Replies

The problem is, you have this character children innocently regarded as a kindly old wizard and role model for Harry Potter (no problem there), and then, all of a sudden, Rowling throws in this moral monkey wrench and decrees that he is a homosexual. The message seems to be that Dumbledore’s “gayness” does not make him a “bad” person, so homosexuality is presented as a morally neutral behavior. However, Rowling’s reckless grandstanding fails to address that our “outed” character may be a pedophile as well, given that he is constantly in the company of impressionable youngsters.

On the other hand, you have the likes of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote some excellent fantasy and stuck to the good-versus-evil theme without politically-correct shades of gray.

I don’t think Rowling should have amended her character after the last book was published, it was pointless. However, assuming that he is a pedophile just because Rowling said he was gay is absurd. Any of the characters could be a heterosexual pedophile by that reasoning. It diverts attention from the real issue, that Rowling is trying to stir up buzz about her books to squeeze out a few more sales. Giving any credence to the characters sexuality will ultimately result is some stooge holding the character up as an example of a gay good-guy.
“Homosexuals are good people, just look at Dumbledore!” It’s absurd, but it will happen.