Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

NewsWeek ^ | Oct 16, 2007 | By Tara Weingarten

[hercuroc]

J.K. Rowling, author of the world-wide best-selling Harry Potter series, met some of her American fans tonight and provided some surprising revelations about the fictional characters who a generation of children have come to regard as close friends.

In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience errupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonshed fans, Rowling added. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."

In answer to the question "Did Hagrid marry?" Rowling replied that sadly, no. The half-giant had a flirtation with a giantess but she found him "a tad unsophisticated" and the relationship never went forward. In response to the audience's groans of dismay, Rowling said, jokingly, "O.K., I'll write another book." And when the audience continued to express disapproval added, "at least I didn't kill him."

Other minor characters, according to Rowling, came to happier ends. Neville Longbottom, Harry's meek and hapless classmate, married Hannah Abbott, another classmate.

[andyssister]

I knew Dumbledore was gay back in HBP when he showed up at the orphanage in that plum-colored velvet suit. ;)

[the scotsman]

Apologies,mate if you are offended.

But come on, there are MANY in the several Potter threads that believe this ‘gay agenda’ angle,and are bashing her for witchcraft/devil worship/buggering a slaughtered goat in the bargain...

[the scotsman]

Apologies.

And I had Chinese fried rice tonight....lol

[NicknamedBob]

All these apologies ...

Are you a "nice-maker"?

http://www.icecubemachines.com/Scotsman/image/HD30.jpg

[LeoWindhorse]

Hence the name ‘Dumb’

Here is J.K. Rowling , ricj=her than the Queen of England
and even she kow-tow’s and grovels to the gay mafia and their pervert agenda .
Some of the most powerful ‘childrens books’ that have ever been written ,now being twisted to serve as a forum to explain and justify ‘gay identity’

I am truly sickened . Shame on Ms. Rowling , shame shame shame

Old Dumbledor should turn her into a diseased chicken

[longtermmemmory]

LOL

“dead men tell no tales...”

if you die at the folsom miller beer street fest your corpse is on its own. I don’t want to know.

[NicknamedBob]

"... if you die at the folsom miller beer street fest your corpse is on its own. I don’t want to know."

Not to worry. I'm planning a weekend at Bernie's.

[retrokitten]

I knew Dumbledore was gay back in HBP when he showed up at the orphanage in that plum-colored velvet suit. ;)

ROTFLMAO! You are spot on! We were so blind!

[Grizzled Bear]

Thanks. I already admitted my error around post #54

[saveliberty]

But it will sell the next book, retrokitten; the reference guide about each character.

[Clemenza]

"Friend of Dorothy" ?? Explain, please?

Certain (HETEROSEXUAL FEMALE) Freepers can explain it better than I could. ;-)

[MoochPooch]

Rowling always struck me as a little bit off. (Maybe explains her imagination.) And liberal. Probably a more conservative person wouldn’t even write a book glorifying witchcraft in the first place. So why should I be surprised that she’s PC as well?

I read all the books, BTW, but always had the impression that the Hogwarts gang represented people who were “different” — and therefore special and virtuous — while the Muggles were the mean, evil “normals.”

[NicknamedBob]

"Probably a more conservative person wouldn’t even write a book glorifying witchcraft in the first place."

I think the problem in your perception is illustrated by the underlined word. If you had said glorified magic I might agree with you.

In my opinion, Rowling wrote a book with witchcraft and magic as a plot element and background. But it is likely the philosopher Pogo was correct in his assessment of where we tend to go wrong. I can just see him surveying a picnic ground after the crowds have left, and saying,

"We see what we bring with us."

Have you read Larry Niven's story, "The Magic Goes Away"?

[MoochPooch]

I suppose if the magic were used as allegory, or even as satire, I could see the subject matter being in the hands of someone conservative. I am just bothered by her depiction of all non-magical people as clueless sourpusses.

I know, the book is supposed to be fun. And granted, there are evil magicians, like You-Know-Who, and the existence of the “Dark Arts.” But in general I was bothered by what the alternative universe of Hogwarts represented: Diversity U, with Dumbledore as president.

