Rowling: “Dumbledore was Gay”

I don’t know, The cynical part of me honestly thinks “Albus was gay” was a publicity stunt. She’s not been afraid to shove her views out to the front in her books in the past, and it’s not like more popular authors then her and many fantasy authors haven’t inserted gay characters in the past. I’ll admit, I figured Albus/Grindleward would be the most popular “slash” fanfiction couple to come out of book seven but… Eh. I don’t know. This sort of disappoints me. If she really meant this, it seems it should have at least come up rather explicitly in book seven, if only as one of Rita Skeeter’s accusations that isn’t explicitly denied.

Dare we hope that Sir Michael Gambon will refuse to play gay and quit the part, leaving it open for Ian McKellen to step in?

Agree with you, Travis, JKR could never have revealed this until it was all over and done with.

And agree as well that the religious right (in the US) are going to go ballistic about this. Bet you anything the books will get banned in many of the southern states. Tomorrow.

I don’t think it changes anything, personally. Did we ever imagine that Dumbledore had had an emotional relationship with any witch? Are any of his present-day relationships tinged with any degree of homoeroticism? Is there anything inappropriate at all in his love for Harry?

No, no and no.

Horace Slughorn on the other hand . . .

I have to wonder if both sides have become somewhat a little smug. For example, we the Harry fans have come along and said “Ha! I told you so, the books are “Christian”, and now with this news the Harry Haters are going to have their “Ha! I told you so” moments.

Ms Rowling has said “Yes, she is a Christian”. However, is it possible that she may not fully know, or understand, the full meaning of what it is to be a Christian? The reason I ask this, is because I grew up in a Christian home, and went to church; and so if you were to ask me “Are you a Christian?”, I would have replied “Yes.” I would have also told you (if you had asked), that I believe that Jesus died for my sins, etc. However, my beliefs were an intellectual response, based on some facts. It wasn’t until about five years ago, did I really have a full understanding of the Gospel, and what Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, really meant. Up until that time, I would have had either a very “liberal” view of Christianity, or a very “legalistic” one, due to my own misunderstanding, and what had unfortunately been taught to me.

Anyway, I am wondering when it comes to her Christian beliefs, if perhaps Ms Rowling is in a similar place that I was (and maybe some of you were)in. Is it possible that her beliefs are due to a misunderstanding of the Christian faith, or because of wrong teaching?

It kind of saddens me that she has made this recent revelation, because I know that the right-winged Harry-haters are going to have a field day. And if what I have said about Ms Rowling’s Christian beliefs are right, then my prayer is that she will come to fully know and understand the saving work of Jesus Christ, that is by grace, and through faith; not something that is earned through morality, or by our own merits.

Now, I hope that I’m not sounding “smug”, because it may seem that I am coming across as saying that “Ms Rowling is less of a Christian than some of us, because she may, or may not, have a full understanding of the gospel.” But that’s not what I’m saying, and I surely hope that no one interprets it as such.

Well, I’ve gone from being so pleased about the statements that the Christian themes were there all along and very intentional to being so disappointed with this latest information that Dumbledore was gay.

My main complaint is that it really has nothing of importance to do with the story. Nothing. So why tell it at all? What was she thinking? If Dumbledore didn’t see fit to reveal this particular aspect of his life to Harry or to anyone in our “hearing”, then why reveal it now? I hate to say it, but it sounds like a publicity stunt or like she is trying to make amends to those who might have been offended by the religious information. So is this something that is a move towards being politically correct in our modern times?

And now, instead of having to defend Harry Potter to people who couldn’t accept the magic part, we’re all hung out to dry having to defend it because one of the main characters turns out to have been gay.

It was important for us to know that Snape loved Lily and always did because that was a crucial part of his character and of the story. But Dumbledore? We so absolutely didn’t need to know this. I’m quite annoyed and disappointed in Rowling this evening.

Pat

I have to say I wonder if this is a joke. Without reading the actual transcript (the best I can hope for, not having actually been there — unless maybe someone taped it on their phone and it will be on YouTube), it’s really hard to tell. She’s going to have a hard time trying to say, tomorrow morning, that it was just a joke. I just read about 1/4 of the comments on this story at The Leaky Caudron and they’re about 3/4 positive.

My stomach is in a knot. How do I explain this to my 10 year old son? And right after we just had this discussion with two kids at my church about how JK Rowling was a Christian. I have to say I’m really disappointed in this, even if it is a joke.

My church has a child protection policy. Granted, we try to be gender-neutral, so the policy really is that no adult should be alone with a child, no matter what the genders of the adult or the child are. However, generally, a heterosexual man would be more careful about meeting privately with a female student. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that the Harry character was a female. Wouldn’t it have been inadvisable, at the very least, for Dumbledore to meet with a female student in the way he met with Harry in HBP? So, if Dumbledore really was gay, wouldn’t it have been wrong for him to meet with Harry?

This has made me very unhappy and I’m feeling like I’d rather not read these books again, now. I hope I wake up and find she meant it as a joke, though either way I think I’ve lost a bit of the respect I had for JKR.

Yeah, I was shocked when I heard what Rowling said. I was not expecting that. I want to know what John Granger has to say about this. He defends her books against Christians who hate them…Now what will he have to say??? I would hate to be in his shoes right now. “Um….well…..yeah…” What COULD he say! “Take in all the other Christian points throughout the series, but ignore that minor detail.”??? I can’t wait to hear his comment.

Sorry, I just realized that my post is probably long-winded, and probably doesn’t make much sense in context with the original post.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with what Matthew has written, in that I don’t believe that because Ms Rowling had written Dumbledore as “gay”, it now brings her faith into question. But unfortunately, there will be those who will stab her with her own sword…so to speak.

