Was the author of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling’s statement, that Dumbledore is gay, really necessary?
Posted: Monday, October 22, 2007
by Sacreeta
During J.K. Rowlings tour of the U.S. , after her reading of Harry Potter, and the Deathly Hallows, in Carnegie Hall, she was asked by a young fan if Dumbledore was gay.
The Leaky Cauldron, which is prized as J.K. Rowlings favorite fan site will have the transcripts from the NY reading, at Carnegie Hall very soon. As posted on their site however, are the details of her interview in Toronto, Ontario Canada, where she made her next stop and was flooded with queries about Dumbledore.
Until the transcripts come out, there will be a confusion playing on those words, as some say the child was asking if Dumbledore had found love, and other's are saying, that the child asked if he was gay. Is that really important? Yes, to some it is, as it either backs or rejects the argument that J.K. Rowling deliberately threw it in conversation, to cause a rift between Christians and the Gay Community.
Every reporter during her interview, asked what was on everyone's mind. If she really meant it when she said that Dumbledore was gay? She said yes, he is her character and she has the right to say what ever she choses about him. She said there wasn't a need to mention it before, and that she was asked a DIRECT question, to which she specifically replied.
She made a distinct point to let the children in NY, know that she wouldn't stand for WB Studios having Dumbledore have a female past love. She slipped the Director a note, when he had given Dumbledore a female love, which explained why it wasn't a good idea. She had always designed, inside her head, not in her books as of yet, that Dumbledore was gay, and in love with his rival Gellert Grindelwald. She went on to explain how Dumbledore had his heart broken by the bad wizard Brindelwald and thats why Dumbledore has a dark past.
She also was quoted at Carnegie Hall, to say that she regarded her books as a, "prolonged argument for a plea of tolerance" and she urged the children in which she read to, to 'question authority'.
(Question authority?) Makes one wonder, don't parents and teachers have it hard enough these days? Or perhaps she was referring to those who ban her books.
She also made reference to the church, that they have not approved of her books, as they claim she promotes witchcraft, and she hoped that making Dumbledore gay would give them one more reason to rally against her series of Potter books. (She has endured book banning over the years.)
After all these years of making Dumbledore a Wizard, a sole fighter for justice against the dark side, why she chose after her last book was completed, to give him a sexual preference is unknown. Does anyone these days really care about that sort of thing? They only care, who the character is, and the focus has always been that of a father figure to Harry.
The crowd at Carnegie Hall had gasped in shock. The internet blogs filled with wonder on why she would bring that up now, when she's not writing anymore books.
Most people assumed Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall were the perfect pair. But it was always implied, like the love affairs in classic movies, you notice tender looks, great respect for one another, but they leave the intimate parts to your imagination, it was always understood they were in love. They delivered Harry to his muggle relatives together, they practically raised him together in Hogwarts. McGonagall is like a mother to Harry, and Dumbledore was thought of like a father. Does changing your mind after a series has completed a wise choice? I guess that's up to the readers.
People are saying that J.K. Rowling is looking to create controversy, because her books have become socially acceptable and the huge shock impact lost its teeth. Others are calling it a pathetic attempt at a publicity stunt, not uncommon for her, as she has on several occassions pulled them, like saying this is her final book, until she has all the kids cry and beg her to continue. Once again, that's up to the people who buy her products, and for her readers to decide.
J.K Rowlings tour of the U.S. took her to Los Angeles, New Orleans, and N.Y., where only school children were invited to hear her read, except for Carnegie Hall, NY.
According the Net Blogs I've viewed, J.K. Rowlings tour of the US, has ended with a lot of questions and mysterious vibes.
What do you think about J.K. Rowling's statement, after all was said and done, was it necessary to bring it up now?
Got an opinion? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
Peace out!
Written by: Sacreeta
Here's a link to the Leaky Cauldron, for those interested in J.K.'s favorite fansite.
