Dumbledore is gay, Rowling reveals

[jennyk]

"Harry Potter" author J.K. Rowling revealed Friday that Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore is gay.

For me, Dumbledore's sexual orientation (or anyone else's, for that matter) doesn't really change the way I think about him. It doesn't change anything in the book, except clarifying his relationship with Grindelwald in book 7. It definitely doesn't diminish any of his triumphs; in fact, I'd say that it makes his defeat of Grindelwald just that much more important and poignant. He's still the same cool headmaster and incredibly powerful wizard he's always been. But, I'm sure not everyone sees the situation the same way.

I'm really interested to hear what people have to say on this subject. Rowling said that she regards her novels as an argument for tolerance. Will the revelation that such a beloved literary character is gay make people more tolerant toward gays and lesbians? Will people be more or less likely to read the books or allow their children to read the books? Does this change your view of Dumbledore or the Harry Potter books or movies?

[LuciusBeebe]

Rowling said that she regards her novels as an argument for tolerance.

Funny, then, that she kept it a secret.

[james_t]

Funny, then, that she kept it a secret.

Same thought crossed my mind.

Of course, by outing him now, the people who would have been offended by it but already read the series have already bought their books. And now the series, which is over, is getting buzz again, which will sell more books to some people who hadn't bought them before.

[jennyk]

And now the series, which is over, is getting buzz again, which will sell more books to some people who hadn't bought them before.

That just cements my theory that, in addition to being able to weave a good tale, Rowling is also a shrewd marketer.

I think she may have created the character of Dumbledore thinking to herself that he was gay, but didn't reveal it until Potter fever was winding down. Nothing like outing a beloved character to create a little (or lot) of publicity.

[LuciusBeebe]

I'm not so sure i'd call this 'shrewd marketing'.

[NurseRita]

Personally, I feel that the information was there for anyone who read the books. It changes nothing about the way I feel about the books. As to shrewd marketing you bet it is!

[LuciusBeebe]

Why do you consider it shrewd marketing? I think its a risky move. She's richer than we could imagine, and her stories are beloved globally. This could actually hurt her franchise more than it will help it. Remember the 'gay teletubby'?

I guess I just don't get it. The latest Potter movie comes out in December, so that would've been prime time for boosting book sales. This is just weird.

[jennyk]

One of the best things that can happen to a book (or movie or CD or TV show) is to have a little controversy surrounding it. That's the whole reason I started reading Harry Potter in the first place - I heard it was "evil" - and I know I'm not the only one! Yes, there will be some people who are upset and don't read it because of this, but I think more people will read it just out of curiosity.

I think the timing is very good. Pretty much everyone who has followed the series has read "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" at least once, if not more times, and most of them own it. The fervor is starting to wind down - we know what happened to Harry, who lived and died, and how the story ends. So now, just as Harry Potter starts to fade into oblivion (relatively speaking), J.K. Rowling drops this bombshell, gets everyone talking about again, and stirs up some more controversy. All the fans rush to their bookshelves to read the series again to see if they can pick up on a "gay vibe" from Dumbledore, and people who are curious to see what all the hubbub is about starts reading them and possibly get addicted and buy the series. I'm sure Rowling, the moviemakers and everyone else involved with the Harry Potter franchise are hoping that this controversy keeps people talking about Potter until they release a trailer and some still photos of the next movie.

[Phebes_8869]

I don't see that it matters now since I have already read all the books and seen all the movies available to see at this point.

What I do wonder is if this 'revelation' by the author will be featured somehow in the final movie. Personally, I hope not. I would rather that the subtlety of his orientation remain just that.

[NurseRita]

I seriously doubt the *outing* will hurt the franchise. Yes I DO remember the *gay teletubby* (his name was Tinky WInky and he carried a red *handbag*) incident, and it was 10 yrs ago, I am certain we as a society have gone a bit beyond the times back then.

[LuciusBeebe]

I seriously doubt the *outing* will hurt the franchise. Yes I DO remember the *gay teletubby* (his name was Tinky WInky and he carried a red *handbag*) incident, and it was 10 yrs ago, I am certain we as a society have gone a bit beyond the times back then.

In '04 the exit polls showed that the issue people based their vote on the most was gay marriage.

As much as I wish we have grown up as a culture, it isn't true.

[jennyk]

In '04 the exit polls showed that the issue people based their vote on the most was gay marriage.

As much as I wish we have grown up as a culture, it isn't true.

That's definitely a valid point.

However, I think of entertainers who have come out in recent months and years and still enjoy mainstream success - Ellen Degeneres and Neil Patrick Harris are two the spring to mind. (Although, Ellen's success may be short lived after her puppy-related breakdown on the air.) Even Rosie O'Donnell has a faithful legion of fans, and she had a lot more before she started spouting off on The View. But still, her dip in popularity was not related to the fact that she's a lesbian, but rather because people disagree with her views on other issues.

There are also a few more gays and lesbians on TV shows, too. "Ugly Betty," for example, has one openly gay character I can think of, and I read that he's going to get a boyfriend sometime this season. The show is pretty up front with dealing with issues relating to gays and lesbians (there was a wonderful episode surrounding the gay character coming out to his mother), and it's still pretty popular. Plus, reality shows like "America's Next Top Model" and "Project Runway" feature gays and lesbians in a positive light and do not have any ratings problems. Plus, need I even mention "Will and Grace"?

It might be a small step, but being openly gay is not automatic career suicide like it once was, and TV shows are able to feature gays and lesbians without fear of being cancelled or not being watched. I think the culture is slowly but surely changing.