I still think that Christianity is clearly written and expressed throughout the entire series….BUT, now everytime a person defends the series or speaks of the Christian aspects through out…they’ll be reminded of Rowling’s statement of Dumbledore being gay. This doesn’t make things easy. But hey, if you run across those “Christians” that think homosexuality is O.K. then it’s all good, huh. But if you think that homosexuality is just as sinful as lying to your parents…then defending Harry Potter will be a little bit more difficult now.

I was just thinking; in some ways I am not surprised by this recent revelation (well, I am, but I’m not…if that makes sense). I have also maintained in the back of mind, that Ms Rowling is most likely a “liberal” Christian.

While I don’t agree with much of what is taught in “liberal” Christian theology, my fear for Ms Rowling is that no grace will be extended to her (or us, for that matter) by those who lean towards the more “fundamentalist” Christianity.

My answer to all this…prayer. And I will be praying that both sides of the Christian fence will react in such a way, so that Ms Rowling’s is truly transformed by the truth of the gospel.

Well, homosexuality is definitely condemned by … !
The gay people, the are sinners as anybody else. I just wonder why JKR, the “Christian” makes such a statement? Was it important for the storyline?
You guys here at SoG start to realize JKR is not really Christian, she is just a huge snob. Sorry to say so.

I’m pretty disappointed about this. I was surprised and never saw it coming. I don’t see why she made this statement now at the end of the book, and I don’t think having a gay character who teaches so many good lessons is really a good thing. I still don’t think it takes away from the Christian themes of the book. I do think it’s going to give the Harry haters more fuel. The only thing I will say is that she’s portrayed the married couples as mostly being happy and things working out where as the dumbledore relationship certainly wasn’t good. I wonder if that’s what she was doing? I would probably have more trouble with this if Dumbledore was portrayed in a gay relationship that was happy and everyone was accepting. but still…

Maria

What horrible news to greet me this morning. I am just re-reading DH now, and appreciating so much about all the things we’ve talked about here… and then this happens. I feel as though someone spilled a bucketful of dirt all over me. Now this is all anyone will ever think of when they think of Dumbledore. I was so happy that the books managed to resist the temptation to give in to heterosexual sin (e.g., Harry and Ginny didn’t sleep together), but only to give in to this…. Romans 1 is clear – the spiritual consequences of homosexuality are particularly devastating and I feel compassion for those struggling with it. It would be one thing, I guess, to acknowledge the struggle. But it is another thing to just accept it as a legitimate form of “love” – especially in this confused and sexually rebellious cultural climate. Sigh. I am just glad that there are others of you out there who share my sense of loss.

Travis,

Just my quick thoughts: I’m certainly not going to burn the books – but I really do hope that after I work through all this I will still be able to enjoy them. As much as before? I don’t know… In thinking about the canon issue I am reminded, actually, of Islam. The Koran is the “main thing” – the written word – but the Hadith is the collected sayings of Mohammed, which Muslims revere and treat as a form of Scripture, too. It seems to me that the HP books correspond to the Koran, while Rowling’s comments seem to amount to a sort of Hadith. So the issue becomes… how much weight do we end up giving her comments? I am afraid it will be difficult for the books to stand on their own without the baggage of JKR’s “oral traditions.” I’ll be interested to know what everyone else thinks.

After reading the last word of book 7, the author lost all power to amend or change my perception of the book. There is really no space in my imagination about the sexuality of Dumbledore anyway.

I attribute it to “weakness” in JKR’s person unable to resist amending her finished masterpiece, but not in the quality and power of her work as an author. I think book 7 is especially effective in baptizing the imagination about eternal life won for us by a sacrifice of love. This does not take away anything for me. If I want to, I’ll just think that Professor McGonigal had a fling with Dumbledore and they always were sweet on each other…. (My imaginative space is my own!)

Sean, you forgot about the part where Hermione beats her house elf.

Personally, Dumbledore’s gayness doeesn’t bother me. I think you can believe in Jesus Christ and be gay; I also think that you can be a good person and be gay. You can also be an atheist and a nasty person, and be gay. It’s completely unrelated. I think that sexual orientation is determined in the womb (something about the maternal hormones) and nothing JKR or anyone can write or say can affect that. Your children are safe (or not, depending on what happened in the womb).

To those of you who question why JKR outed him now, I say: weren’t you the same ones clamouring for more backstory on the characters? You should have quite while you were ahead.

Get over it. It’s not like he’s got an unusual fondness for goats or anything …

Those of you who want to burn the books, well, there is a long-standing tradition for that. While the burning of 20,000 books by the Nazis in Berlin in 1933 stands out in recent history, some Chinese emperor ordered the burning of all existing books (plus the people who wrote them) in 210 BC. Some Pope ordered the burning of all copies of the Talmud back in the 13th century. And of course John Calvin burned a bunch of Michael Servetus’ works in 1600. In an attempt to conserve fuel, he had Servetus’ manuscripts tied to his waist when he had Servetus burned at the stake.

Want to go back there?

I can’t believe this. You guys are that disappointed? Jo outs a character and all I see are Homophobic replies. If she said that he had a wife and cheated on her, I doubt this would have raised half as much fuss, but as the guy is GAY you see him is differently. It’s sad and a testament to how society views those who are different. I don’t believe being gay is a sin. That to me is just bogus. A cover for one’s homophobic feelings. I thought this fandom was more intelligent.

Albus was willing to have Snape DIE for his cause. When he was younger, his actions were really no better than Voldemort’s and yet we can forgive him for that but because he has an attraction to the same sex, people are going as far as to believe that he is straight when the author has said otherwise> Jo, for the first time in since EVER is able to talk about the series openly to her readers who are always wanting so much information about their beloved series. She just gave us a piece, a controversial piece and we respond like this? I’m quite disappointed.

I felt like I should come by and clarify my earlier comment, written in a hurry and in the first moments of my reaction/response (hopefully more response than reaction, but still!).

