Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

J.K. Rowling: “Albus Dumbledore is gay”

By

NEW YORK –Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.

More at boston.com.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Does anyone else think this has less to do with homosexuality than it does shameless spot-light seeking by JK Rowling?  I only read the last two books of the series.  They were fairly well done, and quick, entertaining reads.  But I don’t remember reading anything that would even remotely suggest any sexual preference by that character – or any other!  In fact, for a series of books almost entirely dedicated to teenage characters, hormones and sex are entirely left out of all of the stories.  If it was important that Dumbeldore was gay, why wasn’t it in the book?  These characters aren’t real, and don’t have sex lives beyond the pages of the work.

    • Does anyone else think this has less to do with homosexuality than it does shameless spot-light seeking by JK Rowling?

      <

      p>
      Um, who cares?

      <

      p>
      I haven’t read any of the books in the series.  Nor have I seen any of the movies.  And I never will.  Who cares whether a fictional character in a series of books of fiction is ex post facto “outed” by the author after the end of the series?

      • Who cares whether a fictional character in a series of books of fiction is ex post facto “outed” by the author after the end of the series?

        <

        p>
        Umm…record-slaying series of children’s books, one of the most successful serial literature and film franchises in recent history?  The release of the final issue was far and away the top story for days.

        <

        p>
        Lots of people care, raj, lots and lots.  Maybe you could deign to read one of the books — they’re pretty good.  It’s still a big story even if you aren’t personally interested.

        • …I’ve never been a fan of fantasy.

          <

          p>
          If Dowling had pulled a Mary Ranault Persian Boy half way through the series, I might sit up and listen.  Dowling didn’t, so I won’t.  Besides that, there are only so many hours in the day, and reading Dowling’s children books are about the last priority.

        • that Rowling outed Dumbledore at this time.  The result will be that many more kids will understand and observe in coming movies that LGBs can achieve success and power without their sexual preference being an issue.  The fact that religious righters were choking on their coffees while reading the headlines makes it all the more perfect.  Rowling doesn’t need the publicity.  She is amazingly successful already.  This was a powerful statement for equality. 

          <

          p>
          Anyone who hasn’t read the series of books and scoffs at the meaning behind this might learn something by reading her books.  She is a genius in her messages.

          • The result will be that many more kids will understand and observe in coming movies that LGBs can achieve success and power without their sexual preference being an issue.

            <

            p>
            The movie industry has a way of sanitizing propreties of any hint of LGBs when they make their movies.

              • …”GLB” take it up with lalorb.  It was his or her comment that I was responding to, and he or she made the reference.

              • LGBs can achieve success and power without their sexual preference being an issue.

                <

                p>
                With this ENDA debate going on, I’ve seen more than a few people mention how that straights and gays can both be trannsexual, so by saying LGB in the context of sexual preference, he’s not being disgusting.  By including the “t”, it would have been irrelevant. 

                • Sometimes we just shouldn’t be over-intellectualizing human dignity issues.  So, you have “seen more than a few people mention that straights and gays can be both transexual…” that equates to “let ‘them’ go this equal rights thing on their own?”

                  <

                  p>
                  Forget it!  LGBT has been LGBT in the strongest part of our movement.  Laws directly and inadvertantly have left out trans people and those which exhibit certain sexual ambiguity–that is wrong and the LGBT are trying to correct this.

                  <

                  p>
                  I am glad that “more than a few people” mentioning that trans people can be heterosexual or homosexual enlightened you.  But this fact seems pretty apparent to me and this “LGB” referencing is a very dangerous path.

                • What does Albus Dumbledore posthumously being outed have to do with transsexuals?  He was gay.  Was he trying to craft a spell to turn himself into a chick?  Did he take polyjuice potion with some hair from Mrs. Weasley?  No, he was just gay.  Apparently. 

                  <

                  p>
                  It’s my understanding that despite being connected issues, homosexuality and transsexuality are not the same thing, therefore to be under the pretense that you cannot speak of one without referencing the other is a ludicrous notion. 

