New J.K. Rowling Interview: Confirms Working on “Scottish Book,” Reflects on Dumbledore, Homophobia, Fundamentalism, Future Writing Projects and More

87

Mar 08, 2008

Posted by SueTLC
Uncategorized

J.K. Rowling has given a new interview with the Edinburgh “Student” newspaper, where the Harry Potter author gives her thoughts on future writing projects, the reaction to the news on Dumbledore’s sexuality, religious fundamentalists, and much more. In this lengthy interview, Jo confirms she is indeed compiling information on the “Scottish book,” or the encyclopedia involving the world of Harry Potter as she says “…I am working on it in fact. I just don’t want to have to work to a deadline, but I am slowly piecing it together.” The article mentions that the children’s book that Jo is currently working on as well is still not finished and one that is for adults “may never see the light of day at all.” Jo declined to elaborate further on these books noting “The minute I say anything, immediately my life becomes more complicated.” She does go on to say that she “aways wanted to write a novel about a stand-up comedian. That is not what I am writing though, so if something comes out next week, that’s not me, I’m not doing it! But for ages, I’ve had a real thing about it.”

In a wide ranging conversation, Jo gives her thoughts on such things as dealing with depression and the use of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (“I would recommend it highly”), fame and recognition by her readers (“people coming up to me in Starbucks are always charming, Always”) and whether she reads her own books (“The only one I’ve gone back and re-read since publication is the seventh book which is my favorite.”) Jo Rowling also discusses at length two subjects which have generated much conversation among her fans: the repeated attempts of Laura Mallory to have the Harry Potter books banned in Georgia, and the large reaction to the news last October that Jo always felt her character of Professor Dumbledore was a gay man.

Regarding the Harry Potter book banning issue Jo says quote:

“I can cope with a bad review. No one loves a bad review but a useful review is one that teaches you something. But to be honest the Christian Fundamentalist thing was bad. I would have been quite happy to sit there and debate with one of the critics who were taking on Harry Potter from a moral perspective. In a sense we have traded arguments through the media. I’ve tried to be rational about it. There’s a woman in North Carolina or Alabama who’s been trying to get the books banned-she’s a mother of four and never read them. And then- I’m not lying, I’m not even making fun, this is the truth of what she said-quite recently she was asked [why] and she said ‘Well I prayed whether or not I should read them, and God told me no.’ Rowling pauses to reflect on the weight of that statement, and her expression one of utter disbelief.

“You see, that is where I absolutely part company with people on that side of the fence, because that is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, ‘I will not open my mind to look on your side of the argument at all. I won’t read it, I won’t look at it, I’m too frightened.’ That’s what’s dangerous about it, whether it be politically extreme, religiously extreme…In fact, fundamentalists across all the major religions, if you put them in a room, they’d have bags in common!” she laughs loudly before sobering. “They hate all the same things, it’s such an ironic thing.”

On the matter of Dumbledore, Jo candidly states the following:

“I had always seen Dumbledore as gay, but in a sense that’s not a big deal. The book wasn’t about Dumbledore being gay. It was just that from the outset obviously I knew he had this big, hidden secret, and that he flirted with the idea of exactly what Voldemort goes on to do, he flirted with the idea of racial domination, that he was going to subjugate the Muggles. So that was Dumbledore’s big secret.

Why did did he flirt with that?” she asks. “He’s an innately good man, what would make him do that. I didnt even think it through that way, it just seemed to come to me, I thought ‘I know why he did it, he fell in love.’ And whether they physically consummated this infatuation or not is not the issue. The issue is love. It’s not about sex. So that’s what I knew about Dumbledore. And it’s relevant only in so much as he fell in love and was made an utter fool of by love. He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgment in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and bookish life.”

Clearly some people didn’t see it that way. How does she react to those who disagree with a homosexual character in a children’s novel? “So what?” she retorts immediately “It is a very interesting question because I think homophobia is a fear of people loving, more than it is of the sexual act. There seems to be an innate distaste for the love involved, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There were people who thought, well why haven’t we seen Dumbledore’s angst about being gay?” Rowling is clearly amused by this and rightly so. “Where was that going to come in? And then the other thing was-and I had letters saying this-that, as a gay man, he would never be safe to teach in a school.”

An air of incredulity descends on the room as if Rowling herself still can not believe this statement. She continues: “He’s a very old single man. You have to ask: why is it so interesting? People have to examine their own attitudes. It’s a shade of character. Is it the most important thing about him? No, it’s Dumbledore for God’s sake. There are 20 things that are relavant to the story before his sexuality.” Bottom line then: he isn’t a gay character; he’s a character that just happens to be gay. Rowling concurs wholeheartedly.

You can see scans of this long new interview here in our galleries. Many thanks to Catherine for sending this in! UPDATE The author Adeel Amini let us know he has the article now available on his website in a very clear pdf format- here. Thanks Adeel!





171 Responses to New J.K. Rowling Interview: Confirms Working on “Scottish Book,” Reflects on Dumbledore, Homophobia, Fundamentalism, Future Writing Projects and More

Avatar Image says:

yay first to comment!! Im so excited about “the Scottish book” !!

Avatar Image says:

second=) Love jo!

Avatar Image says:

Every time I read a JKR interview, I fall more madly in love with her! Such a down-to-earth, sensible woman!

Avatar Image says:

Angela: I’m also, go on Jo!

Avatar Image says:

so excited for the scottish book! great interview!

Avatar Image says:

I can’t wait for “the Scottish book”! I just hope that whole Rowling vs. SVA thing will be done with. It’s such a waste of her time I think and she already said how much it frustrates her to be in that situation. I also think she should feel rushed to do so. She has every right to work on it on her own pace and take on other ideas for her future novels.

It’s so funny about the stupid banning HP books issue. “God told me no” LOL

Avatar Image says:

Sorry correction on my last comment… I also think she SHOULDN’T feel rushed to do so.

Avatar Image says:

The scottish book sounds great. I have been waiting for a long interview like this!

Avatar Image says:

It is the first time Jo admits Gellert Grindelwald was gay?

Avatar Image says:

Good on you Jo, I couldn’t agree more!

Avatar Image says:

Wholey moley that women is deep. But I completly agree with her about everything!! Especially the part where she says “he isn’t a gay character; he’s a character that just happens to be gay.” Jo’s such an amazing person!!!

Avatar Image says:

well put j.k …

i agree wholeheartedly with what she said in that interview.. from fundamentalism to being gay.. shes an awesome person.

Avatar Image says:

I love her. I respect her more and more with every interview. She is so articulate with her opinions.

Avatar Image says:

God, she’s so smart… I love the diversity of the topics in her interviews.

And I love the idea of the Scottish book, and whole-heartedly agree that she shouldn’t set a deadline. She should take as long as she wants: i wouldn’t mind waiting 10 years for it.

Avatar Image says:

Jo is amazing. But we already knew that! :)

Avatar Image says:

Holy God, that put tears in my eyes. Thank you, Jo.

Avatar Image says:

she is so amazing and amazingly grounded! really deep and thoughtful interview and i actually lol’d at the “god told me no” part.

and obviously i’m really excited about the scottish book, when i read the title i actually gasped and my mum got worried and said “what’s wrong?!”

(:

Avatar Image says:

hmm..with a mind like hers,i wonder what jkr’s dreams are like….

Avatar Image says:

IWhether Dumbeldore is gay or not doesn’t matter. So why did she bring it up, my opinion is to get more pubilcity for herself. Sometimes her comments make me feel as if she does not like her public at all and is very condencending about the intelligence of her fans. All that teasing, misleading and coyness about her characters. Give me a break. I love Harry Potter, book 7 is my favorite. But I love the books is spite of Ms. Rowling

Avatar Image says:

She is such a briliant, kind, and smart woman! Love her!

Avatar Image says:

Is there somewhere that this interview is transcribed? The Pictures of the interview are extremly hard for me to read :(

Avatar Image says:

OH God, do I love that woman. I agree with almost everything she says; she’s so sensible and clever. No wonder I love the HP books so much. Must see if I can pick up that newspaper!

oh, and carlye gilbert: she didn’t bring it up, she was ASKED about it, from the very first.

Avatar Image says:

Her characters matter a great deal to the fans. That’s why it’s relevant for her to delve into their backstory. I think it’s important to note that DD’s love for Grindelwald was what blinded him and turned him toward the wrong path, whereas Voldemort went that way out of pure hate. That’s why DD is better than Voldemort, it’s why Harry is better also.

Avatar Image says:

that thing about Laura Mallory having not read the books is hilarious and disgusting. how can she try and ban them if she hasn’t read them! the whole thing about Dunbledore is great! I love it! i always thought there was something different about him but this is great. it shows that Jo is fine with it, cause Dumbledore is one of the “good guy”

Avatar Image says:

“It is the first time Jo admits Gellert Grindelwald was gay?”

I dont think she said he was Gay. Certainly a gay boy can have an infatuation with a straight boy.

Avatar Image says:

I remember reading somewhere that Mallory hadn’t read the books. I think that makes her completely unqualified to even discuss the books, let alone to try and ban them. Heck, if I were the person who had to look at her complaints against the books in Georgia, the first thing I would ask is if she read them. When she said she didn’t read them I would dismiss her complaints without giving them any consideration at all. She can’t ask to ban something she knows nothing about.

I hadn’t read that she prayed about whether to read them or not and said God told her not to. I never realized God had so much free time on his hands.

I’m surprised the news that Dumbledore was gay didn’t cause her to keel over. :-)

Avatar Image says:

I think one of the issues that the public has with Dumbledore’s sexuality is that they wonder how Jo came up with the idea in the first place. Did she sit down and consciously say “I’m going to write a gay character”? If so, they wonder “why?” Or did it just come out of the story?...which, then, brings up the question, “how? What MADE her decide that he was gay?”

Avatar Image says:

On the other hand, I do like that Dumbledore’s love is tied into the story (even if the relevance of the Hallows to the series as a whole is questionable). It is completely the opposite of the relevance of Harry’s and Ginny’s relationship, of which we see no justification. We can see the motivations of the infatuation between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but all we ever see of Ginny and Harry are their long hours of snogging. As readers, we never see them talk alone about anything that furthers their relationship. When they do talk, it is with Ron and Hermione, and those conversations never deal with anything that strengthens love.

Avatar Image says:

Corey, she explains in the article:

“It just seemed to come to me, I thought ‘I know why he did it, he fell in love.’”

There doesn’t seem to be a big explanation as to why she decided to make Dumbledore gay… it was just there.