I do believe that a book can “know” more than its author, in some mysterious ways. My husband and I have had some interesting conversations about this in regards to the HP books. I don’t have any trouble believing her stories are more “orthodox” than she is, because I think she herself was learning and being shaped through the writing of the stories. Although Rowling’s “wrestlings” with faith come through, the ultimate themes and parallels with the Christian Story shine through grandly. Maybe because as the Great and True Story, this narrative makes the most coherent and loving sense of the world and of suffering and difficulty.

Of course these are Rowling’s books and she’s the only who truly knows her characters: their flaws, their hopes, their dreams, their back story. But we know these characters too, through the wonderful story she has given us.

One of the best things she did in DH, in my humble opinion, was to give such complexity and richness to Dumbledore’s back story. One of the first things my husband said after we finished reading it aloud together was that she might be remembered more for “humanizing” the standard wise old mentor wizard figure than anything else she’s done.

What frustrates me about her “revelation” that Dumbledore is gay is that it really adds nothing to our appreciation of that complexity, and in fact, given the current climate in our culture, seems to detract from it. I don’t want him turned into a “token” character that people either celebrate or decry based on their strong beliefs and feelings either way.

What’s important about Dumbledore and Grindelwald in the story is that Grindelwald’s lust for power is something that momentarily blinds Dumbledore to his own better impulses. Whatever he felt for Grindelwald at the age of 17, love or admiration or whatever we choose to call it, was destructive and idolatrous. Dumbledore had to escape it — he had to resist falling into the same lust for power as Grindelwald. That’s what’s important and interesting. The rest of it doesn’t much matter. Why Rowling felt it necessary to reveal I’m not sure, since it will likely lose her readers — both concerned parents and yes, concerned Christians. I’m frustrated that this might sidetrack some people from actually giving the books a chance.

Everybody’s missed the really big news coming out of JKR’s talk. Neville Longbottom marries Hannah Abbott!! And she’s the new landlady at The Leaky Cauldron!

Which actually fits in better to the continuity of HP than the Dumbledore’s gay revelation. Because if you look at it, pretty much everyone portrayed in the books is either definitely heterosexual or single.

Practically everybody’s parents are married, even the bad guy’s parents like Malfoy, Crabbe, & Goyle. You don’t hear of anyone being divorced, except for Riddle Sr abandoning his wife. If families are broken up it’s because of the war.

Snape is single because of his unrequited love for Lily, although we’re led to believe it’s just because he’s a vile person. As for McGonagall there’s a long history of spinsters in books, & as for Dumbledore there’s a long history of wise old professors who’ve never married, like Prof Kirke in Narnia.

All of the main characters are obviously heterosexual. There’s nothing ever hinted at in the books at all of anything other than heterosexuality being the norm, because you can’t assume someone’s gay just because they remain single.

So, JKR’s revelation is rather incongruent with her own written world. In a sense it’s irrelevant because it has absolutely no effect on the story. So, it doesn’t really matter what one’s position is on homosexuality, I think it could be agreed that this revelation just comes way out of left field.

Travis, you asked what our reaction towards the books will be now. I’ll probably still re-read them, and try to do as others have suggested–stick with what’s actually in the books and not what Rowling has added.

I’d been looking forward to the promised encyclopedia about HP, but I may just skip it if this is any indication of the sorts of things that will be included.

For all the times that Rowling has gone out of her way to make the point that these are children’s books, it seems to me that she crossed a line that shouldn’t have been crossed. As a parent of three she should have known better than to bring up a character’s sexual orientation.

Quite a few over at TLC said they saw the connection when they read the books, but I didn’t. I saw two boys who became friends, bonded by their political thinking and nothing more. If more of their relationship was important for the story then it should have been written in, but it obviously wasn’t. And she should have left it that way.

The fan fic people are loving it, and in the last two books I can now see that Rowling herself has spent a bit too much time reading some of it. In the earlier books, it always sounded like it scared and appalled her to think what some were doing with her characters. Now she seems to enjoy the whole thing.

In our day camp training there is a thing that we talk about, especially with young counselors. Wish I could remember the technical term, but it doesn’t matter. It’s when someone older is in charge but ends up joining in an activity because they remember how much fun it was when they were kids. In fact, they should be stopping it, but they don’t. By becoming part of the problem they make it worse as it blurs that line of what is appropriate and acceptable. In the instance when they join in, they have regressed to their childhood and are no longer acting in the responsible “adult” role.

I think Rowling is doing the same thing in joining the fan fic folks. Not all of them are teens, but the ones who write the slash fan fic are not particularly mature in their thinking. It just seems like that’s what she is doing–regressing to be part of a group that is younger.

Bob Myers, I’m going to try to do what you said–stick to what is in the books and not let what she has said influence my enjoyment of them. I just hope I can do that. The Christian content, as well as a great story, are still there.

Pat

Michael wrote,

“Jo outs a character and all I see are Homophobic replies. If she said that he had a wife and cheated on her, I doubt this would have raised half as much fuss, but as the guy is GAY you see him is differently. It’s sad and a testament to how society views those who are different. I don’t believe being gay is a sin. That to me is just bogus. A cover for one’s homophobic feelings. I thought this fandom was more intelligent.”

Michael, by your definition, would anything qualify as ’sin’? Or could anyone’s reaction about any behavior be written off as a defect in the person who has a difficulty with that behavior? When exactly can we say a behavior is inappropriate or wrong or sinful without being called intolerant?

I bring this up not so much to start a discussion, because I’m sure, as Travis would point out, this is not the place for such a discussion, but because of the accusations you’ve made about a lot of people here being homophobic.

Aren’t you being just as intolerant & unopen towards people who’ve expressed their difficulties & disappointment with JKR’s announcement? You’ve made a statement of opinion, that you don’t think homosexuality is a sin, & you’ve branded anyone who disagrees or questions your opinion as wrong, & not just wrong but hateful. How is that different from what you accuse people on this blog to be doing?

Just something to think about.

Eeyore said: “As a parent of three she should have known better than to bring up a character’s sexual orientation.”