            • I don’t think you truly understand the Harry Potter phenom.  It doesn’t matter what or how things are portrayed by the movie industry.  Half the kids in the world have read the books (not hyperbole) and know all the details.  Dumbledore is one of the most loved and trusted characters in the series.  Now that Rowling has pointed this out, there is no way to stuff the cat back into the bag. 

              • Now that Rowling has pointed this out, there is no way to stuff the cat back into the bag.

                <

                p>
                Just how many kids do you believe are going to read about Rowling pointing this out?  At this point in time?

                <

                p>
                She can do whatever she wants.  But the movie studios are going to do what they want with the characters in the movie, and with minor exceptions their practices have been to sanitize movie scripts of gay references.  It is highly unlikely that any remaining movies of the Potter series will suggest that this character is gay.

                • You really don’t get it.  The character is the character.  His being gay is meta data that will spread far and wide.  It makes absolutely no difference as to how he is portrayed.  Read the books before sermonizing about what the movie studios will do.  There should be no difference between how Dumbledore has always been portrayed in existing movies and how he will be portrayed in the future ones.  That is the point. 

                • …I get it pretty well.  I don’t need to read the books, because I have no issue with the books.  What I do have an issue with, is that Dowling is being lauded now, merely because she “outed” one of her fictional characters after all her books in the series (a presumption on my part)  have been published and presumably optioned to the movie studios.  She has made her money.

                  <

                  p>
                  If she was to be lauded, it would have been if she had “outed” her fictional character early in the series.  However, if she had done so, she might have reduced the financial value of her franchise.  I would analogize this to the fact that gay professional athletes almost invariably wait until they have retired before coming out, as if we are supposed to be impressed.

                • That’s twisted. Extremely, very, incalculably twisted. 

                  <

                  p>
                  Again, since you haven’t read the series, you don’t get it and obviously never will.

                • …to understand that Dowling’s declaration at this point in time is–how shall I put it–irrelevant.

                  <

                  p>
                  She’s made her money.  She sold the books.  Her declaration is irrelevant.  It has nothing to do with the subject matter of the books.  It has to do with her

                  <

                  p>
                  I’m surprised–but probably shouldn’t be–that you cannot understand the difference.

                • To go for snobby condescension, you need to be sure you can pull it off.  The fact that you can’t even be bothered to get the author’s name correct indicates your authority on this subject.

                • …as far as I’m concerned, it’s bad form to point out obvious misspellings on the Internet.  I could do it 24/7 here and elsewhere (your vs. you’re, its vs. it’s, whose vs. who’s).  We aren’t paid to comment here, so our proofreading will be at a minimum.

                  <

                  p>
                  The only time that I point out an obvious misspelling is when I can make a pun out of it.  Some of the people who post and comment on these political boards take themselves much too seriously, so that punning may be anathema to them.  See, I got the correct form of “too.”

                • It’s one thing to misspell Rowling as Rwoling or rowling.  That’s a typo.  To not know the first letter of the name of the person at issue isn’t misspelling — it’s ignorance of the issue at hand.

                • …high Shetland pony?

                  <

                  p>
                  Some of us multi-task.  Given the time stamp of my comment, I was probably contemporaneously watching or listening to something else.

                  <

                  p>
                  If you have something substantive to say, say it.  You obviously have nothing substantive to say.

                • childrens’ books are not worth my time.  Some of us have better things to do than to read childrens’ books.  When I was a child… but it has been a long time since I’ve been a child.

      • … the right for you not to care.

        <

        p>
        But the overwhelming popularity of the books should answer your own question, ‘who cares?’.  Right or wrong… lots.

  2. I don’t feel that anything in the Potter canon has been explained by this “revelation”, nothing clarified in the plot, nothing really changed in that wonderful span of story.  This doesn’t answer any questions, and there’s little point in opening up pathways that won’t be followed.  Worse still, this statement makes Rowling look unserious about her characters.  She always evinced — and I always believed — that she had an intimate knowledge of and interest in her characters. 