As for Harry, he fell for Ginny because he liked her personality. He was always laughing at the things she said. Of course their love didn’t have a big impact on the plot—it wasn’t supposed to, it was supposed to represent another life for Harry, away from Voldemort, and that’s what it did. It was happiness for Harry.

Avatar Image says:

Where did we see long hours of snogging with Harry and Ginny? I remember exactly two kisses in book 6 and one in book 7. Ginny was infatuated with Harry since their first meeting when she was only 10. Ginny and Harry go waaay back. LOL

Avatar Image says:

The whole article was a really good read. I agree with her on many of the topics she brought up, and also laughed over the “God told me no” bit. That’s just… madness.

Avatar Image says:

I admire the intelligent and thoughtful attitude with which J.K. Rowling approaches everything; the wisdom she exercises is unparalleled. I completely agree with what she said regarding Albus Dumbledore’s sexuality. The fact that the news was sensationalized by the traditional media as much as it was proves how much, we, as an overall society, have yet to progress.

Avatar Image says:

“Whether Dumbeldore is gay or not doesn’t matter. So why did she bring it up, my opinion is to get more pubilcity for herself. “

One should at least try attempting finding out the facts before making statements such as this. SHE didn’t bring it up. She was asked a direct question regarding who Dumbledore loved, and she gave a direct answer.

Avatar Image says:

Corey, to tie Dumbledore to Grindelwald the way JKR did, either Dumbledore had to be gay or Grindelwald had to be female. So, the question is, could JKR have written the story with Grindelwald being female and have the story work out the same way? (At least, to me, that’s the question.)

I think the problem would have been that if Grindelwald were female, Rita Skeeter would, to be believable, have had to grab onto a relationship that was more than friendship between Dumbledore and a female Grindelwald. I think then Rita Skeeter’s book would then have been more about Dumbledore having been in love with the dark witch he defeated, than that he may have believed in the same things as she did. They could have had all the same beliefs and events occur with a female Grindelwald, but Rita’s book would have been less about Dumbledore’s belief than their relationship. It was his beliefs, not his relationship that was important to Harry learning what he needed to. A female Grindelwald it would have got in the way of that, or been a little unbelievable if Rita ignored it.

Just my opinion.

I too would have liked to see more interaction between Harry and Ginny than just snogging, but I think she really couldn’t, as it would start to get too deep for a children’s book.

Wouldn’t it be cool if JKR rewrote all the books aimed at adults?

Avatar Image says:

No adult book? I would be crushed!!

Avatar Image says:

Carlye, she just explained why she brought it. First of all, she was asked if Dumbledore ever loved anyone, and JKR answered it truthfully. In this interview she explains that the reason Dumbledore “flirted” with racial domination is because he fell in love with someone who had those beliefs. It doesn’t matter that he loved another man. What matters is who that person was, what they believed in, and how Dumbledore reacted to their beliefs/actions.

Avatar Image says:

Morga, I couldn’t read it well either, so I cleaned it up. I don’t know if I can post if somewhere, but if anyone wants it, I am willing to email it to them.

Avatar Image says:

Anyone know if there’s a typed transcript I can read somewhere? My poor eyes aren’t making much sense of the scans.

Avatar Image says:

Oh, every time I read one of her interviews, I am so proud to be a part of the potter world at all! I think the thing that bothers me the most is those fundamentalists – it’s a work of FICTION, and the author’s mind should not be open to anyone’s ridiculous criticism. There are so many friends my age (late teens) who say, “Oh, I can’t read Harry Potter. My mom says no.” Ugh.

Oh well! Always excited for the amazing Scottish book!

Avatar Image says:

Just finished reading the whole article. Jo is as lovely and brilliant as always though this interviewer sounds like a jerk! Posing as a fan to get an interview…? Oy.

Avatar Image says:

I am glad to see that Jo has “spoken out”, Fundamentalists and Phobics alike must have a wierd idea of people “as a whole” ( is it indoctrinated into the world at large?). As a person who is seriously religious, I find the members of such to have the strangest Ideas), I have no interest in getting into arguments and will not so do ! The books have been well written and capture the imagination of millions of people, have persuaded people(of their own “free will”) to read, take an interest in the written word ! It has created a community world wide who have put their efforts into helping others and not “force feeding” ill conceived” ideas to readers ! Jo has blessed the world with a wonderful story . I feel truly Blessed. THANKS !”

Avatar Image says:

Laura Mallory reminds me far too much of Patricia Pulling.

And now that everyone is scratching their heads, wondering who I’m talking about, let me explain. Back in the late 70’s, Ms. Pulling’s son committed suicide after his Dungeons & Dragons character died in a game. Ms. Pulling went on a 15-year war to ban Dungeons & Dragons in the US, blaming it for the death of her son. Now, bear in mind, she completely ignored the fact that her son was a chronic depressive, with a history of suicide attempts.

Whenever I hear someone start with the “anti-Harry” nonsense, I always think back to Ms. Pulling, and wonder what would have happened if anyone actually gave her more than her 15 minutes?

Avatar Image says:

I think that it is dumb that Dumbledore is gay, come on its a children’s book. But I still do love the books and J.K.Rowling.

Avatar Image says:

Wow. I always enjoy her interviews! :D

It’s great that she takes the liberty for continually being creative with her stories and not having to apologize for it. She does get attacked quite often for this and that, and it must be very difficult to deal with at times. I admire her for standing her ground, while other people might view it as a threat and take it personally. Not too many people have the backbone that she has. If she always had to worry about what other people think, she would never be at peace. Sometimes people make mountains out of molehills over things, particularly about the background info on Dumbledore. It is more of a fun fact than anything else. If only more can enjoy things for what they are.

Avatar Image says:

David, so you object to the subtle hints in the book that Dumbledore had an infatuation with another man, but you have no problem with the overt heterosexual moments found through the entire series? There is no problem with Ginny kissing Harry like she had never kissed him before, but children should never be exposed to the word “gay,” right? Okay….

Avatar Image says:

I really wish people would take more notice over what was actually stated by Ms Rowling when she stated DD was gay. She did not answer a direct question – read the transcript.

She was asked “did DD ever love?” – she replied “I always thought of him as gay”

There is no corrolation between the answer and question, it was a deliberate set-up. If you ask someone if they have ever loved, they answer yes or no. Then you follow that up with, who did you love?, how did you love? If a person were to ask Ms Rowling, have you ever loved? Would you honestly expect her to answer, “well I’m straight?” No, it’s nonsensical.

It’s nothing to do with homophobia, it’s about an author trying to hold on and dictate her creation and fans of the books objecting to it.

Avatar Image says:

“The Scottish Book” makes me smile. It reminds me of “The Scottish Play” and that-which-must-not-be-named. I’m pretty sure I’m stating the obvious, but I love making connections. Is Cognitive Behavioral Thearpy related to BF Skinner’s ideas? I guess I’ll google it.

Avatar Image says:

The continuing homophobia in society stems from religious and political influence. e.g. to accept homosexuality is to accept that the Bible is full of crap (to an extent…). It’s all about control.

They don’t want people to accept homosexuality because that would mean feeling a little more free and at ease in terms of attitudes to ALL sexuality. They want the repression, the conflict, the warring, it’s what keeps everything going. They want people to be ‘horrified’ and ‘sickened’ by certain things. They want people to feel bad about sex of any kind, even if it’s only a nagging feeling in the back of your mind.

We live in a world where we see young people harm themselves and commit suicide due to the retarded nature of society. I hate that.

Avatar Image says:

My god, I’m in love.

Avatar Image says:

Padfoot, if you’d been there that night like I was, you would know that it came very naturally and didn’t have any indication at all of being a set-up. She didn’t answer a single other question that night with just a simple “yes” or “no” and leave it at that; she was giving detailed answers, and it would have been very obvious once she started talking about Dumbledore falling for Grindelwald that she’d written Dumbledore as a character who had a homosexual relationship, so she just said it outright.

Avatar Image says:

jkr is an amazing writer and i wish that someday i could be able to write as good as her. I wonder if her new book will top the Harry Potter series? No pressure though lol.

Avatar Image says:

I also think that it doesn’t matter if jkr thought Dumbledore to be gay or straight, he would have most likely made the same choices in life, and probably have died the same. So whats more important: Harry saving the magical world or Dumbledore’s homosexuality? The world may never know…

Avatar Image says:

I love JKR’s honesty – that’s definatley one thing I highly value, and I feel honoured and greatful that she is so open and honest with readers.

The books are about Harry. not Dumbledore. Yes, he’s a part of it, but the story focuses on Harry and his interactions with the world. Love is always tricky, and has many different fascets. If you take Love away from Dumbledore, what’s left to make him human?

Avatar Image says:

YAY! Always love a new interview! Love you, Jo. I agree with you completely about everything. You are my hero!!! O

Avatar Image says:

I can already taste that Scottish book… * drools *

Jo always comes across as such a well-spoken, kind, intelligent woman. (And, I’m sorry, but to some people who still think she said Dumbledore was gay to get more publiclity, please open your eyes and stop kidding yourselves.) Also, it makes me so sad that people like Laura Mallory are so misguided in their faith. :( Jo stated her thoughts about that very nicely.

Anyway, you go Jo, we love you!! :D

Avatar Image says:

cool stuff! makes sense to me that she would be working on the “scottish book” she must have enough info to organize to fill up the room of hidden things at Hogwarts and i think those religious yahoos trying to ban HP were nuts all along

Avatar Image says:

Yay!! She’s pittung the Scottish Book together! Gosh, I can’t wait, but take your time Jo, no rush!! The interview was lovely! Wow, everytime I read a Jo Rowling interview, it just leaves me stunned, she is so so deep. And she has such wonderful strong views on so many issues, love you Jo! Funny about Laura Mallory though, “because God told me”!! I can’t believe there are still people like that in the world!

By the way, other than the Scottish Book, I’m almost as excited about her other book for children. For the life of me I don’t know what a “political fairytale” can be!

Avatar Image says:

Sorry, I meant “putting” in the post.

Avatar Image says:

I have a couple of relatives who block their children from reading and seeing anything that has to do with the wonderful world of Harry Potter and myself and my mother (who also adores HP and keeps the books constantly in supply in her classroom) think its simply crazy. You have to take HP for what it is – a really great story that was written so wonderfully that you stay entranced in the story for seven novels. Very few stories can capture your attention beyond their single novel let alone a full seven.