But characters’ sexual orientations have been brought up throughout the entire series: Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, Harry and Ginny, Harry and Cho, Ron and Hermione, and so on. I think what you meant was, why bring up a character’s sexual orientation when it is one many disagree with?

As you may have guessed, I am a moderate to liberal Christian, though conservative in many aspects. I am aware the bible names homosexuality as a sin, but I am unable to reconcile in my mind why a biologically determined condition (at least in part, if not in full) is wrong. For now, I accept that I do not have all of the answers. God has the answers, and that is enough. We know only in part now what we will someday know in full. I also know that it is not for me to judge.

Why should we treat homosexuality as different from other sins? I don’t think we should, but it seems many of you feel differently.

As to claims that this quote is a publicity stunt, I am certain this could not be further from the truth. Pretend, for a moment, that this statement has not come out. The Jo that we knew yesterday, would she ever in her life do anything or say anything for the sake of publicity? Is it in her nature? Is it in keeping with her character? Absolutely not. Just because you disagree with her choice in outing Dumbledore, which you have every right to do, please do not demonize her motives.

So, why did Jo wait until now to reveal this information? Partly, I am sure, because this information is a spoiler. Why should she reveal the information at all? From http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1572399/20071019/story.jhtml, Jo was asked if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love. Because in Jo’s mind, Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald, she was simply answering this question directly and honestly. Yes, she could have said that Dumbledore was in love but refuse to answer the object of his affection, or she could have refused to answer the question altogether. But she didn’t, and I am fine with that.

I think there could be a link to Dumbledore’s kindness toward certain characters such as Lupin and Hagrid that might have developed as a result of him having to deal with his own issues about being “different”. In that sense of it, perhaps his sexual orientation may be important. Can wrestling with our own sin, whether through self-examination or through the scrutiny of others ever lead to good? Was Dumbledore’s sexuality something he exalted in or was it the “thorn in his side”?

It seems that people are addressing this in a number of ways (I thought mine was mildly funny. Thanks Reyhan for playing along).

1) Just because the author said this doesn’t mean I have to incorporate it into my Harry Potter world. Dumbledore wasn’t gay when I read the book and so he doesn’t have to be gay now, no matter what J.K. says. I think there is some kind of academic ism that Travis could apply to this approach. In general this is likely the approach that will stand the test of time. In the future, unless J.K. adds the character info she has released post HP 7 to the series in some way, only academics will do the author research necessary to link this kind of stuff together.

2) Dumbledore being gay is an unacceptable condition of his character, thus converting one from a Harry Potter fan to something otherwise. This is likely to be the case for Christians who have defended their reading/loving of the series by relying on themes that mesh with their religious beliefs. I think this is the most disappointing response. Suggesting that a character has flaws (a sinner) really should make perfect sense. My question to the religious scholars is: Does homosexuality rank somewhere in a list of sins as worse or better than another? My understanding is the answer is no, in which case, this should cause no more consternation than to say that Dumbledore coveted Malfoy’s wife. Of course, if I am wrong about such a comparison, forgive my ignorance.

3) Dumbledore’s gayness is not an issue worthy of changing a fan’s opinion of the book. This would include a variety of different people, Christians and those who identify themselves as less religious who for their own differing reasons can fit this into their Harry Potter world view without much problem.

4)This series was always a pagan pile of rubbish, bordering on satanism and finally we’ve got the truth. I don’t have too much to say on this viewpoint other than I wouldn’t waste your energy on such fundamentalist views.

I still think coming up with our own list of character issues would be more fun.

I´m a woman. I m once again shocked how stupid men can become if an Isobel like Rowling preaches her “Personal Jesus” in her Mission Impossible.

God loves the sinner, indeed, but hates the sin, Travis. God bless you.

To say that one cannot profitable read something just because the author is not doctrinally pure is really a stretch. Being a Lutheran minister, I certainly care about doctrinal orthodoxy, but I read lots of stuff that isn’t just from a purely Lutheran background.

To follow the logic of some people here, I couldn’t read anything by Tolkien & extol its Christian elements because Tolkien was a Roman Catholic & thus his theology is deficient. Nor could I read anything by Lewis & extol its Christian imagery because he was an Anglican. That’s just bunk.

Apparently some people think the only book Christians can read is the Bible, otherwise we risk falling prey to some kind of false spirituality. Well, the world is full of false spirituality, which is why we cannot read or watch or listen to anything uncritically. But we can read, watch & listen. Which is why being well grounded in the faith helps to keep us from being lukewarm.

At least Granger & Prinzi critically analyze the content of the HP books. Which stands in stark contrast to how books by Warren & Osteen & the Left Behind series are often treated by evangelical Christians. To listen to some of them talk you’d think those author’s books sprung from the very hand of God Himself!

So, the Harry Haters will never be satisfied. If JKR would espouse a perfect view of orthodox Christianity, live a spotlessly clean lifestyle, & get God’s approval from heaven, people would still criticize her & the books.

I can’t even comment. I’m disgusted by you narrow-minded, bible-beating, let’s-trade-our-daughters-for-some-cows religeous freaks. A single character being gay is going to turn you off from some of the most brilliant books ever written? If you’re that small-minded and intolerant, go back to reading the Left Behind series where you belong. And hand over your library cards to people who actually want to read and learn about things that are different from themselves. So much for learning from each other.

You know, I think revgeorge has written the best reply, so far. IMHO

Travis,

Yeah I saw that. Funny, in his reply to my blog, Abanes criticized J.K. Rowling for saying “Jesus Christ” and he is saying OMG. He’ll probably spin it and say he meant goodness.

