That's right. He's gay. His old lover was the evil wizard Gellert Grindelwald that he defeated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm

So at first I thought just another social statement about it being ok to be gay. But then I wondered what was the writer meaning behind his lover being evil and being defeated....



Does she mean that being gay can be defeated and concured?

Conquered perhaps, concured no.

But in seriousness, I don't think she is stupid enough to believe that, nor stupid enough to bring such a primitive uneducated idea to the table of discussion. Could be wrong, though. Her being religious has little to no bearing on whether she believes that or not.

Ive never read a word or seen a movie of this, but Im pretty sure that meant it sucked for him that the guy he loves is evil thus he cant be with him or something :p.

_________________
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."

Another tragic, lonely gay with a broken past and solo future. How....not surprising.

To quote a friend of mine: "Kudos for making him gay, but points off for the stereotypical tragic love life. It's too easy to present gay characters in a neutered state; to be truly groundbreaking authors need to show we can have successful and loving long-term relationships."

_________________

Don't forget his brother is also a goat fucker.

_________________

I'm not really sure why she felt it necessary to "announce" this. I don't buy that Dumbledore being gay was part of her original vision from the start, and this seems to be some sort of weird social statement. /shrug

Leave the little kids books alone. Let them be what they are.

Is it wrong to have gay characters in kids books?

I'd hardly call the books "little kids books," but that's a different argument.

From another board about the same thing.



Because anyone ever even knew he was gay before she said anything? And he went through some grand struggle *because* he was gay even though no one knew it and that was never brought up?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Actually, there are quite a lot of things that people picked up on it in his story about his falling out with the wizard which has had fans asking questions (which led her to answer, which led to these articles) about the nature of their relationship. So yes, it was in the book and yes, it was brought up. She just didn't use the word gay until asked directly.

_________________

I for one, will never read the harry potter books again. (since I already read them)

That, and, there are no more. Ha.

(PS: )

I've not finished the last book yet, I think I read the first page (bought it the first week)

I'll get around to reading it soon probably.

the only reason he's gay is because the series is over and jkr needs to keep herself in the news. there's no context for this, so she's essentially just retconned an entire wing of fanfics as canon

_________________

She doesn't need to keep herself in the news. I saw another post elsewhere which said similar things, and I find it amusing. First, she's made over a billion dollars on this empire of Harry Potter. Second, it's still 'alive' because movies are still being made, and sadly that's some people's only exposure to the series. She's written two 'side' books, both of which made oodles of money (which went to charity).

She could keep milking this cash cow as long as Lucas has the Star Wars empire...if she wanted. It's not like 10 years have passed and this is an 'Oh, by the way...'

I also don't believe she pulled it out of her ass. Most writers who do deep character development have a lengthy character biography they've either written out, or know in their heads. That's one of the reasons the characters are so believable. It's also why many authors can answer goofy questions about their characters and be consistent about it, even when it's never appeared in a book. I don't recall if Dumbledore ever drank in the series, but I'd bet you cash Rowling could immediately tell you what his favorite drink is, and perhaps some storyline about it.

She also has a lot of writing from all of her books which was cut, and not included in the series, including some fully developed characters that were removed ultimately because they just didn't work out with the story.

Book 7 makes a huge huge huge point in Harry never really 'knowing' Dumbledore. He knows him based on his interactions with him...but he doesn't know jack shit all about his life. That's a discovery of adulthood. All children go through the realization we don't 'know' our parents and other adults like we think we do. That they have flaws and lives outside of their interactions with us. That's a huge portion of the discovery Harry is making with Dumbledore in Book 7.

Anyone with two brain cells firing knew Dumbledore had a crush on Grimvald (or however it's spelled). It really didn't matter what orientation he is, or what gender Grimvald was. Most people experience some type of huge massive crush on a new friend where you can't bear to be apart, where you just HAVE to tell them something, blah blah blah. That's essentially what comes across with Dumbledore here. Very obviously so, and because of that crush/love (which again doesn't have to be sexual at all, and there's no hint of it being sexual) he's blinded to the guy's obvious serious flaws.

If Grimvald had been a female though, almost every single person would have read that section and believed he was IN LOVE with her, because it's that obvious. And it would lend a new dimension to it, but not hugely. It just further emphasizes the 'love is blind' thing. Dumbledore makes his biggest mistakes through the whole series out of love...it's a recurring theme.

We'll never know if she really intended him to be gay all along, but I think it's likely enough that was part of her character development and she had that in mind the entire time. I think it's depressing that she makes his brother pretty much a goat fucker (that's the heavy implication the entire time and an adult joke in the series). It's depressing because some people will see it as both of them being sexual deviants.

Anyway, there's another character in the series who never had a love interest and no hint of sexuality, which is Minerva McGonnal. She comes off utterly devoted to Dumbledore but again it's another relationship you don't really see as even remotely sexual.

If Rowling had said Minerva was gay...well...okay. But it would have no bearing on the story, because her sexuality (regardless of what it is) has no bearing on the story.