As far as for Dumbledore’s sexuality, for me, it doesn’t matter if he’s gay, straight or a pumpkin. To me he will always be Albus Dumbledore, a man who did great things, whom I wish could be my grandfather cause he kicks some serious ass. His sexuality doesn’t change the stories. They don’t change what happened in them, what the outcome was, or his love for Harry. He loved Harry like a grandfather, and I was half hoping he would turn out to be his grandfather in the end (cause I’m a girl and I’m a sap like that). Dumbledore fell in love the same way that everyone else does in the world, the person he fell in love with just made him question what he wanted for the world and cause horrible disasters for his family. He more than made up for his mistakes with Grindewald in his adulthood. I think JKR put it best. He isn’t a gay character. He’s just a character who happens to be gay.

After all, if the question was never asked, and we never found out, he’d still be gay even if we knew or not.

Avatar Image says:

I don’t think Dumbledore’s sexuality matters nearly as much as his other characteristics matter. However, his love matters hugely, in Rowling’s morality-laden fairlytale.

I am very saddened by the fact that her choice in writing this saga about the destructive and world-saving powers of love was to place only two examples of the former in the text, and that those two are an ugly and unworthy woman’s love for a beautiful yet lesser-abled man (which engendered Voldemort) and the only instance of gay love we’re given throughout the whole series (Dumbledore almost going with Grindelwald). Meanwhile we see at least two extremely prominent instances of heterosexual love helping World Salvation (Snape and James’ love for Lily).

Even if there were some aspects of DH that I felt could have been narrated better if she cared enough about them, I still think that Rowling is an absolutely amazing writer. Which is what makes me all the more upset about her choosing to imbue this beautiful story with such a disquieting message. If it all just “came to her” that’s fine, but I wish she had at least had the courtesy to reflect on what it all means and plant some cases that diffused this dichotomy among the many romances that she introduced.

Avatar Image says:

excellent interview!

Avatar Image says:

I think I’m in love with Jo(but not in a gay way : )) She changed my life with Potter books and I just can’t wait for something new. I can already smell the Scottish book!

I would give my soul to dementors for just 5 minutes talking with Jo…

Avatar Image says:

you know what is most disgusting. RDR books forced jk rowling to start working on the encylopedia. she was writing something else for her enjoyment, and a small, vanity press created to publish the unpublishable books of the CEO is twisting her arm, forcing her now to work on the encylopedia.

good interview, but honestly, it will be wonderful when jk rowling can refer to it as the encylopedia, and not the scottish book. we will hopefully know on the 13th. of course the judge no doubt understands he can be disbarred for ruling in RDR’s favor against the law, but that is a whole nother issue.

Avatar Image says:

Matea- I’m the same =)

Can someone pleeeease get a full transcript of this? I tried reading it from the scans but the bottom of the page is missing and I don’t want to read it without being able to read it properly =)

Avatar Image says:

The power of love is amazing… the power of the Dumbledore/Grindlewald relationship is that 1. It caused Dumbledore to lose sight of what was important, and lose his own beliefs if only briefly 2. It cause Grindlewald to surrender to Dumbledore in the most public way possible… bu handing over his wand in front of all sorts of witnesses

Avatar Image says:

I think one of the issues that the public has with Dumbledore’s sexuality is that they wonder how Jo came up with the idea in the first place. Did she sit down and consciously say “I’m going to write a gay character”? If so, they wonder “why?” Or did it just come out of the story?...which, then, brings up the question, “how? What MADE her decide that he was gay?”

Posted by Corey on March 08, 2008 @ 07:51 PM

Sometimes characters just fit together. What made her decide that harry was heterosexual?

The only problem I have is that she said Dumbledore was gay and not just Dumbledore loved Grindelwald.

Avatar Image says:

LMB3-EXCELLENT answer! You hit the nail on the head. :)

Avatar Image says:

Wht can i say man. She’s just so likeable. And im still laughin on that woman in NC GOD told her, GOD wont give a damn about any stupid, overtly conservative, nut-shelled woman worrying about reading or not reading the book. She probably thought, these books’re so popular, let oppose ‘em n get a teeny weeny bit of fame.

Avatar Image says:

she’s wise, thinks deeply, clever, and she’s pretty too. Who won’t love her???

Avatar Image says:

I don’t, actually, for exactly those reasons: she’s wise, thinks very deeply, and is clever. (I don’t really care one way or the other if she’s pretty, because I’m interested in buying her story and not her nude album.)

I feel that the HP series sends a very disturbing message—or two or three actually, in several different areas of morality including views on sexual minority. A person sending such messages out of ignorance or carelessness, or even bigoted belief is somewhat excusable. Someone as clevery thoughtful as she demonstratively is committing the same offense is another matter entirely. I think it signifies either she meant it or did not care enough to think long and hard about the moral implications of her story in those aspects (in a children’s book no less), both of which strike me as deeply troubling and makes me skeptical of the kind of a person she truly is, despite the joy and admiration I feel in hearing/reading her words. Especially when I see her so vocally present herself as anti-homophobic, or completely fails to get the point of an interviewer when she asks her “why did you closet Dumbledore in your final book?” as she did in a Canadian (I think?) interview.

Avatar Image says:

Raisin_gal, what are you trying to say about JK? It’s just that if you wanna say something, say it outright instead of saying something vague so that nobody can say anything back. What did she do wrong?

Avatar Image says:

Amen Sister!

I love this woman more everyday!

Avatar Image says:

@performingmonkey – I agree with everything you said but could never write it as well as you did. Thank you for expressing that opinion! What I like about this fansite is that there are so many open minded people with free wills. It makes me feel like there is hope after all. If only I could meet these people in person rather than just online.

Avatar Image says:

Can’t wait for the Scottish book, really sorry she went through the book banning craziness, good publicity, but just really sad all the same if you think about the fact that there are people being led about by reactionary impulses to the whims of popular culture. That’s not how you’re supposed to do it, you know? :)

How can anyone object to such a fantastic series? Especially one that drops such lovely literary breadcrumbs?

Avatar Image says:

Hmm, she represents the British Labour party and Policy. Well, now Mr Gordon Brown has got a big fish for his own political career.

Avatar Image says:

Raisin_gal, I think I see where you are coming from with this (even though you are being very vaque), but I don’t think that it’s Rowlings job to give an image on how the world should be. Things like this happen. Dumbledore was born somewhere in the 19’th century. I don’t think people responded to kindly to homosexuality in those days. (Often, they still don’t by the way)

Avatar Image says:

Rowling the expert of religious fundamentalism? Finally, we got one. Yeah,yeah, yeah.

Well Yes. If Mr Gordon Brown does not need her any more he will do what each man and politician will do with a useful and naive woman:he will drop her.

Avatar Image says:

She is absolutely right about the fundementalists, they dont read the books they assume that because it has to do with witches and wizards that its witchcraft. And those of us who HAVE read it know perfectly well that they are not pulling us into some cult, we like them because they bring out problems and issues that everyone can relate to and they are very interesting. Its sad that they have to think that way, and pull the word Catholic along with it to make us all look bad.Im catholic and Im sure there are alot of HP fans that are catholic. Im sorry but in my own mind I still dont see Dumbledore as gay, he may have had an infatuation with Grindlewald but I dont think he is gay, I never got that inclination so I just dont think he is a gay man- besides what difference does it make, it has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter. To tell the Truth I always thought McGonagall and Dumbledore secretly loved each other.

Avatar Image says:

YAY JO!

I always love hwat she says. She’s very articulate and thoughtful. Oh, and I can’t wait for the Scottish Book! Well, I actually CAN wait =). She’s been writing seven books for more than a decade! I think this woman has every right to take her time on the encyclopedia.

More power to you, Jo!

ps: happy bday to mee! LOL

Avatar Image says:

Excellent! Any interview is good. Particularly her comments about fundamentalism. Quite frankly, I think that is one of the roots of the world’s problems. Wish I could read the article in full. Unfortunately one (maybe more) of the scans cut off the bottom line, so my weird detail-obsessed sense of interest drops due to potential and definite confusion over wheteher or not I understand what I’m reading. That make enough sense for ya’?

Avatar Image says:

Great! A new interview! And I can understand her so well that she wants to take her time writing new books and even the Scottish book. It must be awful to live with these deadlines and she has done so for so many years. Take your time, Jo.

I also like her reactions about the fundamentalists like Laura Mallory and about DD being gay.

Avatar Image says:

Obviously this Mallory woman is ignorant, but at least she is nonrepresentative of American Christians (much to the surprise of many prejudiced Potter fans here, I’m sure). I have yet to meet a Christian who didn’t like the Potter books because of irrational anti-witch or anti-wiccan hatred. I wish I could say the same for Rowling and so many of you politically correct “fundamentalists”, who insist upon equating homosexual normalization with scientific truth.

After deriding fundamentalists and "phobics"(whoever they are), Flittwick says, "I have no interest in getting into arguments and will not do so."  Gee, that's not too "fundamentalist" a statement (or closed-minded, which is definition everyone here is using for the word). Raisin_gal, do you even realize you're the epitome of a fundamentalist, if that word means nothing more than a simplistic closed-minded person? In your worldview, must any and all homosexual relationships in a fictional novel be presented as positive and uncloseted, or they're "wrong"? Why is there some onus on Rowling to have outed Dumbledore's character in the story? Perhaps she didn't want to. The Canadian interviewer, and you are the fundamentalists for insisting that Rowling has some kind of moral responsibility for writing her fictional characters within some grand design of a political program of "homosexual progress".  Do you even recognize that that is totalitarian?  And Bellatrix's "love", or obsession for Voldemort was heterosexual and obviously NOT healthy; she is presumably more deranged by the end than she was at the beginning because of it. Isn't that a satisfactory (to you)  example of unhealthy heterosexual "love"? I wish I could agree with you, mamabookworm, but it is precisely the preponderance of so many closed-minded people who mistake politically correct fashion with free will on the leaky cauldron and other potter sites that bother me. The late WFB was correct; "Liberals are constantly praising themselves for their open-minded tolerance of divergent views and then are shocked to discover that there are any other views." I can appreciate Rowling's artistic abilities in creating this wonderful story, however, without getting all upset at her for her (to my mind) ill-informed views. Raisin_gal, can you say the same? What if you read a terrific mystery story and the mad killer in the end turns out to be the homosexual character? Would you just throw down the book in disgust and suddenly decide you hated the story because it wasn't righteously progressive politically? If so, I feel sorry for you. That'd be no way to live life.
Avatar Image says:

Obviously this Mallory woman is ignorant, but at least she is nonrepresentative of American Christians (much to the surprise of many prejudiced Potter fans here, I’m sure). I have yet to meet a Christian who didn’t like the Potter books because of irrational anti-witch or anti-wiccan hatred. I wish I could say the same for Rowling and so many of you politically correct “fundamentalists”, who insist upon equating homosexual normalization with scientific truth. After deriding fundamentalists and “phobics”(whoever they are), Flittwick says, “I have no interest in getting into arguments and will not do so.” Gee, that’s not too “fundamentalist” a statement (or closed-minded, which is definition everyone here is using for the word). Raisin_gal, do you even realize you’re the epitome of a fundamentalist, if that word means nothing more than a simplistic closed-minded person? In your worldview, must any and all homosexual relationships in a fictional novel be presented as positive and uncloseted, or they’re “wrong”? Why is there some onus on Rowling to have outed Dumbledore’s character in the story? Perhaps she didn’t want to. The Canadian interviewer, and you are the fundamentalists for insisting that Rowling has some kind of moral responsibility for writing her fictional characters within some grand design of a political program of “homosexual progress”. Do you even recognize that that is totalitarian? And Bellatrix’s “love”, or obsession for Voldemort was heterosexual and obviously NOT healthy; she is presumably more deranged by the end than she was at the beginning because of it. Isn’t that a satisfactory (to you) example of unhealthy heterosexual “love”? I wish I could agree with you, mamabookworm, but it is precisely the preponderance of so many closed-minded people who mistake politically correct fashion with free will on the leaky cauldron and other potter sites that bother me. The late WFB was correct; “Liberals are constantly praising themselves for their open-minded tolerance of divergent views and then are shocked to discover that there are any other views.” I can appreciate Rowling’s artistic abilities in creating this wonderful story, however, without getting all upset at her for her (to my mind) ill-informed views. Raisin_gal, can you say the same? What if you read a terrific mystery story and the mad killer in the end turns out to be the homosexual character? Would you just throw down the book in disgust and suddenly decide you hated the story because it wasn’t righteously progressive politically? If so, I feel sorry for you. That’d be no way to live life.

Avatar Image says:

I’m disappointed that she felt the need to sanitise her only out LGBT character by assuring us that he never actually had sex. She’s probably not doing it on purpose, but it’s a very pervasive trope in the media to keep homosexual love completely consigned to subtext or unrequited love, so that people can avoid thinking about the icky gay sex. I’m sorry to see Rowling fall into that same old pattern.

Avatar Image says:

A.C. paragraphs are your friend!! :) :)

But yeah, that quote from WFB is pretty darned accurate isn’t it?

It is unfortunate to have so much political correctness in so much of our society today. I enjoy HP quite a bit, but strongly disagree with JKR on many issues.

Avatar Image says:

Snape had a woman though?

Avatar Image says:

LOVE ALL THE BOOKS AND JO IS BRILLIANT! BTW-NEVER TALKED WITH THAT FUNDMENTALIST LAURA PERSON IN THE STATESNO MATTER WHAT SHE SAYS. SO I NEVER TOLD HER NOT TO READ THE BOOKS. SHE MUST BE SPEAKING WITH THE OTHER GUY LUCIFER. THEY ALWAYS MAKE THAT SAME MISTAKE THOSE FUNDAMENTALIST. THEY SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BUT ALWAYS END UP FOLLOWING HIM. THAT IS SO TYPICAL! ME AND JESUS HAVE BEEN LAUGHING OUR ASSES OFF.

Avatar Image says:

Nema- she didn’t say that Dumbledore & Grindelwald never had sex, did she? If she’s stated that his love was unrequited then forgive me, I’ve forgotten. But as love is a huge theme throughout the books, I just think she’s trying to emphasise that rather than downplay the sex.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry. I should have been more specific. I meant this part:

“He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgment in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and bookish life.”

100 yrs of dedicated celibacy is a depressing way of making your gay character “safe”, you know? It’s just, I guess, an unfortunate response, because it feeds into such a tired old stereotype of the celibate queer.

Avatar Image says:

if jo,as much as I respect and love her,sees Dubledore as gay,that doesn’t mean anyone else should!!!!!!111

Avatar Image says:

Sorry about not being too upfront, to those who felt so. I didn’t want to offend my fellow fans’ sensibilities more than I already am, but I suppose not seeming to make any sense was even more offensive in some ways. (And pointless, as A.C. understood me and felt offended anyway.)

My deepest problem with the structure of the series is that the moral nature of not only the villain but also the hero turning out to be felt like a direct result of fate (or of their mothers’ morality and, to a significantly lesser degree, their fathers’) rather than of upbringing, education, or personal growth, by us being explicitly told that not only did Harry spend his childhood in an environment more abusive than Voldemort’s, but after being saved from it he has spent the rest of his growing-up process under the close care of a cold-hearted manipulator (Jo calls him “machiavellian”).

With regards to sexuality, I feel that Rowling’s statement about Dumbledore being gay was anything but anti-homophobic, for two reasons: #1, as I tried to say at 05:05 AM in an incoherent way and Nema puts in much better words, it does not send a message of tollerance to present the only gay love you ever show in your long series full of romantic subplots as a “terrible lapse in moral judgement” suffered by a powerful and “innately good” man which would have brought about humanitarian disaster had it been consummated. And #2, the fact that even Rita Skeeter, with her penchant for sensationalistic journalism and malicious distortion of (esp. romantic) facts (indeed she insinuates Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry is “unhealthy”), does not give even a hint of Dumbledore “falling in love with” Grindelwald, seems clear indication that JKR firmly chose to keep Dumbledore’s sexuality a matter of “hint hint nudge nudge”—a thing that dare not speak its name. For these reasons I really, really wish she had chosen to keep the fact that Dumbledore is gay in her authorial view a secret from her fans. If she did it for publicity, I downright despise her for her choice.

Everyone is entitled to their own worldviews, including JKR, and I don’t believe for a second that burning or banning her books, on religious or political grounds, is even remotely a good idea. Nor do I claim to be anything but fundamentalist in my belief that children’s novels (especially one so widely read as hers) are strongly influential and therefore can be dangerous if they go unquestioned. JKR, however, seems to think of herself (or at least love to present herself) as an anti-fundamentalist and liberally-minded person. That fact, juxtaposed with the actual overtones of her creations, troubles me very, very deeply.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry, one grammar correction:

[2nd paragraph] My deepest problem with the structure of the series is WITH the moral nature of…

Avatar Image says:

Re: Canadian interview

It just occurred to me that if I’m going to reference something, it’s only common courtesy to provide the source text. I searched for it and it’s here, so anybody curious about it can judge for themselves:

[Video] http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/arts/web_exclusive_jk_rowling.html

[Text-form] http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html

What I referred to comes at 16:10 in CBC’S video. Search for “outing” in the transcript. To me it sounds as though she is either completely failing to, or avoiding to, acknowledge the questioner’s main point, rather than choosing to give a reply to the question, such as by saying “Yes, I decided to not write the word ‘love’ in there in black and white—I mean come on, I already have scary fundamentalists on my back trying to ban my books!”

YMMV.

...My apologies for spamming this thread; I swear I will shut up after this! :)

Avatar Image says:

Oh, goodness, yes, we would have liked George to be involved with a male friend, and same gender couples kissing at the Yule Ball, and not having the only (openly identified by JKR) gay character as being celibate after tragically falling in love with the wrong guy. (AND for the record, GG could have been gay, straight, bisexual or transgender, we don’t know…..they could have had sex, we don’t know..and we don’t know whether GG was in love with DD. I suggest that GG WAS in love with GG because he showed remorse in his old age, and didn’t tell Voledemort, I’d love to speculate because in part GG didn’t want Voldemort to desecrate DD’s tomb). Yes, we would have liked less of a heteronormative Potterverse.

Yet, if we want to judge JKR’s work by purely political grounds - meaning (yes right wingers – here it is the vast HOMOSEXUAL CONSPIRACY you’ve told us again and again is out there) that the world will see lesbians, bisexuals, gay men, and trans gender people as other human beings deserving of dignity, respect, full civil rights…that we are diverse, some of us good, some of us making bad choices, some of evil, some of us celibate, some of us having multiple partners, some of us finding the special beloved soul mate to whom we cleave forever and ever…that there are flawed individuals who make the evil choice to sexually molest a child or a youth - but that flaw is not the flaw of orientation…if we measure JKR’s work by THAT goal..she has accomplished a huge amount. Note the anguish, the fury, the angst, the disgust of the right wing fundamentalists at the disclosure that DD, the most powerful wizard in the world, who is a good and great man (as Harry says at the end of DH), who like all good and great human beings (Gandhi, Mother Theresa), had flaws…the guy in the plum suit with the wonderful sense of humor, he who gave people second chances, who trusted, who loved….he’s gay. Bravo, JKR…...

It’s not that she did it deliberately. He popped into head that way. It’s that she allowed him to continue being gay, and SHE doesn’t think that being gay is bad. End of sentence. End of story. The end.

Avatar Image says:

Not the end.

I have no objection to Dumbledore being gay. But some disagree. And that’s their right.

Avatar Image says:

Oh my God! GOD! You read Leaky?! I never knew…

Avatar Image says:

Susan, you have a very good point. I don’t agree with it at all, but still, your case is excellently supported.

Thanks for your voice of reason, j, it’s extremely difficult to keep a level head when talking about something truly dear to your heart, be it politics or the integrity of your favorite books’ author. I never intended to disparage the personality of anybody here, but I think my comments are nevertheless at fault for instigating others into that rut, by failing to extend the same courtesy to JKR the person. I do love her for her gift. I also hate her for some of her actions and couldn’t keep it out of my voice.

I apologize for the tone of the discussion I led us into.

Avatar Image says:

In my deepest opinion is that JKR has no obligation to anyone. She has no obligation to set a good example of any type of relationship to anyone except her own children. She has no obligation to you, me or anyone else except her children. She has an obligation to them and them alone.

She gave us a beautiful story – because she wanted to, not because she had to – that included some beautiful and some terribly things.

We had beautiful love – Molly and Arthur Weasley, Bill and Fleur, Tonks and Remus, Lily and James. We have the love that is unrequited and forces a man to do whatever he has to do to protect that person in Severus Snape. We have deranged love in Merope and Tom Riddle Sr. We have further deranged love in Bellatrix and Voldemort. We have the Malfoys who love each other and care more about each other in the end than anything. And then we have Harry’s relationships.

We have examples of beautiful love with Harry. Sirius, Arthur Weasley, Remus, they all loved him like they were his own child. Lily and James loved their son with a fierceness that every parent knows. Ron and Hermione love Harry beyond friendship into siblings. And Harry and Ginny love each other enough to hold on to each other.

And then there is Dumbledore. He loved Harry like his own son or grandson. He cared for Harry and was always watching out for him. Who cares what this man’s sexuality was. He was capable of loving another human being more than himself and thats more precious than anything. He protected Harry from the most frightening things in the world the way any parent would.