Nancy, as Travis already said, it’s a little odd to tell someone or a group of someones that they are intolerant because they hold a set of beliefs different from yours. That, by definition, is being intolerant of their views.
For the record, I am disappointed that JKR chose to throw this into the mix. I don’t think it’s relevant at all to the story, and I can probably read the books again without any problems. I enjoyed them before knowing this, and I’ll enjoy them after. I do fall in the camp of thinking this is a stunt to get more publicity, but that’s my opinion.
As far as Christianity being intolerant and narrow-minded, you are correct. Jesus said the only way to salvation was through Him. He said, if I recall correctly, The Way is narrow, and few enter. That’s not exactly correct, but it’s the gist of it. The Bible never says it’s okay to believe whatever you want, be a good person, and you will be saved. It says the only way to salvation is through Christ. That is quite intolerant of other belief systems. That being said, Jesus never avoided sinners. He condemned their actions but loved the person and did what he could to meet their needs. We have to be careful to not confuse intolerance of sin with intolerance of people. I happen to believe, because the Bible specifically states it, that homosexuality is wrong. So is heterosexual sex outside of marriage. But I have plenty of friends who have committed all kinds of sins. One of my best friends and mentors in college was gay. He knew I disagreed with his lifestyle, but was impressed that I still wanted to be his friend. I myself am imperfect, so I can not cast the first stone at someone else. But I can still believe that my sins or someone else’s sins are wrong.
I was trying to remain a lurker on this, but I had to throw in my $0.02 at some point.
Just my opinions.

Thanks for the reminder Matthew–I didn’t re-read it, but I remember what it said, so I’ll refrain from a retort I was going to make.

My point, though, is that I have re-read all the passages in DH that pertain to Dumbledore, and he is the wise mentor that he always was. It’s Snape’s comment to him in “The Prince’s Tale” that points out that Dumbledore has been using Harry all these years, as well as Snape himself, to achieve his grand plan that will ultimately defeat Voldemort.

I still find myself disappointed that Rowling revealed that Dumbledore is gay. It just adds nothing to the story and only detracts, allowing the RA’s of the world just the ammunition they want to distract everyone from the real point of the books. It doesn’t mean that I have less respect for the character, or like him less. As others have pointed out, Dumbledore seems to have lived a very lonely life. And that’s hardly something for those who are thrilled that he is gay to celebrate.

And I’m with Wendy–revgeorge has written the best reply. Thank you.

Pat

What strikes me as being a bit interesting and yet all the more disturbing is that there is a tendency to link homosexuality and pedophilia. I don’t get it? Is that to say that a gay man cannot have a platonic relationship with a boy? Or is it to say that because Harry is around Dumbledore and that this will ultimately lead Harry to become gay himself?

I read the Time article about Rowling’s answer to the question about whether Dumbledore finds “true love”.

She responds:

“Dumbledore is gay.”

I didn’t see any mention of the fact that Dumbledore is a pedophile. So I’m guessing that he’s not. However, she did go on a bit about tolerance and intolerance. The article ends:

‘Rowling, finishing a brief “Open Book Tour” of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a “prolonged argument for tolerance” and urged her fans to “question authority.”

Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.’

I suppose that hating the sin but loving the sinner is one step towards tolerance, as is accepting Dumbledore as long as he’s not a practising homosexual. It’s good that people can forgive him the sin in his heart, as long as he doesn’t act on it.

I think I’d better stop commenting before I need to be reminded about the rules of civil discourse.

Jamie–
As I said, it isn’t pedophilia, because Harry is pretty much an adult. However, because Rowling herself has made the idea of love almost exclusively romantic/sexual love in the books, she opens a door here that ought not to be opened. I don’t know why you think that would make Harry a homosexual; that’s something no one on any part of the political or religious spectrum has ever suggested. It doesn’t imply that NO homosexual man has ever had a platonic relationship with a younger man, but it DOES imply that Dumbledore’s love for Harry was a romantic or sexual love. That’s the way Rowling has portrayed love, almost exclusively. If anything, this was the one exception, and by her current statement, we can’t even trust that. That’s what’s disturbing.
If Harry was a female character, there could not even have been a suggestion of any sort of love between her and Dumbledore without the implication of a sexual element. Why is it different here? It’s not, of course. It’s unpleasant either way.

TRAVIS: Yeah I saw that. Funny, in his reply to my blog, Abanes criticized J.K. Rowling for saying “Jesus Christ” and he is saying OMG. He’ll probably spin it and say he meant goodness.

ME: Oh Travis. Yawn. Nice try tho. OMG = Oh my gosh. See definitions here.
http://wordcentral.com/byod/byod_browse.php?term=o&type=alpha&offset=10

If Dumbledore was so infatuated with Grindelwald, then why was Dumbledore going on the traditional world tour with Elphias Doge? Don’t ask. Don’t tell. Looking at the text doesn’t support this remark one iota.

Hmm, someone’s accusations against Travis for deleting their posts don’t seem to be holding up. I’ve seen plenty of posts by He Who Must Not Be Named.

Angela, if you were to go to any other discussion board on Harry Potter, you would see the same discussion with some people holding the same opinions as some have expressed here. To some this is a sensitive topic and everyone has a right to their opinion and any difference of that opinion shouldn’t bother you. Sorry to see you go.

Personally:

Dumbledore is gay- so what? It may be what some of you call a sin, but this sin isn’t any worse than some of the sins the characters committed… It’s not his fault he’s gay, is it? I don’t think he can change his sexuality.

And if the anti-Potter people take this and twist it around, well, just shove the Christian values in their face. If those people wanted to, they could argue that Narnia was anti-Christian… Gosh.

I, too, was surprised to see some of the personal comments remain up. I really hope what I say doesn’t offend anyone, because that is not my intent. I would like to discuss and even debate the points being put out there, but I see no need for personal comments of a negative nature. This topic is most certainly a sensitive one, so, even though many comments have disappointed me in here, I will most definitely be back. I have been very pleased with the comments of our host. Thank you, Travis.

Carla Lute says: “Scripture bans all fornication, reguardless of gender.”

I am going a bit off topic. I was confused recently about Old Testament heroines, Esther and Ruth, and how their fornicating seemed to be condoned or almost required by God. Am I wrong, here? How does that work when fornication is forbidden?

