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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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’?
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.
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.
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.
"I thought it was the perfect plan... a bluff... Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you... It must have been the finest moment of your miserable life, telling Voldemort you could hand him t
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)