    <

    p>
    Maybe she had this in the back of her head when she first put pen to paper — but she never chose to even hint at that during the course of the story.  If I’d made a list of possibly gay or lesbian characters in those books, Dumbledore wouldn’t have made the top 3.  So why now?  It’s suggested for publicity, but what publicity could Rowling have a need for at this point?  She’s the second richest woman in England — I’d say she’s well exposed.  Her next book isn’t coming out for years, so there’s little to be gained for that.  Same with the next movie.

    <

    p>
    It seems like an arbitrary decision from a literary/celebrity point of view, so I’d guess perhaps something person is involved.  I would guess Rowling felt some need to show solidarity/support for the LGB* community.  Maybe someone in her life recently came out, or some criticism got to her — I don’t really know.  But this “revelation” has a lot more to do with JK Rowling than Harry Potter, and I don’t see the point.

    <

    p>
    * Given what I’ve seen lately, I’ve come to the conclusion that “LGBT community” is a misnomer.  People with blurred gender have very little in common with, and can expect very little from, the LGB lobby/industry.

    • i am sorry to hear you use such an ill-informed phrase as “blurred gender”.  you really should inform yourself on what gender identity is and is not.

      <

      p>
      as for “LGBT community is a misnomer”, you are free to associate, or not, with anyone you wish.  however, i and so many others will continue to define ourselves as an inclusive community.  if you would like to see transgender people excised from the rest of the community, please suggest a good way for my transgender colleagues who are gay, lesbian or bi to split themselves in half.

      <

      p>
      finally, on the dumbledore thing.  i read one of the news blurbs, and it was clear that the author was responding at least in part to the existing state of affairs in the potter “fan fiction” (or something like that) that has sprung up around the potter universe.  don’t know if you are familiar with this stuff, but nearly every popular tv show or book series spontaneously spawns a second tier of fan-written literature based on the premise of the original.  sort of unofficial spin-offs and episodes.  according to what i read, dumbledore had already been “outed” in that realm, and this is not inconsistent with his back story as presented by Rowling in the final book (i don’t know – i haven’t read it).  finally, her announcement makes more freeper heads explode.  where’s the harm in that?

      • The signs were there right along to the astute reader, and, I, as an English teacher, am pleased that Rowling has resolved this issue.  It’s an important one, as many young readers hold Dumbledore in high esteem. 

        <

        p>
        This is one to chalk up for the good guys. 

        <

        p>
        Some of you people need to recalibrate; these books are YA fiction and need to be viewed through that lens.  This is a good thing.

      • Please, Laurel, don’t call someone “ill-informed” just because you don’t like his/her language.  Tap in “blurred gender” and you’ll find hits from a lesbian and gay film festival, a university paper, and more than one paper on literature.  I got it from a close friend who is a crossdresser who says that his gender is blurred — should I correct him next time I see him?

        <

        p>
        As for your trans friends who are also gay or lesbian, they belong to two communities.  That doesn’t mean we have to force them together (is there a Harry Potter and Hawai’ian Music Appreciation Society out there?).  As I said, it’s the LGB lobby/industry that repeatedly sells the T* folk down the river.  I’m glad you’re in the minority on that, but it doesn’t change the fact that Human Rights Campaign, to pick an obvious one, isn’t horribly concerned with t* folk.  Don’t project on to me the idea of excluding people when the LGB lobby made that decision long ago.

        <

        p>
        And I am aware of the idea of fan fiction.  Of course.  You can find a story making Harry gay, bisexual, voluntarily transgendered, or involuntarily transgendered.  But here’s the deal for us fans.  One of the things so enjoyable about this story is that Rowling had meticulously planned every step of the story from book one.  This wasn’t your Chronicles of Narnia or Left Behind, were someone found a good paycheck and kept inflating the story to squeeze more money from suckers.  Rowling knew what she was doing every step of the way, and her characters were carefully drawn in that goal.  And that’s clear in the writing.  There’s no deus ex machina as you have in almost any 7-part series. 