As others have mentioned, I see fraternal and maternal love as the strongest themes of the series with romantic love taking a much smaller role.

I’m using ‘liberal’ in the sense of J. Gresham Machen’s _Christianity and Liberalism_ from before WWII.

I am inclined to strongly suspect that Rita Skeeter is involved in this.

Or that at least, Dumbldore repented of that abomination along with his wizard-supremacy views.

Certainly, if the report is true, and was always in her mind, rather than a post burnt-by-Christians response, Dumbledore seems to have refrained from engaging in that sin. A person after all isn’t ‘a homosexual,’ they do or do not engage in that blasphemy against the musterion of marriage. Dumbledore appears to have not engaged in that sin. Certainly post-Grindlewald, and perhaps he never did.

However, liberals are so influenced by the pneumon ton aion (zeitgeist, Queen of Air and Darkness, Spirit of the Age) that even when they do hold on to the Cross, and apparently a few do, they certainly follow the cultural elites meekly when it comes to such things as homosexual offenses.

It is most disturbing because Dumbledore was such an authority figure for youth. DH ought to have changed that, but one can’t be sure.

She might even have been giving a rather humorous sharp retort to being badgered by pro-homosexualist agitators. “Oh, yes, well of course Dumbledore was quite smitten with Grindlewald” imagine that in a sarcastic tone.

She has been very hurt by other Bible-believing Christians who didn’t bother to read before discerning. But her response was the graceful, loving rebuke in having the character Pius Thicknesse, which describes my unliterate brethren so well.

I urge being kind to her and praying for her, and not letting Rita Skeeter destroy enjoying the books.

Since, like JKR, I am a fan of Chesterton, I suppose I am one of those horrible evil “right-wing” Bible-believing Christians Who Must Be Killed For The Good of Society.

Eeyore, quite so! Whatever happened to friendship? I believe C. S. Lewis bemoaned the very notion being destroyed by the over-sexualizing of everything and anything by those who reject God. Those are the people who try to claim that Jesus was an abomination with John, or David with Jonathan! They remind me of the Freemasons claiming everyone famous was a Freemason.

Dave the Longwinded, those who have so perverted themselves as to engage in homosexuality, statistically are FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to engage in pedophilia.

I can’t off-hand remember any of the Order of the Phoenix torturing people.

Jamie, re Oct 20, 6 pm. Yes, I think that interpretation is quite possible. Apart from a notion that a person -is- a sin.

Carla, so does the New Testament. Unrepentant homosexual offenders do -not- go to heaven.

Angela, it isn’t hypocrisy, it is the Bible. It is what God has said. Homosexuality requires a deep, deep, Voldemort and more deep hatred for all that God is and has done, and an insistence to blaspheme the mysterion of the relationship of Christ and the Church. There is sin, which has the penalty of eternal hell because those who insist on serving out the justice themselves, will find that sin against the infinite God has an infinite price, and there is the depth of depravity against God’s creational intent, and hatred against God Himself, and in that polarity, not all sins are the same.

–Elphias Doge.

Labrialumn, can you please provide the biblical references, especially to the unrepentant homosexual offenders not going to heaven, but also about homosexuality requiring a hatred of God? Thank you.

Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9
Always good to ask such questions.

I think the main point of the whole thing is that it never mattered to the plotline whether DD was gay, so why bring it up now??? It doesn’t affect the story, it changes nothing, so WHY was it necessary to point out that he was a homosexual? I must admit that I am now going through the books, especially Rita Skeeter’s analysis of the relationship that DD had with GW, and I can see the choice of words that were used are very indicative of feelings that are more than friendly. But it skews my perception of DD. Now, he is the token gay guy, rather than the venerable wizard. It puts an emphasis on something that is irrelevant and changes how I see DD now. And that stinks.

I must say, also, that Aberforth’s affinity for goats bothers me much more than the possibility of DD being gay. ha…ha…

Who decides which books get press (Gay-promoting Harry Potter) and which get censored? After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for books).
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

>Richard Abanes,
Check any dictionary for a definition of “gosh” then come back. Matthew

yes yes yes, blah blah blah. anything to condemn. lol. truth is the word “gosh” – like so many other such words – has pretty much lost its original bindings to any orignal meaning and has taken on a self-contained, isolated non-meaningful position as a simple exclamation. i suppose now you’re going to condemn peeps for saying “darn,” and “crikey,” and “shoot,” and a whole slew of other words/terms. ever use the word snafu? or maybe fubar? hmmm, you’re destined for hell. look those up! anyway, fun word play, but tbh, not a very meaningful discussion except to the likes of jehovah’s witnesses perhaps who also condemn christmas and easter for their pagan ties. i think God cares about a lot of other things a whole lot more. cheers.

Trish, I do not see how Dumbledore’s homosexuality would be a matter of suspicion regarding Harry. You emphasize that Harry is grown but keep in mind that Dumbledore was killed before Harry’s 17th birthday, so Harry was not of age. How about when Harry was alone with Dumbledore when he was younger like 11, 12, 13…? You say pedophilia has nothing to do with it, but why have suspicion even if Harry is an adult? All I’m saying is that Dumbledore never compromised his office in his relationship with Harry. Dumbledore is gay, of course, but that does not and should not raise alarm bells over his interactions with Harry.

And no, romantic/sexual love is not the exclusive definition of love in the series. It was Lily Potter’s maternal love for her son, that reversed Voldemort’s Avada Kedavra’s curse onto himself. It is this definition of love that Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort does not understand love. I’m pretty sure that Harry’s “saving people thing” stems from his love for his friends. This love is emphasized (love of family and friends) although we do see romance in the novels. It’s just not as exclusive as you say.