[NicknamedBob]

I don’t think she was too hard on non-magical folk. If you’ll recall her descriptions of the clothing fashions and mistakes of the magical folk you’ll see she was making fun of them too.

Part of the problem is that aside from the Dursleys, very few muggles got described. In the last book, they were being punished severely, and the narrative seemed to be sympathetic to their plight.

But clearly, it is a story about magic, as is Niven’s. For those who cannot perform magic, it is as if they were handicapped in some way. In fact, the whole point of the conflict erupting in the final book was over the treatment to be accorded to the non-magical.

Why would Rowling be harsh toward non-magical folk? She KNOWS she is among us.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Suspect that you misunderstood the earlier two posts. Firstly, it was not to state that if you are into Harry Potter, then you aren't or a less of a Christian (as some of the posts here suggest). Beyond that, if Harry Potter was set in another solar system, with aliens instead of Earthlings, and if their superpowers were not directly an actual Earth cult, might consider reading the stories--as they are for children, they probably wouldn't be rife with cuss words and promiscuity as many of the non-Star Wars science fiction books which have read have been.

However, and this is not directly based on Christianity, would shy away from Harry Potter. Witchcraft and wizardry were actual things which took place here on Earth. Secret societies gathered together at night--as though they had something to hide--and performed rituals. Biblically, there are suggestions that they communed with fallen angels, and the groups do have a satanic connotation. As it is, hold a suspicious view of groups such as the freemasons, because of their penchant for ancient 'wisdom' and their secrecy--and they may be a secular group. This combination of secrecy and connection with satanic worship is what is unsettling. Personally could watch a bunch of Psychos, but would shy away from watching The Exorcist as a cat shies away from water (supposedly). Even tend to be touchy about stories which are linked (at least by some) to Christianity. LotR is a case in point. Even Narnia--which isn't nearly as dark as LotR--try to reinforce: Aslan is not Christ; Aslan is a lion who has some similarities to Christ and in some ways diverges from Christ. It is a personal thing, not necessarily a Christian thing. It isn't that Harry Potter has superpowers that is being questioned, but what is behind those superpowers.

In contrast, the Force stuff is related primarily to Eastern religions, which in a Western sense might appear to be more philosophy than religion, although the two are linked (Christianity is more closely linked to philosophy than to superstition and magic). The situation isn't nearly as sinister (opinion) as in Harry Potter, even for the Sith. And although there are similarities to Eastern religions/philosophies, the Force is not an actual thing which happened in the actual world. It does not have an ancient, darkly mysterious history--it was conjured up by George Lucas c. 1970 and has been changing since. You might disagree, but it doesn't seem quite evil. At most, it would be similar to reading The Odyssey or other stories with paganism. There's paganism, but it isn't quite as malevolent.

Anyway, that's opinion, and again, it was not an attempt to criticize Christians who read Harry Potter, just that personally would shy away from it.

[Explorer89]

Well, like, duh. Everyone who has ever seen Potter Puppet Pals KNOWS Dumbledore is gay.

http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/bothering.html

and

http://www.potterpuppetpals.com/trouble.html

[null and void]

I read all the books, BTW, but always had the impression that the Hogwarts gang represented people who were “different” — and therefore special and virtuous — while the Muggles were the mean, evil “normals.”

I respectfully disagree. Most of the muggles and most of the witches and wizards are as morally ambiguous as anyone you would pass on the street.

The really evil and really virtuous people are all in the wizarding world.

The series is a simple morality tale, good vs evil, with good personified by Harry and his friends and allies, and evil personified by Volamort and his allies. It is set in the wizarding world, the muggles are only there to give the reader a bit of an anchor, a view point, to watch the drama play out.

[null and void]

I suppose if the magic were used as allegory, or even as satire, I could see the subject matter being in the hands of someone conservative.

She did accomplish making learning magic seem to be as much drudgery as learning algebra...

[null and void]

Fixed it:

Why would Rowling be harsh toward non-magical folk? She KNOWS she is among us they are the ones buying her books!