided to make Dumbledore gay. Why ruin a perfectly wonderful series with a revelation like this? The only possible motive could be to hype the books and movies up even more than they are. Aren’t you rich enough already? I’ll still love the books forever, but have lost a great deal of respect for the author.
Pretend just for a moment that the culture in which we live absolutely accepted homosexuality (or any sexuality) as just another characteristic of an individual, like the color of your hair or your eyes. This may not be a great analogy but what I’m trying to convey is a society that doesn’t consider ones sexual orientation a big deal at all (I know this is not the case but for my illustration just imagine this is true). When you talk about person you don’t usually make a huge deal about their hair color or what size shoe they wear. You would probably not be concerned with whether or not they were gay either. If you wrote a book, living in this fictitious society, you may envision a character with blue eyes or was bi-sexual but unless it was important to the story you may not include that information. If a character was gay it would be about as big a deal as if you said that their favorite color was green. Although this is not really true of our society I’ll bet there a some people (probably not many Americans) that feel that a person’s sexual orientation is not a very big deal and not worth mentioning unless it is pertinent to the discussion or plot of the book you happen to be writing. Perhaps Ms. Rowling feels this way. Maybe being gay is just another characteristic of a person and if it is important to the story it will be included. I believe that Ms. Rowling needed a situation where DD experienced deep love for the Grindelwald character. A love that caused DD to loose his perspective and make a big mistake. She didn’t need the love to be reciprocated or for there to be a sexual encounter (remember these are children’s books). Perhaps, for her, making DD gay was not a big deal. He just needed to fall in love with another key character that just happened to also be male. Why couldn’t that great and powerful Grindlewald have been written as a witch instead? I don’t think much of the story would have changed if Grindelwald had been female. DD would still have fallen in love and the tragedy would have occurred. Finding out that DD was strait would not have been headline news. Did Ms. Rowling feel that a female gender would be too week for the part of such a dark and powerful challenger to DD? Perhaps the feminist should explore this. They may have an issue too.
Sorry, but is it too late to ask a question about Dumbledore’s sexual orientation? I wanted to ask this earlier but couldn’t seem to get it posted. First, I totally get that JKR can, and has, made Dumbledore gay because that’s how she wanted to create him. But it took me by surprise, because early in the first book Dumbledore says (in response to praise from Professor McGonagall) “It’s lucky it’s dark. I’ve haven’t blushed so much since Madame Pomfrey told me she liked my new earmuffs.” To me, that sounded like a staight (albeit eccentric) man’s statement. I’d love to hear what others think about it.
A week ago, Harry would have said finding a partner for a dance would be a cinch compared to taking on a Hungarian Horntail. But now that he had done the latter, and was facing the prospect of asking a girl to the ball, he thought he'd rather have another
In answer to Jon
1. The presentation of sex and violence to children in book and film need not necessarily be wrong if they are presented in a way that agrees with the beliefs that the family (parents) wants to teach their children. Murder is usually presented as a wrongful act committed by bad people. For most, this message is accurate. Acts of violence committed against another person are wrong. Sex, however and sexual content presented to our children in what they read or watch is usually presented in a way that promotes promiscuity and deviance. This message, for many is a wrong message for our children. Presentation is everything. 2. Rowling presented the idea that a character she created had an orientation society understands as being gay. What she needed was a character that was capable of becoming infatuated and loving another character so deeply that he would loose sight of what was important. Dumbledore lost himself in his love for another so much he neglected his family, was blind to the dark road he was heading down and ultimately suffers from the tragedy that follows. None of this had anything to do with sex or sexual desire. Although it may be difficult to see this in current society, desire for another and the desire for sexual pleasure are separate things. Rowling revealed that a character she created was capable of falling in love with another character. She presents nothing that suggests a desire for a sexual relationship. 3. There are many definitions of natural. Here is another. Natural: in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional. To many people, homosexuality is unusual and exceptional. However, most except that it is a fact in that it does exist. Homophobia implies a fear of homosexuals, which some may have but the real thing is that many who oppose it feel that it is immoral. Heterosexual people having sex out of wedlock may be looked at by many as committing a sinful act and therefore immoral. When this is presented to our children, many parents may feel that the message is harmful. 4. See response to number 3.
The media has made this revelation all about sex and society have fed on the dish served. Dumbledore is still about love and Rowling’s view of him was another way to show how deeply his capacity for love is. She used the word “gay” to describe him but what she meant to convey is not so much that he was a homo-“sexual’ but that he was capable of intense love for another that just happen to be the same sex as he. Again, if Grindelwald was written as a witch instead of a wizard would anything else have needed to change? I do not think so.