Advertisement

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Snape had a woman though?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Sorry, one grammar correction:

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

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! :)

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.

Not the end.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.