The same is true of Dumbledore. I think Rowling's main point in disclosure has been this: Here's the character you love, he's always been this, he's never changed...this is just one more piece of information you know about him.

She's also well known for revealing tidbits of character details all throughout the series in interviews, so it's not even out of character for her. I just think her reasoning...well it's lousy. I think her heart is completely in the right place, I don't think she's doing it for attention or infamy. I think it even has the potential to hurt the franchise. I think it was simply her intention to say to people, you adore this man, he's always tried to do the right thing, and gave his life for it even...and this is also who he is, and it doesn't change in any way all those other things he is too.

It's just sad she feels the need to do that, that such a need might even exist.

As for me, I say 'So the fuck what', and just find any further information about the characters interesting. Such as Hagrid never marrying, who Neville married, etc. I really wish she had said in the series what happens with Luna (as I found her one of the best and most easy to love characters) but she didn't cover it in the book...and she hasn't revealed it AFAIK after.

_________________

but why is it important for her to basically politicize a character by imposing this trait on him? if she had never revealed this information, you would know exactly as much as you now do about the character, and anything else that "makes sense" in this light is just imposed and artificial context that you see because you know to look for it. it doesn't change events and motivations, because those already exist within the text, and this additional "development" is just something she was either unable to write in herself or capitalizing on an opportunity to politicize a character by telling her readers "ha-ha! that guy you liked is gay and now if you judge him you're a hypocrite!," which seems to me like a cheap way to keep the spotlight on herself that is unrelated to how much money is in her savings account.

_________________

What I'm saying is, I think it's odd people think she needs to do anything to keep the spotlight on herself currently other than walking out her front door. She does interviews, readings, and many many many things for charity and education...but other than that has been a relatively private person. She's hugely famous, and it's far from waning. She's been asked (and outright begged) many times if she'd consider writing either sequels or prequels to the series; she's stated she's done. But she's also stated for years that she has volumes of notebooks filled with notes and bios of the Harry Potter world, and she'll probably eventually put it into an Official Encyclopedia simply so everyone can access all the shit she's written and worked out that fans don't know other than piecemeal revelations. She's also stated that any future works will be for charity, including that encyclopedia which everyone hopes she will do.

I could see people thinking it was a spotlight grab if this was 10 years later and no one had seen her in years...but currently? She's still very much in the spotlight, and all she has to do to have people hanging on her every word is say she's working on another book, whether in the Harry Potter series or not.

_________________

SOME SPOILERS...DON'T READ IF YOU'RE NOT DONE THE SERIES

Oh and to address some of what you said:



I pretty much agree with everything you're saying EXCEPT it being a spotlight grab. I also think she had it planned, if not from the start, then certainly within the last 3 books. I do agree that her revelation adds nothing to the character, nor does it take anything away. Then again, neither does knowing Hagrid never marries. Or if she had said Hagrid dies 3 years later from an infected bite from one of his many weird creatures...it doesn't add or detract from the series or the character of Hagrid. We (fans) simply want to know these things because we've invested in the character, and only the author gets to say what happened to them really. Though there are times when we fans simply won't accept what the creator says. (IE: Han shot first)

So in agreeing it doesn't add or subtract (or shouldn't) I think that yes her intention in not revealing it was for it to be exactly what you said, AH HA you liked him he's a good person, and now he's this too which you must accept. I believe she even had the balls to call it an 'exercise of tolerance' or some shit.

I think her motives weren't bad...but I think what she did was in many ways bad. The message there is that she didn't ever refer to it directly in the series...why? Because it's not okay? Because it shouldn't matter? If it shouldn't matter than it shouldn't be a secret either, you'd expect when we're getting so many personal details of Dumbledore's life...that would be slipped in. We wouldn't expect Dumbledore himself to tell Harry during the train station death sequence because it's a question of whether or not that's real or just in Harry's head. No new information is really imparted other than what Harry already knows or guesses.

So ultimately, meh.

I'd feel the same way if she announced suddenly that Dumbledore was black. Or had a sex change. Or was an atheist. Or whatever.

_________________

and all i don't get is that if it adds nothing, why say it at all? if she really wanted him to be gay, i think over the series she would have been able to work that in.

_________________

A couple of reasons. One I think it was in the background of the character, she has tons of stuff about the characters that never make it in the books, but are important in creating a dimensional character (some of it's never intended to get in, some of it does get in, some of it's intended to get in...but doesn't for various reasons). She has often revealed information in interviews about characters when asked. Fans ask such information because it matters to them because they're invested in the character...deeply. Prior to all the books being published questions she had to defer on often led to much speculation (one question she didn't answer was 'What is Snape's patronous'...which would have potentially revealed too much too soon, so she declined to answer it). Some were IMHO stupid (Is Snape a vampire?). People wanted to know what James and Lily did for a living, information about James's parents...who were they and what happened to them? Doesn't make a difference in the story...but people want to know.

Just as me wanting to know what happens to Luna makes no difference in the series. And obviously she could make up anything, such as Luna gets blown up when her dad buys another horn, so she never becomes an adult. Just as Hagrid never marrying doesn't ultimately make a difference...but people do care deeply about it and it matters to them.