This Article has been viewed 1,147 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Great article Sacreeta. I am convinced that her statement was, in her mind, a way to continue to advance sales of her books. Once established and publicized, controversy has a tendency to arouse the interest of many who had no such interest before. She still hasn't aroused my interest. I have read none of her books although I've read a lot about them. The American public has become crazed over anything highly publicized such as her books and each Christmas season, there will be one item chosen by who knows who, that will be so widely publicized that parents will spend the night in the rain, fight and scratch each other, and so on just to get an overpriced item that will be abaondoned by their child in a few months, or possibly even weeks.Thanks for reading my article Joel. Yes, you have a good point, it is right before Christmas. Although J.K. Rowling is reportedly richer than the royal family in Brittan, creating a stir, seems to be pointless, as her sales obviously have been doing well. Or have they? Sacreeta
"I think JK is a provocateur and a very smart business woman. It's a shame she had to use sex, though. After all, the books ARE for children, aren't they? Oh, and by the way, she was not asked if he was gay. She was asked if he ever found true love, then VOLUNTEERED that he was gay. (I heard this from a Fox News Reporter who was there. O'Reilly was interviewing her tonight.) Personally, I would never let my children read JK's books (if they were still children). There are too many other faith-friendly books out there."Hi Doll, thanks for reading my article, I watched the Fox News Telecast with O'Reilly too, and it was quite interesting when he interviewed Tina Jordon, Senior Editor of Entertainment Weekly, and Ms Jordon referred to J.K. as a smart business woman and O'Reilly referred to her as a provacateur. The interview was quite provacative in itself between those two wasn't it? Well, when the transcripts come out of the reading in NY, it no doubt will put those questions to rest.
My article really wasn't meant to create a controversy over whether the child had asked about Dumbledore being gay, it was directed at the necessity of bringing up the topic at all, when it wasn't an issue all along in the series. Although I have updated my article, as I always do, as current events are a never ending story.
Thanks for your comment and stopping by to read my article.
I hope you are safe in California, and those fires are put out very soon.
Sacreeta
An interesting take Sacreeta but alarmist and unfair. Reading the transcript you see the question was about Dumbledore falling in love. Well, the answer was, yes, Grindelwald. She may have put the most shocking part first, but she had to answer fully if she wanted to be honest. As an author put in her place I would have answered the same exact way, I think. I would have thought, "Well, yes, he did fall in love and it was with a guy," so outloud, "To tell you the truth, I always thought of Dumbledore as gay," fits. And I never saw more than a mutual respect between McGonnagal and Dumbledore, never once felt that hinted about. So to answer your question, yes, it is necessary to bring it up now. This is a story she shared with us, we are free to ask the tough questions and if she knows the answer and respects us, she'll answer truthfully.Thanks for reading my article, and giving your opinion. We'll chalk one up for the yes side. As an author myself, I create my characters from early on, and even when a character is mysterious, the reader pretty much has a visual on my characters off the top. The reader is either liking or disliking, (or in some cases, the character is slowing growing on them), so the reader has a clear knowlege of who the characters are all through the story. A surprise ending, or aftershook, is usually frowned upon in a publisher's eyes. That's what I was taught. It doesn't mean that rules can't change, when you're in J.K.'s shoes, you can pretty much break out of tradition, and no one's going to argue with you. For Jo, (J.K.) who was writing a series, that she began unexpetedly, that took many years, it probably was more of a growing along with her books, like the children who were reading them.. Watching her interviews, and reading her responses lately, it does seem as though she was merely being honest. Like I said in my article above, she said that she was asked a DIRECT question, to which she specifically replied. So I believe you are correct, she was being honest. Although the timing as my other comments mentioned, to a lot of people is questionable. But like I said above, at the end of the day, it's up the readers to decide how they feel. And when people have strong opinions in either direction, all one can say is, that feelings are never right or wrong, they are just there. It's not unfair to say how you feel, it's not unfair for them to say how they feel, when everyone all around is well, being truthful. And I appreciate you telling us how you feel. Sacreeta
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.