Hi Travis,

I am also ZoeRose at HogPros. I’ve written on my first thoughts at my main blog, BabyBlueOnline, on this topic, especially that as an Episcoplian/Anglican this topic is very much front and center right now. Rather than post and take up more bandwidth from you, I’ll just post the link here: http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/rowling-reveals-dumbledore-was-gay.html

My deal is that from the evangelical Christian point of view, there is a difference between the “sin” and the “sinner.” Since Dumbledore’s view is that we are defined by our choices, when we look at Dumbledore’s choices (from canon!) we see a man who led a celibate life and who devoted his life to fighting evil and equpping the next generation for life. The context for his same sex attractions – according to canon – was disastrous. Reading Deathly Hallows is the key to understanding Dumbledore and his tragic past. The context of his love for Grindelwald was of no redeeming value – hardly the mantra for those who seek certain political outcomes in our American society. It is cast in a very dark light and before we start tossing out the Potter books, we might want to pause and consider that Jo Rowling – whether she is conscience of doing this are not – has cast her one outed “gay” character into a light that does not align with the so-called “gay” agenda. Dumbledore has chosen what is basically a chaste monk’s life, which is what the Church traditionally has supported for those who are faced with same sex attractions – while other parts of the more traditional church might also recommend healing prayer. But in no way do the Potter books put homosexual relationship s on the same level as heterosexual relationships. Unless Jo now wants to start outing all sorts of characters (which would be completely ridiculous and unprofessional) this is what she’s left with – her one example of same sex love was a complete dismal failure with huge worldwide ramifications, not the least of which being the death of Dumbledore’s sister.

My guess, as I note later in comments, is that there was an expectation in the HP fandom that Lupin was gay – his character was setup as a prototype of someone who is HIV positive. That Lupin turned out to be in love with Tonks and to father a child before book’s end may have been more of an underground shock that most of us understood. Only Jo knows what letters she receives. Whether or not she always thought Dumbledore was gay, the fact was she never outed him until she did so rather recklessly last Friday night.

But is it fair to gays seeking equality to have the one relationship in the Potter series turn out to be one with a complete villain who’s evil was on the par of Voldemort himself? I don’t think so and I do wonder if Jo thought this completely through before she blurted out her answer. She got quite an ovation, but I fear it may be short-lived once activist gays read what happened to Dumbledore.

But from a Christian point of view, I maintain that Dumbledore leads a moral life. He is celibate and he is devoted to his calling. God bless him.

bb (aka ZoeRose)

Here is the link for more:

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/rowling-reveals-dumbledore-was-gay.html

Apologies for adding another reply to an already very long discussion, but I just had to make this point:

To anyone who finds themselves liking the Harry Potter books much less as a result of JK’s revelation, and thinks they now can’t be a Christian and a Harry Potter fan, I urge you to reconsider. If you truly enjoy the books, you should still be able to do so regardless of Dumbledore’s sexuality.

After all: many people here have pointed out how the Harry Potter series is, basically, a giant Christian allegory. Have you never considered how those of us who aren’t Christians deal with that?

I am a determined atheist, and I admit that HP is a Christian allegory; but I enjoy it all the same. The fact that I disapprove of the Christian aspects of the books does not stop me from liking them in many other ways.

Those of you who don’t like Dumbledore being gay should take the exact same approach, just in reverse. You can accept that the books portray a view you disagree with and still enjoy them for what they are.

You don’t have to agree with every single aspect of a book to enjoy and appreciate it.

(I believe revgeorge made essentially the same point earlier in this thread. If you don’t get what I’m saying here, go read his post.)

Hi.

if this comment offends anyone I appologize in advance. does anyone else not find it interesting that JKR compared dd’s love for Grindallwald (spelling) with voldemort and bellatrix? I really don’t feel she is trying to say that Gay is good, rather I think she is trying to say that obsessive love that blinds you to everyone and everything, and if you make bad choices because of that love interest isn’t a good thing. I also can’t see any evidence that Dumbledore kept having that life style. I think him saying that Harry was the better man basically speaks of his remorse, perhaps repentance of all that happened in his youth? Puts a whole new spin on chosing what is right rather than what is easy. as a christian I do believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin, but I also believe a lot of other things are a sin and we are all sinners. Also I’m an AD/Mm shipper so (yea for fanfiction). anyway, I guess I’m trying to say that since there is no one in the books engaging in homosexual relationships, and there are overwhelming Christian themes in the books I will stick with the series and reading hp fanfiction. I also love (Snape didn’t really die, falls in love and is happy fanfics) lol. Maria

Michael,

I have no problem respecting your opinion. It’s just that you didn’t seem to respect the opinions of anyone who disagreed with you on this issue & instead used a pejorative term for us.

In regard to the use of the golden rule to excuse any sort of behavior, well, your use of it is taken totally out of context. Read all of Matthew 7 instead of just verse 12. Jesus is certainly making a lot of distinctions there, first between what is holy & what is not, & then between who is able to enter through the narrow gate & who is not. In regard to judging, He is saying do not judge others blindly, but first recognize your owns sins & then you will be able to help others deal with their sins.

Only God can judge men’s hearts but He has told us to judge the confession of faith people make & also their actions, just as He tells us to judge our own confessions & actions. And this is done by His Word. Which is why it is vitally important that we actually study God’s Word to see what it means rather than simply imposing our own meaning on it.

Otherwise, if we can make no judgments or distinctions, then anything goes. A little boy can lie to his mom, & then say when she gets mad, “Oh mom, God says judge not.” Ad infinitum.

Nobody says these issues are easy or that they don’t cause a lot of heartache. I can see it in your post. But I too have felt rejection & anger by family members & congregation members for sticking up for what God’s Word says. It certainly would’ve been easier to just let things slide to get along with people. To just say God doesn’t care what we do or believe; He just loves us, when that obviously is contrary to Scripture. Heck, in regard to my own personal sins, that’d be a lot easier to do than to admit them & confess them & struggle against them.