As to why she didn't work it into the series...I don't know. I do know that when she answered that question, and people cheered at his being gay, she said "If I had known it would have made you all so happy, I'd have told you years ago" says to me she intentionally kept it out of the books because she was concerned about how it would be taken. She deliberately kept the information secret for the same reason. Otherwise...she'd have told them.

That's depressing. And I think that her reason for disclosing it finally wasn't just because someone asked, but that she had intended *when* she was asked to reveal it (after the series was done) and she intended it for pretty much the reasons you outlined, that one cannot now go back and judge him with this new information, he is as he has always been, and to challenge people's prejudices. Unfortunately I think perhaps she also reveals her own.

It's not the first time an author has done such a thing. Robert A. Heinlein did something similar with one of his characters in a book titled 'I will Fear No Evil'. The female main character is described, but her skin color is NEVER described. After a cover was issued, Heinlein was very unhappy (he hadn't approved the cover) because the character was black.

His intention was for readers to embrace this character beyond race. He could have revealed it at the end of the book, but it shouldn't matter was his opinion. Race should never matter, and he was very much pro-civil rights (and not a misogynist either as some detractors paint him). If he had revealed it, or referenced it at the end of his book, he would have been saying, 'See look! It matters!'. But he always envisioned her when writing her as black. Many of his characters don't have references to race until deep in the books, then when it's necessary. In Starship Troopers (I think it was that one) prejudice is being argued, and one of them points out he's not racist and makes reference to another character being black (which we didn't know up until that point). The other character qualifies they're not talking about racial prejudices (which only absolute morons hold) but rather other types of cultural prejudices such as thinking their way was the best way because it was their way.

Anyhoo...I see it as somewhat similar to that, and for similar social reasons, I just think Rowling's execution of it is piss poor. But I don't see it in any way as personal attention whoring or attention whoring for her series. I just see it as someone who wanted to illustrate a specific point, and did so very poorly.

_________________

lol... that's good stuff considering I saw her being compared to Lucas on another board, in regards to going batshit crazy.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

How so? Just curious what they're refering to. Unless it's the ending of book 7, which a lot of people felt was a letdown, myself included. (Which is comparable I suppose to Ewoks and crap in Return of the Jedi...lol)

_________________

Next up: Dumbledore learned to have opposed the Iraq war and favors Obama in the upcoming election. Oh, and he's against abortion and pro-environment.

Gimme a break.

I thought it was because she was sick of the fundi "They are teaching the chidren--CHILDREN!!-to be WITCHES!" crap she decided to give them something to actually be upset about.

--J.D.

Actually, it would be pretty easy to verify what she is saying.



Simply ask the director she says she "let in on the secret" before the final book came out if that conversation actually took place.


I do think it is interesting how up in arms people get at the idea that an author, who knows the character far better than you, might have had a detail about a hero many have come to love that you just didn't pick up on. After all, she simply followed a good piece of advice:

"Being gay is, and should be, the least interesting thing about you."

_________________

I just realized how poorly this was written and wanted to clarify. The character was black, the cover art portrayed her as white. Hence the annoyance.

_________________

Pfft... Considering how much of the average human's mind thoughts about sex in general occupy, I'd be awfully surprised if a person's sexuality was anywhere close to the "least" interesting thing about them. I'm much more interested if you tell me you like dick(or shoes or womens pantyhose or whips or the missionary position in the backyard.) than if you tell me, say, what socks you're wearing. Unless maybe the socks have pictures of naked women on them... in that case maybe it's a close call.

I stopped reading the books after like the 5th one though. I thought Harry was a self absorbed little shit. If there had been a gay headmaster storyline, I might have stuck around. Would have been more interesting. /nod

Why ANYONE would give two shits who or why anyone sleeps with anyone is beyond me. That would be like asking your neighbor what they do in bed, and how they do it, and how BIG is your husband and how BIG are your boobs. Purient interest is all I can think of.

You are either my friend or not, based on who you are, not what you do with a consenting adult. A friend named Matt taught me that a long time ago. Matt, you know who you are.

with tarot doing so much wikipedia, she should have figured out how to spell his name by now. (Gellert Grindelwald)

?

The wiki I use most often is WoW wiki. Grindelwald isn't in my spellchecker nor is it something I'd use often enough to care to look up how it's spelled. You knew who I meant.

_________________

With regular Wikipedia being a very close second! =p

trikipedia or treat

_________________

No, but probably the third most common wiki I use. I used Wikipedia today, but only in looking up various religious terms as I was looking for a good name for a Hellgate:London character, and ended up getting sidetracked as I often do reading up on about 3 other different things, and got annoyed on the inaccuracy in one article...but I'm too lazy to edit it because I'd have to drag out sources and whatnot.

I ended up naming my character Heratik. /sigh Even some obscure Greek words were taken. (As was Tarot QQ)

_________________

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Island

Also:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22640695-5013016,00.html?from=mostpop

One more reason not to get a tattoo. Owned.