And yes, Dumbledore loved another man. Whether or not that love was ever reciprocated, no one knows. Grindewald in his old age, showed remorse for the friend he lost and betrayed. And that shows that Grindewald loved Dumbledore, even if it was only as his best friend.

Love is the greatest gift you can ever receive from another person, no matter who that person is. JKR showed many different kinds of love. She showed tragic love, deranged love and every lasting love. She showed love between parents and their children, love for your spouse and love for your friends.

And she had no obligation to do so. She didn’t need to “bring Dumbledore out of the closet” because he didn’t need to be overtly gay to love. No one needed to know his sexuality to know that he could love. That was the most important part of the story. Harry didn’t need to know that in his childhood Dumbledore was in love with Grindewald. All Harry needed to know was that now, in the present, Dumbledore loved Harry like a father loves a son and would do anything to protect him.

And that is all that mattered.

Avatar Image says:

Very well done, and I’m pleased that my read of Dumbledore’s character as expressed here matches what Ms. Rowling intended.

Avatar Image says:

I dont know why after so many months that we’ve all known that DD is gay some people have the need to bash JK for it! She specifically said that it has nothing to do with the plot, he was celibate because he was pratically heart broken, and she said that she didnt know if they consumatted or not. Why is everyone so upset?! That was the best she could have given, it answered everything! We ask her to know everything including characters middle names! So it shouldnt be a surprise that she would let us know that one of her characters are gay even though it has nothing to do with the plot specifically. Im sorry for the rant but honestly im sick and tired of hearing the all these horrible things from people who are suppose to be fans. If you have a problem with DD being gay then pretend hes not like you do with every other gay person you meet. Its one thing to state an oppinion with fact but dont just come on here and comment that you dont like her choice and you think its wrong. Its your oppinion but if you dont like it then stop reading the books and commenting on the sites. Its been months now that we’ve known so if you still cant stomach it then leave.

Avatar Image says:

If Ms. Rowling says Dumbeldore was gay, well, then he was since she created the character in her books. But I am glad his sexuality was not a part of the story. Teenage sex was never an issue with the Harry Potter books so why all the fuss about Dumbeldore? Sex of any kind really had nothing to do with the books. They are mostly fantasy so why bring in sexual reality?

As a Christian I see the Harry Potter series as purely entertainment for much of what is portrayed is Biblically forbidden. Some of the scenes I would not let my children read or watch if they were very young. How young? I don’t know and do not have to deal with it since they are 31 and 27 now. Maybe under 12?

Avatar Image says:

I think what Beckett said was very lovely, its true she showed us many was to love, and Dumbledore story had nothing to do with the books so it really doesnt matter. For those who dont understand why some of us cant fully except gays and lesbians- you have to remember that it was something that was drilled in our heads since we were little that it is not ok for two men or two women to be sexually orientated- so that is why it is so difficult, because of what we were raised to believe we cant just all of a sudden turn around after so many centuries and say ok thats alright for them to do that. Some religions may believe it okay and others see it as not okay. I happen to be Roman Catholic, Im not strongly against it or for it.

Avatar Image says:

Thanks BellaSnape. I’m right there with you. I’m Roman Catholic and was raised going to church every Sunday. Heck this Sunday I’ll be at mass getting ready to be teary for Palm Sunday. But a person’s sexuality is none of my business just as who I date is none of theirs.

Dumbledore to me, is just a great guy who did a lot of wonderful things. Heck I wish he was a real guy who I could go hang out with tomorrow instead of going to class. Since he’s not I’ll have to settle for hanging out with JKR and Michael Gambon if I ever get the chance. And when I do I’ll hug them both. JKR for creating a character in a series who I loved so much I wanted him to be MY grandfather and Michael Gambon for doing such a wonderful job portraying Dumbledore after I believed no one could take my beloved Richard Harris’s place.

And if it upsets you to know he’s gay then shut your eyes and ears and pretend it’s not true. Heck it works for a lot of other things.

Avatar Image says:

Rowling ´s so called ideas are identically with the official Labour Party program. She speaks like a politician. Blablablabla. No wonder Gordon Brown is a good friend of her. Let all human beings become Labour voting Britons and the world will be rescued.

Avatar Image says:

Heck I wish he was a real guy who I could go hang out with tomorrow

Wow… Really? Really, and you have read the final book from beginning to end? I know this sounds like a horrible rhetorical question but I’m really really not. I’m asking out of truly heart-felt curiousity here. And, if it’s all right for me to ask you (or anybody here who totally agrees with beckett and doesn’t mind telling me), what is your age? Mine’s 27 and I don’t have a child, so maybe that disqualifies me for the way the books are truly supposed to be read?

I’m really not trying to put your or anybody’s reading into question here but rather mine. Because I read the whole series and came out feeling that I would run like away like my backside was on fire if I ever found myself in a close relationship, never mind friendship, with a person similar to Professor Dumbledore in terms of personality. Where on earth did I go wrong? We both read the same book and got completely opposite impressions, that’s truly mysterious to me…

Avatar Image says:

“D-Dore’s gay, but he’s the safe kind! The kind that doesn’t have sex! So it’s ok,, people.” Way to be, woman, way to be. She just keeps tangeling herself up more and more in these interviews, and one day, she’s going to fall so flat on her face that not even her most devoted fans will be able to cover. Enough, Rowling. You’ve had your fifteen minutes, honey, now stop trying to control every single aspect of people’s imaginations.

Avatar Image says:

Harp: If I follow your logic, it would be fine for Dumbledore to be gay if he was in a relationship, but the fact that he wasn’t makes it wrong?

I think you’ve missed the point. You need to ask yourself WHY Dumbledore had no relationships. Was it necessary to his character, or was it in an effort to “make him safe”. (I find that completely ridiculous by the way.)

Dumbledore has no relationships because he was hurt once and doesn’t want to be hurt again. It scared him that being in love blinded him to what Grindelwald was really capable of, and it ended up costing his sister her life. That added up to a deep emotional wound. That’s who his character is, and it would change the story tremendously if it were different.

Would Dumbledore have just needed to be in a relationship to make it all right? Perhaps Flitwick should have been gay, then…forget it. :-)

On a related note, as far as I know, and I might be mistaken, there are only two Hogwarts faculty/staff members who are married that we are aware of, Phineas Nigellus and Neville Longbottom, one of them in the past, and one in the future. So, Dumbledore isn’t in a relationship any more than the rest of the staff, at least as far as we know.

That is something I really hope JKR answers in the Scottish Book, I would like to know more about all the teacher’s families.

Avatar Image says:

First off Bellasnape and Beckett I can completely respect your views and appreciate that you make the issue you have with DD being gay your own problem instead of blaming JK for it. Rasin_gal if you have something to say just say it. Your going around and around about not wanting to know the greatest man in modern literture but not giving a reason why. Is because hes gay, or what he put Harry through, or what? Noone can answer your question if you done make it clear what your talking about. And Harp you need to reread the interview. JK did not sound in anyway try to be “safe”. She said he led a celibate life after Grindlewald because he realized what he had done. He was 1 ashamed of himself for believing in the views of racial dominance, he was probably completely heart broken over the relationship, etc. Why is that playing it safe??? There are tons of people out there who stay away from love out of fear, both gay and straight. There are tons of people out there who fall in love once and never have another relationship again in their lives, both gay and straight. There was nothing in ANY of her interviews that insinuates that she’s trying to play it safe or gather publicity for herself. We’re talking about a billionare who struggles to actually live a normal life!! Just because DD did not consumate the relationship or have anymore relationships after Grindlewald doesnt mean hes not gay. Hes still gay and she’ll never be able to change that. She made him that way and thats how she created him. A kind, loving, wise, great gay wizard. And thats how we should accept him. It doesnt change who he is or what he’s done in the books.

Avatar Image says:

Having read some of the admittedly strange comments on this board, I feel I should clear something up with regards to JKR both as an outsider and as the writer of this interview – perhaps the sentiment did not come across due to the obviously static nature of a written interview.

As far as I can recollect, and as far as my dictaphone relates, this is not a big deal. This is an organic part of the character. The expression behind it was that most people have experienced unrequited love and the damage it can do, yet we all choose to deal with it in different ways. For Dumbledore, his blind love meant that he almost compromised his entire belief system – a fact he realised later. Anyone who has experienced such a feeling knows how it is possible to scare oneself by the sheer lengths you are willing to go to in order to claim that love.

Whether that love is for a male or female, or at all consummated, is entirely irrelevant. JKR has not ‘sanitised’ Dumbledore in any way – in fact quite the opposite. She has made Dumbledore a much more human, much more relatable and much more accessible character to an outsider like myself, and certainly to any mature reader who can empathise with such characteristics.

I hope that clears things up.

Adeel

PS. For anyone struggling to read the scans, there will be PDFs uploaded on my website soon (www.adeelamini.com); similarly there’s an untrimmed version of the interview, about 7000+ words so double the length of this one, floating around on Facebook which you can find on this link: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adeel-Amini/21764285594. Enjoy.

Avatar Image says:

Ah, Adeel, how good that you wrote that.

The feeling I got when JKR broke the news about DD’s sexuality was that suddenly he became THe Gay Character, and all his magical achievements for good or for bad and the importance of his thoughts and actions in the story were suddenly absolutely unimportant compared to this little snippet of backstory about his sexuality. Anyway it made a few gay people pretty grumpy – somehow they were claiming DD’s gayness for themselves and therefore being p*ssed off because his gayness wasn’t portrayed in the most positive way. (Actually, it wasn’t portrayed at all, remember). Thus making exactly the same mistake as every sensationalist; of forgetting that DD is a rounded character in a huge book, in which sexuality and sexual orientation takes a back seat. DD has a zillion other important things to do, plot-wise, before being the prototype for positive sexuality education.

I agree that this makes DD more real- he didn’t trust his own judgment about love anyw more, not because he’d loved a man but because he’d loved an EVIL man. Actually he makes another mistake out of love (though not the sexual kind) when he tries to protect Harry by not telling him about the prophecy before the end of Book 5. It is about the love, not the sex, and about flawed characters, regardless of their sexuality. In fact the only more directly sexual instances I see in the books are in my opinion rather funny and slightly ridiculous – Lavender and Won-won, Harry’s chest monster, Fleur feeding Bill etc. Not the major plot-points.

To draw a parallel: people have also complained about the lack of influential female figures – I find that all the female figures are well rounded and interesting, but yeah, most of the movers and shakers in the wizarding world are guys. Like in the muggle world. If she made it too different and egalitarian, I doubt we could identify with it so much. Crying about Dumbledore’s celibacy seems to me like gratuitous nit-picking.