        <

        p>
        So to say “oh, by the way, he was gay” seems, as I said, to take away from that seriousness.  Why would Rowling say that?  Why include a semi-random comment that really rattles the universe — akin to saying that Hagrid is actually allergic to dogs?  This is akin to CS Lewis coming out ten years after Last Battle was published and saying “oh, by the way, in case you were wondering, Cedric Diggory? Muslim.”  I liked to imagine the slight tension between Minerva McGonagall and Dumbledore because they were two of my favorite characters.  Retroactively, I find out that it’s not there.  Maybe Dumbledore and Grindelwald had latent interest in each other — that changes that story.  Now Potter fans are revising their imagined worlds ex post facto, and it’s somewhere between annoying and treasonous.

        <

        p>
        To someone with a nodding acquaintance to Harry Potter, I guess I can see how this isn’t a big deal.  But to someone who loves those books, who gets them on release day and withdraws from the world to avoid spoilers, who plows through them, who comforts fellow fans on someone’s death, it is.  It’s a kick in the leg that serves no purpose, and turns a valued, loved character into a work in progress when their story has been told.

        • Got my Diggorys mixed up.  Cedric Diggory was Cho Chang’s love interest in the Potter series.  I meant to refer to Diggory Kirke, the uncle in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe

        • very broadly.  in your mind it may have related to only one friend or a sub-group of trans people.  but on this page it appeared that you were defining using “blurred gender” as a surrogate term for transgender.  i only read what you wrote.

          <

          p>
          hrc?  their actions do not represent the whole community any more than mine do.  if they have only been paying lip service to lgbt unity until now, they will pay the price in lost memberships.  over 330 other lgbt and allied orgs and their memberships are dedicated to remaining t-inclusive, including PFLAG and NGLTF.  hrc may speak for some, but i think that they are finding that they speak for many fewer than they ever imagined.  i think perhaps barney frank got a similar wake up call.

          • The Democratic Party does not represent the progressive movement, but they are the loudest, biggest, most influential voice.  Similarly, Barney Frank and HRC do not represent the … community (I will never satisfy you in the language department, so I won’t even try anymore) but they are among its highest profile voices, much more so than say Queer Muslim Revolution or One Iowa.

            <

            p>
            There are folks in LGB industry/lobby who support and welcome *** , just as there are in the Republican Party.  But I am going on the majority of actions, the places where money and pressure are placed.  And through that lens, the … community has let *** consistently and repeatedly. 

      • i am sorry to hear you use such an ill-informed phrase as “blurred gender”

        <

        p>
        I suspect, but cannot prove, that sabutai was referring to theories of Magnus Hirschfeld, a pioneering G&L rights crusader.  He developed the (now rejected) theory that gays & lesbians were a “third sex.”  He also did work regarding transgendereds.

        <

        p>
        We’ve discussed HR2015 (the T-inclusive ENDA) and HR3685 (the non-T-inclusive ENDA) ad nauseum over at Pam’s House Blend, and I’m not going to repeat my position here.

    • … her to do? 

      <

      p>
      “Maybe she had this in the back of her head when she first put pen to paper — but she never chose to even hint at that during the course of the story.”

      <

      p>
      Exactly.  But then the subject came up in a question.  These questions about the author and her works are often about or reveal exactly this kind of thing… what did she have in mind “in the back of her head” about this or that.

      <

      p>
      All she did was answer a question.  If it was what she was thinking, should she have shut up about it when asked?

      <

      p>
      Reaction to the revelation is one thing, but I don’t think we are on strong ground to ascribe some kind of ‘special motivation’ on the part of the author for bringing it up.

  3. Come on, magical underwear, mysterious solid gold tablets found in the desert, secret temples, dark mysterious past, coverups of murders, winged fiures appearing to the prophets, the Mormon Church has alot in common with Hogwarts. 

Archives