[fought70]

That's too bad you view America's resistance to gays as immature. I think it's just the opposite. This country is going down the tubes fast. And you guys are cheering the whole way down.

[matt_s]

I don't think tollerance and endorsement are necessarily the same thing, but I would much rather live in a society of acceptance and kindness than hate or segregation. Why can't we all celebrate the things that we all have in common instead of continuously striving to identify those parts of us that make us individuals.

Come on... Can't we all just get along...

[fought70]

I agree with you, tolerance and endorsement are not the same thing.

However, by incorporating this type of lifestyle into TV shows and Books and magazines, it is essentially promoting it. It is saying to young kids that this type of behavior is normal.

And believe me, there is nothing natural or normal about homosexual behavior. Does anybody believe God designed our bodies to behave like this? It's like trying to sharpen a pencil with a pencil.

I absolutely agree that we should not hate or segregate. However, I don't have to agree with certain lifestyles. My only reason for standing up against issues like this is because of my love for that human being. Because in the end, it's very clear that God will not "tolerate" it.

[LuciusBeebe]

I agree with you, tolerance and endorsement are not the same thing.

Couldn't agree more.

However, by incorporating this type of lifestyle into TV shows and Books and magazines, it is essentially promoting it. It is saying to young kids that this type of behavior is normal.

TV, Books and magazines are art immitating life. Law & Order has a murder at the beginning of every show, but they are not "essentially promoting" murder.

And believe me, there is nothing natural or normal about homosexual behavior. Does anybody believe God designed our bodies to behave like this? It's like trying to sharpen a pencil with a pencil.

That's very strange, Fought... homosexuals DO have sex with each other. So I guess God did design their bodies that way, using your logic.

I absolutely agree that we should not hate or segregate. However, I don't have to agree with certain lifestyles. My only reason for standing up against issues like this is because of my love for that human being. Because in the end, it's very clear that God will not "tolerate" it.

What you're saying is: We shouldn't be bigots, but I am one. I'm not hating on you for this, Fought, but you should be aware of the things you're saying. I don't begrudge a person their intolerance any more than I begrudge a gay person their life style. I don't care if a person is gay, straight, PC or a bigot. But at least own what you are.

[james_t]

What you're saying is: We shouldn't be bigots, but I am one. I'm not hating on you for this, Fought, but you should be aware of the things you're saying. I don't begrudge a person their intolerance any more than I begrudge a gay person their life style. I don't care if a person is gay, straight, PC or a bigot. But at least own what you are.

You're off on this one. Webster's defines a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

If you agree that tolerance and endorsement are not the same, then why call someone a bigot if what they're saying is "I don't endorse this behavior"? In fact, if someone believes a behavior is harmful, don't they have an obligation to try and dissuade others from it - even while recognizing their right in American society to behave that way?

Secondly, fought70 is not making an appeal based on his own opinions and prejudices, but on biblical standards - in other words, a standard outside his own, though obviously one he agrees with.

[Jake R]

I don't think it is being bigotted to publicly say you find homosexual behavior offensive or even revolting. I realize that this is a controversial topic, and I am totally against hate crimes or hate speech. I don't go around spouting anti-homosexual talk, but if the subject comes up to offer an opinion, I am must say that I more than simply disapprove of the behavior. I find it completely disgusting, and I long for the days when that kind of behavior was kept "in the closet." We are not an accepting society of homosexuality, although the media is trying to portray it as completely normal behavior. Do you really think the Larry craig incident would have been more than a footnote if it hadn't involved homosexuality. As for Dumbledore, my 14 year old son was a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, and I mean Was. He looked at me and said First they killed the cowboy movies by making "Brokeback Mountain" and now this...

[LuciusBeebe]

You're off on this one. Webster's defines a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".

A bigot is a person devoted to their opinions... that's what Webster says? So tell me how that does not apply here.

If you agree that tolerance and endorsement are not the same, then why call someone a bigot if what they're saying is "I don't endorse this behavior"?

You can be a bigot and not say a word, you know.

In fact, if someone believes a behavior is harmful, don't they have an obligation to try and dissuade others from it - even while recognizing their right in American society to behave that way?

I don't know, James, what do you think about the Ku Klux Klan, and their efforts to (as they see it) help make America better?

Secondly, fought70 is not making an appeal based on his own opinions and prejudices, but on biblical standards - in other words, a standard outside his own, though obviously one he agrees with.

Does that make something better, somehow? Because it has a religious endorsement? Considering the unpopularity of Muslims of late, that logic may need further analysis.


-----------------

We are not an accepting society of homosexuality, although the media is trying to portray it as completely normal behavior.

Really? Interesting.

Do you really think the Larry craig incident would have been more than a footnote if it hadn't involved homosexuality.

The Lewinski incident was heterosexual.

As for Dumbledore, my 14 year old son was a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, and I mean Was. He looked at me and said First they killed the cowboy movies by making "Brokeback Mountain" and now this...

Wow.

[james_t]

Honestly, this discussion is probably just going to go 'round and 'round in circles because of two vastly different viewpoints.

If you accept the Bible as an objective standard, then you can say that appealing to that standard would take the argument out of the realm of your own opinion. If you don't, then your view is that someone is just acting out of their own opinion, and you would refer to them as a bigot.

The Klan might claim to appeal to a biblical standard, but there are enough Bible verses about all being one, doing to others, etc., that most would reject any validity in that claim.

So assuming you're holding to your own opinion, does that mean you're bigoted against people of faith? (Someone can be bigoted without saying a word, ya know.) You've got to own up to what you are...