Avatar Image says:

Yes he’s still gay and many muggles still have a problem with it for some reason. And being raised a certain way only accounts for your behavior until you get to an age where you start thinking for yourself.

I’m more interested in the “Scottish Book.” I’m sure work started on it with the first book. We know there’s a whole bunch of notes and portions of book that were discarded or edited out. As for the wait we have: she can take as long as she needs. I want this thing to be everything I imagined.

It’s like with the new GTA game which has been delayed over and over again. People get upset about it but if it’s really going to be THAT much better than the last (San Andreas: perhaps my favorite game of all time), they can take as long as they want.

Avatar Image says:

You know what I am more interested in—the little hint she’s peppered in on what would potentially come. That she may write a book about Albus Severus in 10 years time so all things Potter are not lost!!!

And of course our beloved Scottish Book :) I wonder if she’s feeling pressured to do something about it now because of the nasty Lexicon business. :( I feel sad for her, dammit, the woman needs a break!!

Avatar Image says:

Adeel,

Thank you for stepping into this discussion

I’m afraid that I may not be as eloquent or as clear as others might be talking on this issue, but I also feel there are things which need to be said. In the understanding that there are far more able commentators who may hopefully express these issues better than I can later, there are a couple of points I’d like to address.

For some of us, Dumbledore being gay was a bigger deal than it was to others. I don’t demand that you agree with how important it was, but I would ask for anyone reading this to try to accept and understand that for some people it does matter more than for others.

From the point of view of the books – within the narrative universe – the gender of the person whom Dumbledore loved is incidental. I get that. Wizard/Witch/Muggle/Goat, it’s not that important.

But the published books, and these interviews, exist in a world where it is not universally accepted that love is love, regardless of gender. It exists in a world where people who are gay struggle every day with intolerance (and some choose celibacy rather than have to deal with that). It exists in a world where fifteen year old boys are murdered because their classmates have learned to fear homosexuality. It exists in a world where gay people seldom see depictions of people like them on TV or in books. And it exists in a world where declaring DD to be gay caused international headlines. (You can argue that it’s stupid for it to be headline news, and I’d agree, but anyone with any sort of understanding of how the media works can hardly be surprised that such information was publicised and politicised the way it was.)

I’m not looking for HP to be the battle ground where we finally get equallity. I get that it’s “just a children’s book”. But a lot of the ideas and stereotypes against which gay people have to fight come from TV and popular literature. And while celibacy may do little harm for the character of DD in the books, it’s adding to the stock pile of the trope of the Safe Celibate Gay™. Such stereotypes are often easily defended on a one by one basis, but one has to be aware of the harm they do when constantly reiterated.

I know you’re not a Potterhead yourself, so I’d also like to explain another bit of the context. HP has a huge following – larger than any other work ever, I think – of fans who discuss, and even write fiction about the characters and their love lives. (Strange, but true.) There are no other out gay characters in the HP books. There are lots and lots and lots of heterosexual relationships. With almost every interview she gives, JKR seems to list further heterosexual marriages.

Isn’t it just a little bit unbalanced that the only character she’s willing to decisively declare gay is also the one whom she sees very firmly as being celibate?

I do understand that for JKR this really isn’t a big deal. I believe 100% that she was speaking from the best of motives. However, I would also argue that just because it’s not a big deal for her, doesn’t mean that it’s not problematic for others.

Nema

(PS. Thank you sincerely for this conducting this interview and for making it available to us.)

Avatar Image says:

Raisin_gal – I’m 21 years old and I don’t mind saying so. And yes I’d love to hang out with Dumbledore. He’s a great man who did a many great things, no matter what mistakes he may have made along the road (and I don’t consider his sexuality a mistake). I wouldn’t want someone to not want to hang out with me because when I was 17 I screwed up.

Your sexuality does not define who you are. It doesn’t depict what decisions you make as far as the rest of your life. It defines one small aspect – the sex of the person you happen to fall in love with. How you love, you ability to help others, your career…everything else in your life is not controlled by your sexuality. Just because I’m straight doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn out to be a good person in the end. Look at all the straight people who turned out to be horrible individuals?

To me, what someone’s sexuality is doesn’t matter. It may mean that we could never have a romantic relationship but big deal. It doesn’t mean that we can’t have a relationship. Dumbledore was one amazing person who did amazing things. And heck yeah I’d want to hang out with him. I’d sit down with him, have some tea and talk about… I don’t know candy. It doesn’t matter. I want to hang out with him because of the amazing accomplishments that he did, for the fact that overall he was a good person. Not because he’s gay or straight.

I’m sorry if you can’t see past his sexuality. That saddens me. It’s going to block off a lot of wonderful people from your life. Look at all the amazing real people out there who aren’t straight. I’d still love to hang out with Jodie Foster, Elton John, Victor Garber and a slew of others. I don’t care who they date, who they love. That doesn’t define who they are.

Avatar Image says:

I’m rotflolling at this thread. I don’t recall any significant criticism of JKR when it seemed like her books didn’t have ANY gay characters – but now that her stories have a gay character, she’s getting dissed because he’s not being gay IN THE RIGHT WAY. Several posters have decried the ‘celibate old queen’ stereotype – how do you think that makes all the REAL celibate old queens feel? Disenfranchised much?

Consider that a) there’s not any right way to be gay OR straight, whether it’s in real life or fiction; and b) rather than criticising JKR for not putting the right type of gay character in the right way in her series of fantasy novels for children, try writing your own story and characterising homosexuals the way you think they should be characterised.

Oh, and to the poster (was it steve something?) a few pages ago who said readers wouldn’t have accepted a fictional universe where more gender equality existed, I completely disagree and am very dismayed by your opinion. We’ve come a long way, baby; you, on the other hand, have some catching up to do.

Avatar Image says:

Medea,

1. The fact that you never came across criticism of the lack of gay characters in HP doesn’t mean nobody was making it.

2. I’d imagine celibate old queens are themselves rather irritated at having become a stereotype. And I can’t see how it’s disenfranchising to point out the trope. Nobody’s said they want a petition to ban all representations of celibate gay men. The problem is when it becomes stereotype, and when it’s thrown in without any consideration of the sort of issues which lead people to identify as gay, but choose celibacy.

3. Do you tell film critics that if they don’t like a movie they should just make one themselves? Do you really believe that all negative criticism is invalid, or just that which offends your sensibilities?

Avatar Image says:

Not that I want to go there but maybe what Dumbledore felt when he was 17 yrs old for Grindlewald is the same feeling that some of us girls get when we like say – Helena as Bellatrix or, the guys get when they like Alan as Snape- doesnt really mean that we “want” them. We just are in a fan like matter infatuated with them- and boy I miss the days when gay meant “happy”. I was never around but things would be much simpiler.

Avatar Image says:

This is a very loaded subject.

I mean, a book about stand-up comedians? Before she finishes the Scottish Book?

But seriously. I’d like to attempt to explain from a personal standpoint why Dumbledore’s orientation matters so much to some fans.

For years I have been sure J.K Rowling condemns homophobia- take Dudley’s comment to Harry at the beginning of Order of the Phoenix- “Who’s he, your boyfriend?” If Dudley insulted Harry with homophobic slurs, that meant JKR considered homophobia bad.

However, I never really hoped for JKR to ‘out’ a character. Even if she never intended any of her characters to be gay, I would have loved the books just as much. They are based loosely on the real world. I doubt she calculated from statistics how many people of various religions, how many ethnic minorities and gay minorities she should send to Hogwarts, and then wrote them in.

The books aren’t meant to be a direct representation of our reality and our social woes. The wizarding world’s struggle is a metaphor advocating the fight for tolerance and for making the right moral choices in ours, the readers’, world.

So why does it matter so much that Dumbledore is gay? Growing up with often only unrealistic media portrayals of what a gay person is like, I (and many friends) longed to have a ‘normal’ character in our favorite book series who happened to also be gay. Many, many gay people look and act exactly like straight people and are indistinguishable from them save for whom they love. It is discouraging to see the public stereotypes of our lives. News of Dumbledore’s sexuality was uplifting to me because his sexuality wasn’t the focus. He was not the ‘gay character.’ He was a strong, good, wise, but flawed character.

To those on the message board who say “Too little, too late” (as many of my friends have): I sympathize. However, were any of you expecting better, really? To me, Dumbledore’s celibacy after Grindelwald is quite sad, but it seems fitting with his character. Perhaps the stereotype of the celibate old man exists because there was historic reason for it. After all, wizards don’t seem more tolerant than Muggles, and a gay man in Victorian times was hardly likely to come out.

To those that say, “But this makes it about SEX! Gay sex! Dumbledore’s sexuality is about SEX! Harry and Ginny are about LOVE and are meant to be!” Clue in: ALL infatuations are about love and physical attraction. Neither orientation, straight or gay, is more about sex than the other.

My apologies for any gross overgeneralizations. I’m trying to respond to several topics I see in this thread.

Avatar Image says:

Hmm, maybe some of us were upset because of Dumbledore being gay! First of all, I just don’t see him that way. Second of all, I am one of many Albus/Minerva supporters! MMAD forever!

Avatar Image says:

Ella, I don’t think you read my post very carefully.

“Medea,

1. The fact that you never came across criticism of the lack of gay characters in HP doesn’t mean nobody was making it.”

I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.

2. I’d imagine celibate old queens are themselves rather irritated at having become a stereotype. And I can’t see how it’s disenfranchising to point out the trope. Nobody’s said they want a petition to ban all representations of celibate gay men. The problem is when it becomes stereotype, and when it’s thrown in without any consideration of the sort of issues which lead people to identify as gay, but choose celibacy.

You missed my point, which was that the critics of the way AD was portrayed, by identifying him as a stereotypical celibate old queer, are themselves stereotyping.

3. Do you tell film critics that if they don’t like a movie they should just make one themselves? Do you really believe that all negative criticism is invalid, or just that which offends your sensibilities?

**I’m not answering straw-man or ad hominem arguments, sorry. Come back with something more accurate and we can talk.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry about the formatting, I didn’t know it would do that.

Avatar Image says:

“Not that I want to go there but maybe what Dumbledore felt when he was 17 yrs old for Grindlewald is the same feeling that some of us girls get when we like say – Helena as Bellatrix or, the guys get when they like Alan as Snape- doesnt really mean that we “want” them. We just are in a fan like matter infatuated with them- and boy I miss the days when gay meant “happy”. I was never around but things would be much simpiler.

