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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
It was the unicorn all right, and it was dead. Harry had never seen anything so beautiful and sad. Its long, slender legs were stuck out at odd angles where it had fallen and its mane was spread pearly-white on the dark leaves.
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.