Everyone’s opinions are their own, but when it comes to differing opinions, both of them can’t be right, although both of them could be wrong. That’s why it’s important to have discussions like these, to sort things out. Otherwise, every opinion is just neutral in itself & the only one that matters is the one with the most popularity at the time. Which as we can see in our society isn’t necessarily the most helpful way of doing things.

Which is why I hope we can continue to discuss these things, even though we disagree. Sorry for the long post.

revgeorge,

I’m all for respecting each other and trying to understand each other’s point of view, and sorting things out through respectful debate. But when it comes to differing opinions, at the end of the day, they can’t both be right, as you say.

I believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, not a matter of choice, and that gay people have the right, legal and moral, to express their sexuality just as non-gay people do. I don’t think gay sex is a sin. I also don’t think that gay people are any more likely to be pedophiles than non-gay people, and I don’t think anyone can “become” gay through role models, actual or fictional.

I don’t think Dumbledore’s gayness is going to make any kids turn gay, although it might make a few kids who are gay feel better about themselves because of the emergence of a mainstream gay character

Religious conservatives believe that acting on your gay sexuality is a sin, and that depicting an unrepentent gay character is an endorsement – or at least tacit approval – of sinful behaviour. Some of them may also believe that gayness is an acquired characteristic. They fear that children who read the books will see a respected character engage in sinful behaviour without remorse or sanction, and either grow insensitive to wrong behaviour, or begin to think that there is nothing wrong with that behaviour. They may, in the worst case scenario, think their children will become sinful, i.e. gay, through exposure to the books.

I can see their point of view, although I don’t agree with it. And I agree that a few kids from such families may feel secretly validated in their sexuality, and feel emboldened to come out.

If I were a religious conservative person with children, I’d have to weigh the strongly Christian central theme of the books against the tacit endorsement of sinful acts. If I strongly felt homosexuality was a sin, I don’t think I’d let my kids read the books. If they had already read the books, I’d curse JKR (silently) and start working on how I was going to explain Dumbledore’s sinful behaviour to them.

I’d also start working on getting the books banned from schools and junior libraries.

One side believes the behaviour is harmless and the books are harmless. The other believes the behaviour is sinful and the books tacitly encourage sin.

How can we sort that out?

Bear wrote,
“As we discuss this, let us not forget that Jesus hung around with ALL of the undesirables of the time, without judging them.”

Yes, Jesus did hang around with a lot of undesirables but by doing so He did not condone or approve of their sins. Just as when He hangs around the Pharisees, He’s not condoning or approving their sins.

Jesus came to rescue us from our sins. The undesirables He hung around with realized that they needed that kind of rescue. The Pharisees would not admit they needed to be rescued from their sins. There’s the difference. Not that one group was sinners & the other wasn’t. Both Pharisees & tax collectors & other sinners are definitely sinners. But one realizes their need for a savior & the other doesn’t.

After thinking about this subject for a few days, my main concern comes down to Rowling rewriting her books and the character of Dumbledore after the fact. I’ve been pretty good at pre-guessing what was coming in the books, but never in my mind was anything remotely gay attached to the character of Dumbledore. The text doesn’t support it, and the immediately angry reactions were because it was a ridiculous claim on the surface. Rowling evidently had this strange image of Dumbledore in her head, but I suspect very few fans did.
My second concern is that this divisive subject–thank you ever so much Jo–isn’t the same as arguing that fantasy magic isn’t real magic. Fantasy gay has a very real world component, there isn’t a way to distinguish the two, and even though some people are not bothered by the idea of Dumbledore being gay, for others, only Harry being gay or Hermione having an abortion could be worse. Connect the word gay to the Potter series and that word ends all debate for those who take the Bible for fact. There are at least three areas in the New Testament where the context and words clearly define homosexuality as a sin. Some would have us equate it to the sin of lying, and perhaps we should not distinguish, but I would be no happier if Rowling revealed Dumbledore was secretly married to Minerva and had been cheating on her, committing adultery, for years. Dumbledore is a non-sexual godlike figure in the series, and perhaps if possible, the best of all responses is to stick with the text and forget Rowling’s bizarre surmising. Let’s hope she gets busy writing another book and stops adding post scripts to the Potter series.

When I was reading the books, was it clear to me that Dumbledore ‘fell in love’ with a man in his youth?
No.

Does this piece of ‘back story’ change the way I read the books?
No.

Next!

Just as I was beginning to enjoy the Lovecraft discussion, this had to come up!

the gospel is just a bunch of words open to interpretation and perception to whomever, much like the hp books. there is no “truth” unless the writers [of the gospels] themselves rise up and decipher what they meant when written. the hp books, for me, are just as awesome regardless, and albus’ sexuality really, in no way, has a core impression on the story unless you (as the reader) make a big deal out of it.

signed,
many things, and least of all defined by my lesbianism.

Thank you, Matthew. Yes, I just mentioned in the other thread that the time has come to stop debates about biblical exegesis. Not that those debates aren’t important, but there are other forums for those things, and I’ve seen them get out of hand way too quickly.

There’s probably a really good chance that sometime in the near future, I’ll consider shutting down comment threads on these particular issues, and let the comments stand as they are. There is no point in going round and round. I’m going to consult with Matthew on this, and if we do decide to go in that direction, we’ll give plenty of notice.

revgeorge,

I didn’t mean you personally wanted to ban the books. I should have said “they” and “their”, not “you” and “your”.

My feelings on banning books are actually mixed. I obviously disagree with it, but I do think parents have the right to exercise some control over what their children are exposed to. I’m toying with the idea of a “Restricted” section of the library which kids could only access with a permission slip from their parents. Problem is, some of the greatest authors would end up there: Shakespeare (Shylock), Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn), Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamzov). Margaret Atwood (The Handmaid’s Tale) and so on.

I don’t have the answer, but I do think that the civilized debate we try to have here is part of the solution.

BTW, JKR is giving a reading, answering questions and holding a news conference in Toronto today. Even as we speak. Wonder what she’ll say about the fall-out.

My comment didn’t make it. What do I do???

Kaeli