Posted by BellaSnape on March 10, 2008 @ 05:07 PM “

BellaSnape….could you share how old you are? I’m confused because you say “us girls”..in my book, girls means a female younger than 18…but then you say you miss the days when gay meant “happy” which was pre-1970…

JKR is quite clear. Albus Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald in a totally erotic, obsessed, limerance, first love, gonads at attention, way…

Susan

Avatar Image says:

We seem to treat homosexuals the same way the wizarding world treats werewolves and giants. Wouldn’t it be nice if we walked away from these discussions with a little more respect and tolerance for each other?

If you ever have the chance, try living in a place where you are not of the dominant culture. It is a wonderful way to see another’s point of view.

I really do hope that Dumbledore and Grindlewald did get together. What a sad thing it would be to life a that long and not know love.

Avatar Image says:

JKR is quite clear. Albus Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald in a totally erotic, obsessed, limerance, first love, gonads at attention, way… Quote Susan

And because DD´s obsession is completely needless for the storyline Mrs. Rowling could have spared this part She just wants to catch people´s attention. Nothing else. Anne Rice is a convincing writer. Sexuality (ok she writes for adults of course) plays a role in her books. And the sexual attitudes are always important for the plot details of her characters. She is highly praised as an author, so is King. She already wrote about sexuality long before Joanne Rowling even was mentioned.

Avatar Image says:

beckett, thanks for your comment!

I should have phrased my question clearer, because the point that I wanted to ask was “Have you read the books” because it is perfectly legit to have your character image built on the movies rather than the books. But you seem to have, so my puzzlement will forever be left as it is…

The thing that made me not want Dumbledore as my friend is actually not his past of having almost gone with the Evil Side, nor does it have anything to do with whether he is or isn’t gay (that’s a taste, not a character, and it doesn’t change what’s written about his characteristics in the books one bit). What made me personally hate him (I’m sorry for using such strong words, to anybody who likes his personality) and fear the prospect of going anywhere near a man like him in RL, is the personality traits that I felt he was suddenly revealed to have had all along, in the final book. In one word, I felt his personality was described as characterized his utter lack of empathy. His conversational tone with Snape in the pensieve striked me as extremely callous, even considering the fact that Snape is basically a sinner working for Dumbledore to atone his past mistakes.

But that was obviously just MY impression, and personalities aren’t ever things that get written down in books like “Character A’s personality is X, and B’s is Y.” So I genuinely wanted to know if there are many people who have read the books very closely AND gotten the same impression about Dumbledore as you have… It’s an extremely puzzling thing about a book, when you don’t know if what you yourself are reading is what the text actually means. Part of me still hopes I’m reading Dumbledore’s personality wrong. I mean, i think he is “empathy-less” and “callous” when he has just saved the world! That is obviously not a very sound message I’m getting from the book. So it’s got to be that your reading is closer to what JKR intended, right? At least, I hope so…

Avatar Image says:

Medea,

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

I honestly don’t see the distinction here. Does this thread here on the Leaky constituite “significant” criticism? If so, then any criticism of the lack of gay characters held in a similar format on a web forum also be “significant” criticism? If so, then it’s highly probable that it could have been going on without your coming across it; if not then how does a thread like this constitute an increase in criticism or “dissing”.

I don’t understand what you think constitutes “significant”, and why you feel it’s going on now, but wasn’t going on previously.

“You missed my point, which was that the critics of the way AD was portrayed, by identifying him as a stereotypical celibate old queer, are themselves stereotyping.”

But does stereotyping not necessitate reducing people in a certain subgroup to simplified, recognisable qualities by which others can then pick them out? In the case of this particular stereotype, the reduction which makes me uneasy is the habitual pairing of old academic gay men with celibacy and bookishness, without any consideration of the kind of societal pressures, or historical imperatives that feed into it. There’s a long history of socially enforced celibacy homosexuals, traditionally encouraging things like channeling energies into a monastic or, yes, academic life. If DD were a real person, he’d actually have a past, and personal motivations, and experiences. As it is, he does unsettle me as a stereotype.

I don’t believe that it’s stereotyping to point out a stereotype, but I’m genuinely open to considering your point if you think I’m being hypocritical here.

3. Do you tell film critics that if they don’t like a movie they should just make one themselves? Do you really believe that all negative criticism is invalid, or just that which offends your sensibilities?

“**I’m not answering straw-man or ad hominem arguments, sorry. Come back with something more accurate and we can talk.”

I’m sorry that I was unneccessarily snippy, but your argument really did strike me as a sweeping dismissal of the whole point of criticism.

You said: “rather than criticising JKR for not putting the right type of gay character in the right way in her series of fantasy novels for children, try writing your own story and characterising homosexuals the way you think they should be characterised.”

To me, that sounds like you’re saying that criticism isn’t a legitimate exercise unless you’re prepared to create an alternative product. Such a position puts rather a lot of people out of a job.

Avatar Image says:

Sorry if I was confusing but I am 18 years old and I will be 19 on July 13, born in 89.

Avatar Image says:

P.S. – Im sorry but Dumbledore just isnt gay in my own mind, and I dont want him to be- I think what Jo was really trying to do is cause an uprise of attention about homosexuals, I love her dearly and have nothing against her that is just what I believe she is doing- because How many times has this been posted on here now and the comments get up in the 150’s almost debating about it. Homosexuality whether you accept it or not it a private matter based on your own religious and political views. TO me Dumbledore loved McGonagall.

Avatar Image says:

Some people here, making a big deal out of something which is NOT, are living proof that Rowling is waaay ahead of our times. At least when it comes to homossexuality.

Avatar Image says:

She’s right about Dumbledore. He is a character who just happens to be gay. The comment about fundamentalists all hating hte same thng made me roar, it’s so true! Love you Jo!

Avatar Image says:

‘Well I prayed whether or not I should read them, and God told me no.’

That is too surreal! I like the point that J.K.Rowlings brings up about this sort of non-logic.

I wonder how this happened to her? Did she go up to the bookcase featuring Harry Potter, start to pray in the middle of the bookstore for some answer – and behind her someone said “Oh God, no way, what is that woman doing over there by the Harry Potter books?”

Avatar Image says:

Ella, sweetie, you’re still not reading. You quoted me as saying that I didn’t come across significant criticism, but I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t RECALL significant criticism. I’m sorry, but I can’t converse with someone who actually manages to misquote me despite my words being right there.

Avatar Image says:

why is she speaking for some of us who have a problem with homosexuals- she says its a fear of people loving? excuse me but that is not what the issue is here if anything there could be more love in the world but in a harmonious way- not this way, I still have no stance on it, but technically she is wrong it is repulsive to some to think about two men or two women, doing stuff that a man and a woman were made to do. It has nothing to do with people loving eachother why do you think christians also oppose war- its fighting and there is no love invloved in it. Idk, this is all confusing I think it would have been better for her to just let us decide what we wanted to about Dumbledore.

Avatar Image says:

“Ella, sweetie, you’re still not reading. You quoted me as saying that I didn’t come across significant criticism, but I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t RECALL significant criticism. I’m sorry, but I can’t converse with someone who actually manages to misquote me despite my words being right there.”

That’s perfectly ridiculous. I read you fine. I responded to what you said. I quoted you word for word. If you don’t want to continue the debate, don’t, but you don’t score exit points by prevaricating on senseless semantics.

Avatar Image says:

Ella, it’s not true that you quoted me word for word. Go back and read what I wrote – my words are not the words you put in quotation marks and attributed to me. Taking issue with having words attributed to me that I never said isn’t semantics, it’s a fundamental issue. This is so basic that I can’t believe you are acting in good faith – all you need to do is go back to page six of the comments and compare my actual posts to the words you put in quotes on this page and said were mine. They’re not the same. They’re not “word for word”.

At any rate, I am closing my correspondence with you; best wishes.

Avatar Image says:

I don’t understand where you think I’m misquoting you.

In your post – the last on page six – you say:

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

In my post halfway down this page I quoted you as saying:

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

I cut and pasted it to make the reply.

Avatar Image says:

How and ever, it’s not worth getting het up over. Suffice to say, as far as I’m concerned I was in perfectly good faith, but apologise for letting my annoyance heat my responses.

There’re times and places for anger and this isn’t it. So I sincerely wish you a good week.

Avatar Image says:

Bellasnape, Thanks for clarifying the fact that you are 18. Frankly, it provides some excuse for your comments. What if I were to say that it’s repulsive and disgusting to think of what one man and one woman do together in bed? I hear that your are confused. Why don’t you go to pflag.org and read their site. Or get a good modern book on adult sexuality…I recommend Our Bodies Ourselves. Susan

Avatar Image says:

Wouldn’t it be nice if we walked away from these conversations with a little more tolerance and respect for each other?

Avatar Image says:

Wouldn´t it be nice NOT to delete messages the mods cannot stand? Wouldn´t it be nice to reduce the star cult? Wouldn´t it be nice to question Mrs Rowling´s ideas of what she calls moral and tolerance?

Avatar Image says:

@ Susan then you would have a problem with the majorety of couples in the world- Im not neive- I probably cant spell, very good at the moment but I do know alot about sexuality. I am studying to be something in the medical feild and to do that my requirements were to take pyschology and sociology and we dicussed both asexuals, bisexuals, heterosexuals and homosexuals- in that class, along with fundamentalism and other aspects of society. I am not predjudice against homosexuals , I have already stated that I dont know where I stand because I have been taught since I was old enough to understand my religion that it is not ok, its part of being a Roman Catholic you dont accept that along with abortion, and war. But I can persuade you and you cant persuade me because this is religion, and that and politics are two things that should never be publicly discussed.

Avatar Image says:

meant to say I cant persuade you, sorry I type fast.

Avatar Image says:

I have just spent a considerable amount of time reading these posts and while I found some of it laughable I think the big point that most of you seem to miss is a very simple point THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. These books are a fantastic work of fiction meant to take the reader on a journey in there minds with written words. JKR did a fantastic job with all of the books. And personally have really enjoyed reading them all. These books were never intended to be an outlet for homosexual or anti homosexual debate. if you wish to spend time on that issue then you have totally missed the boat. IT’S a BOOK. as for the possibility that she might continue the world of HP in a latter book that would be great and I would read it for what it is. an enjoyable work of fiction.

Avatar Image says:

Carl, if you sincerely believe that the works of fiction which we as a society produce and imbibe are completely divorced from the social and cultural climate in which we live, then I think you do all literature a severe injustice.

Debating the meanings of our popular culture is worthy and worthwhile. Mindless consumption without reflection makes for a society of zombies.

Avatar Image says:

Thats just what half of us are saying Carl, she made this a more ” today and futuristic” issue by saying he is gay, and Rain is right all seven books have societal background in them. Voldemort= Adolf Hitler, Death Eaters= KKK, Fluffy= Cerebrus,......... and so on. And the themes are very real too.

Avatar Image says:

BellaSnape

Voldemort is NO Hitler. The comparison is simply inadequate.

I hate such stupid simplifications. And those stupid conclusions are Rowling´s mistake.

Greetings from a German whose grandpa suffered under the Nazi regime.

Avatar Image says:

In response to Macao, “It is the first time Jo admits Gellert Grindelwald was gay?”, she didn’t ever say if Dumbledore’s love was reciprocated. Dumbledore may have loved without ever having admitted it to Grindelwald.

Avatar Image says:

@ German Voice, well then I would think you would understand the comparison, if not oh well your loss but dont slam me for something that I believe. Alot of people see the similarety , have an imagination – its called using analogies. I will not respond again , I dont argue with ignorant people.

Avatar Image says:

sorry double post.

Avatar Image says:

Questioner, Who is deleting messages? I don’t know what a “mod” is. Is that a Brittish term?.

There are so many other parts to Jo’s interview. She seems to have dealt with depression in her life. That is something I can completely identify with. Somehow that makes her just a bit less star and a bit more like a sister.

Yet the discussion revolves around just one part of the interview. I understand that it is an important subject. I am fascinated by the opinions shared.

But what is the ultamate goal of the conversation, to persuade, let off steam, or unleash rage? By all means make your own choices. I was merely hinting at a preference of mine.

Avatar Image says:

BellaSnape,

you call me ignorant? Well. If you answer me or not: the comparison is an affront to all who suffered under Hitler, like my grandpa. You have no clue and your knowledge about history is as humble as Rowling´s is. To call me ignorant is the same as to say: it was your grandpa´s mistake he suffered under Hitler. You don´t know what you are talking about. I forgive you. Take care. By the way. You should learn more. It´s better for the understanding of reality.

Avatar Image says:

I have read all the books. When Mrs. Rowling stated that Dumbledore is gay, well I was shocked. I never got that impression. I am aganist homosexuality and since this a free country and world I believe I have the right to my opinions and beliefs. Maybe Dumbledore was in love with the idea of some one else like him with his same beliefs and ideas and when someone betrays you so deeply then you shut out all love from all side. Maybe if he was able to get over that betrayal and see their is love around him he would have found it in a “woman”. Because i can see him with the opposite sex. I will never stop reading the books and will continue to be a big fan. But I will never see or belief that Dumbledore is gay.

Avatar Image says:

This will be my last comment on this article. First I want to say to “read Better Books” that if you think she should have never said anything than maybe we have abused her kindness of answering our every question. We as a fan base have been the ones asking her to tell us every little background info on ALL of her characters. That is one of the things I LOVE about her and this series. The fact that he is gay should not matter any more than what Neville’s middle name is. If you have a problem with it then fine just dont bash her for it. Its part of our reality whether you agree with it or not. She makes up her characters as she pleases and thats how it should be. She shouldnt have to lie or sugar coat any information because YOU think its immoral or inappropriate. Why was it not immoral or inappropriate when she described (in great detail I might add) of all the snogging?? If you have problem because it has to do with childrens book then you should of had a problem with this also. Why werent your views so adamantly heard then? Also I want to address the person who said that it was wrong for JK to say he led a celibate life afterwards. That it was stereotyping the ones that stay celibate out of fear to let anyone know they were gay. Have you read any of the posts before you commented? Did you read the article correctly? I dont think you did and should read it again. He didnt lead a celibate life because fear of being gay, he led a celibate life so that he would not fall in love again. Because he was a wise man and knew what love could make him do. Thats not stereotyping, thats showing what kind of self control he had and the greater love he had to do what he truely thought was good in his heart. He made a sacrifice and put his feelings and needs for a significant other on the back burner so he could help others instead of dominate them. There is nothing wrong in that. It teaches self control, priorities, and a need to know ones self. Besides the fact that this whole debate (which shouldnt even be a debate in the first place) is tiring, its very intolerant and bigotted. If people would come on here and comment that they it was wrong for Harry to date an Asian decented girl than it would be the same inproper hate. We live in a world where there are gays whether you like it or not. If you dont like the fact that DD is gay then dont read the books or comment on a HP fan site. It makes no sense to be so entirely against something yet still try to supportive of it. Its hypocritical and down right aggitating to those who agree with this or can be adult enough to put it past us for the love of a great piece of modern literature we have followed for over 10 years now. Grow up please and move on from this. Its predjudice and the very thing these books fight against. And the very thing we ALL once said were the greatest part of reading them.

Avatar Image says:

Well everybody is free to live her or his personal and sexual live pleasantly and individually as long as it is between agreeing adults. So DD is free to choose if the readers agree or not.

I personallt think that after some age books, travelling, education … are more important than a sex partner, the same as Dumby thought.

Well the books are so good why bother with critics ?

Avatar Image says:

JK Rowling doesn’t have to ask any of you for permission to create her characters the way she imagines them. But that’s something many people seem unable to comprehend. „She shouldn’t have said that”?! You’ve got to be kidding me… She said what she thought of a character that she was creating during her 17-year-long work. Or maybe she shouldn’t have even thought that Dumbledore might be gay…? She didn’t even wrote that in her books. Just answered a question. And I like her answer very much. And that’s quite a leap from her saying that she always thought of Albus as gay to „celibate old gay stereotype” LOL. There is nothing about gender issues in her books, people. Nothing at all, really. You’ve read them, haven’t you? Reread them or read Ann Rice instead.

I smiled at the thought that Dumbledore loved someone, and thought that it was nice of her to share this additional infowith her fans. After reading many of the comments here, I think that she must be really brave to be honest. I hope she stays that way.

Avatar Image says:

While I agree that books often reflect current issues in our real world that does not mean that you tear a book apart to see it’s social standings. I believe that all of us posting here are true potter fans but we snipe at each other over what amounts to fantasy that were the problem is if most of these posts had been thoughtful I typed in the spirit of debate and or discussion then I can see the chats as worthwhile but several of the people who post here tend to lower themselves to name name calling when they can’t come up with a more reasoned argument. and this part is to voice of a german you should consider rethinking some of your argument about the Hitler comparison. While I doubt anyone here is downplaying the suffering of your grandfather or the many more that were in his situation the comparison of Voldemort to hitler is a valid comparison in this realm they both believed there race or particular group was superior to all others and that because of this the torture and killing of people not the same was completely right. I can think of no other real world comparison that would make sense I could go on with more examples but will stop there. Have a great day all

Avatar Image says:

Well, at some points the comparision V. Hitler is much the same. Both were very unhappy guys with a hug problem with their origens (Hitler was a 1/4 jiddish.) Both gained power using prejudices (jews-muggleborns) they already existed in the population. And in both cases a big number of comon people and politicians where helping their rise to power in one way or the other.

The big difference I see is that Hitler was used by economical powerfully family clans to do their biddings, V. was a solitary loonatic who did it for personal vengance and personal power to feel himself great.

Avatar Image says:

I didn’t know that Hitler was part Jewish.

German Voice reminds me of Victor Krum. I’d be angry if it was my grandfather too.

Avatar Image says:

Alice MIller investigated the troubled life of Nazi leaders and how they became so cruel and inhuman. One of them was educated to become a bishop… Hitlers grandmother was maid in a jewish household and got pregnant from her boss.

Avatar Image says:

Thank you, Eva. That explains volumes.

Is this bishop still with the Church?

Avatar Image says:

I want nothing more than to have a nice long conversation over coffee with that woman. She is amazing and inspires me to write better. As for Dumbeldore being gay, well people are so stupid its a normal thing why cant people just get over it and stop telling her how to write her books, I mean if you really just dont like the idea they can read the books with the mindset that he isnt gay because it really isnt a main point and if he never loved after that first time who is to say he wouldnt have loved a girl latter in his life or even another guy or both besides sexuality isnt black and white its grey

Avatar Image says:

No, homophobia is not a fear of love. It is a fear of everything slightly beyond the usual patterns people commonly believe our society is made of. Anything a bit unusual confronts people with their fear of routine and established patterns which people believe to be their security blanket. Take it away and people fear chaos.

Avatar Image says:

THANK YOU JO. Everything I read about her just reminds me how awesome she is. It’s awful that she’s getting kind of run down in the media and completly comercialized, but at least she’s still staying true to her values. I agree wholheartedly with everything she said about Dumbledore… I always wondered whether he had a love life at all and him being gay makes perfect sense to me. There was always something very tragic about him; I had imagined that he might have had a daughter who he lost to Grindewald or something like that, but this makes complete sense as well. I can see how the idea of being taken in by all of that would have completly repulsed him after the fact, and he simply shut himself off from love altogether so that he wouldn’t have a chance of making the same mistake again. It’s so horribly tragic but so befitting to his charactar; we can see that since he was a teenager he truly devoted his life entirely to the good of humanity as a whole.

Avatar Image says: i think jo iz the best author EVER!Im working on an epic hero report right now and i got alot of good information.Avatar Image says: You know what. Jo's right. Being Gay doesn't matter. It's just you, this shows the kids something that the adults wouldn't even consider telling their kids. Being gay doesn't matter. Dumbledore was a geinus, literally. I can't see why gay kids could get bullied after something like this. Lol. That sounds so rude but I don't know I how to put it. Basically it will change the way gay's are seen.Avatar Image says: shes one of those rare people that are geniouses and still beautifulAvatar Imagemrs.t.weasley says: YES!!! the Scottish boook?!?!?!?! I don't think I can stand it. Maybe it will answer the question... WHAT HAPPENED TO LUNA!?!?!?!? I feel as if JK Rowlings knows everything, but just diesn't realize she hasn't told the rest of us it. Like important details for us slipped her mind :/Avatar ImageCalamity Jamie says: I know I'm commenting on an old thread, but having just re-read DH, I want to throw in that considering that muggles had so horrifically harmed his sister just years earlier, a very young Dumbledore, besides being in love, might also think keeping muggles in check through political domination (power) would save other children from undergoing a similar fate, much like Magneto, in the kinder interpretations of his character, believes in The X-Men. I am sorry DD let one bad love affair force him to avoid romantic love, though I hope he was, nonetheless, not lonely, that he allowed himself good friends and confidants like Prof. Magonagal and others. Oh, Jo, please hurry with the Scottish book!Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: This sounds amazing, I cannot wait for it.Avatar Imagemoglet says: She is an extraordinary person, I shall have to go and read the whole article. Jo is so intelligent and caring and incredibly articulate and she has shown herself to be a tremendous force for good, truly interested and involved in the charities she supports, not just a name attached to a letterhead.Avatar Imagekrystle_clear says: So excited for the book! She's a marvelous author. LONG L!VE HARRY POTTER!!!!!

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.