Reactions About Dumbledore's Sexuality?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

Answer 1

Oh, give the woman a break! I don't think she was courting press attention at all, she was merely giving a direct response to a question.

Whatever she says or does she seems to get criticised. When Deathly Hallows came out a lot of fans lambasted her because they'd taken her "Everything will be revealed in the last book" promises too literally, and rather unrealistically imagined that she was going to explain every single life event of every single character, and were hugely disappointed when she didn't. Now that she is trying to fill in some of that detail for them, she gets accused of attention-seeking.

I can understand the disappointment and anger of some gay fans that she never had the courage to include openly gay characters in the books themselves, but in her defence, few children's authors do, and at least she hinted at the existence of gay characters. I'm pleased that she wouldn't let Warner Bros provide DD with female love interest - that, to me, shows integrity.

As for those who say that she's obviously making it up to get publicity and if he was really supposed to be gay she'd have mentioned it before - all authors know far more about their characters than they mention in the books. You can't create a convincing 3-dimensional character unless you envisage them in every detail, but you only reveal the details that are germane to the plot, otherwise the book would be chaotic, boring and very, very long.

I think that by and large JKR does prefer to let readers fill in the gaps themselves, but unfortunately many fans really want to know every detail about their favourite characters that JKR has in her unpublished notes and her mind's eye. If they ask her an outright question, it's rude not to answer.

For me, the "revelations" about Dumbledore's sexuality don't make much difference - he's still the same character, with the same strengths and flaws. It makes the Grindelwald storyline a bit more poignant and comprehensible, but it doesn't have a big impact on the plot or my perception of the character. If JKR had made this announcement about a character whose sexuality/romantic relationships had been key to the plot (e.g. if she'd revealed that James was really gay and his marriage to Lily had been a sham) I'd probably have a "reaction", but Dumbledore - who cares?

Answer 2

i am shocked, i didnt expect it. however, maybe we should have seen it all along. others have presented arguments that he was caring and such but strait old men can be nice too.

i was rereading the first book this morning before i heard this news and i noted that dumbledore shot several purple sparks out of his wand when trying to gain the students attention after quirrell said there was a troll in the dungeons. i remember thinking "huh wonder why she chose purple.." but it never crossed my mind that he was gay. but after i saw the news on fox a little bit ago i remembered that he wore purple robes too in one book. maybe she has had this planned out from book one, it seems likely, especially with the grindelwald bit. we know why dumbledore went against his own beliefs to side with grindelwald, and why he was hesitant to face him.

yes, now it gives the Christians who oppose this book more reason to do so.
I'm a Christian and I love the books. I am upset that other Christians think it is "devil worshiping" when they have not read it. I could go on and on about the religious underlie in the books, but I wont, but she even put a couple of Bible versus in the books though, plus she is Christian as well

Answer 3

They idea had occurred to me more than once, but I didn't think she'd really do it.
I'm OK with it. I think it was kind of pointless to even mention it though. She obviously did it for attention. Good attention or bad, I'm not sure which. She could have done it to try and influence people to support gay rights. (Oh, the Church will LOVE that.) or she's just trying to be a smart.
Either way I think we can discard this information. She didn't put in the books, so for those who don't like it; don't get too upset. And for those who do glad you're happy.
I'm just thankful she didn't say something really stupid like "Sirius and Lupin had a one night stand" Then I'd be concerned that all the bad fan fiction messed with her head.
p.s. Hey, how about this pairing with Dumbledore:
Just hear me out; If Luna had a time-turner... I'm just thinking aloud, but it would be kind of cool wouldn't it? I mean, they're both unique individuals, that's for sure.

Answer 4

I didn't think it was a big deal.

Then, I look on Y!A, and I've got people whose answers I've respected saying that Rowling is a 'sick chick' , 'disparaging Dumbledore's character,' etc.

Then there are lots of people saying that they're not homophobic, but it's not a fit subject for children. There's magic, and child abuse, racism, death . . .in the books. But mentioning that D is gay outside the books is too harmful?

I was very surprised that people who never complained about Rowling's hints of Aberforth and a goat thought that THIS was a disgusting stunt.

Answer 5

I dont think Jo was doing this as a publicity stunt. I believe she only announced it now because, imagine it, some parents perhaps wouldnt have let there children read a book that they believed to have a gay character in. Like religious parents or something. I dont mind thats dumbledores homosexual, i think its good shes got someone in the books who is.

Answer 6

no longer something astonishing that makes you particular of Dumbledore's sexuality different than for that he never mentions something approximately any women individuals. many human beings, like me, assumed that there became somewhat something something occurring between him and McGonagall--yet unluckily! She became probable his hag. examining by using DH now, you should take extremely some the flaws into to context that should make you think of Dumbledore and Grindelwald have been into one yet another on a distinctive point to BFF. Bathida Bagshot says how "they took to a minimum of one yet another at as quickly as.." how they might deliver all day in communicate, and "they have been given on like a cauldron on hearth..." (her words, swear it) they sent letters to a minimum of one yet another interior the ineffective of the night. the top of the letter Dumbledore sends Grindelwald he mentions how if he would be unable to whinge that Grindelwald became expelled from Drumstrang, through fact if no longer they might have never met. ...this could all be taken any context you like, plus quite a few different excerpts from the e book. yet you additionally can take Ron and Harry's relationship into that context too. I choose she might have given a much better hint to all of it....*sigh...*

Answer 7

My reaction not surprised, just annoyed with J.K. She doesn't mention it or hint at it, at any time through out the books, because a lot of people would have rejected them. She waited until, all her loyal fans conservative and otherwise had gone out and bought their copy, to spring this on everyone, to stay in the "limelight". This seems perfectly timed and planned out, for the sole purpose of making as much money as possible :P But, because they're suppose to be children's books. I honestly think she should have, left Dumbledore's sex life to the imagination of the fans that were mature enough, to imagine one for him........

Answer 8

Whats the big fuss? She also announced that Hagred never got married, but thats not making headlines. why not read the transcript and keep things in perspective

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

BTW...Being gay is NOT a slurr.

I think its wonderful that in evolved minds the prejudices and ignorance of 2000 years ago are seen as just that, and not the work of God.

Answer 9

WHAT??!
no this is totally stupid i mean she's had 7 seven bloody books to write in & like million years. i dont think she took that minute detail due to priting space and fee??!
im really annoyed at her rite now.
it does sound as if she just wantted more money and press coming to her as her books are goin down. well she got that every website on the internet has her story..
come on guys even if its real it cant go into the book again, the book is OVER. and Dumbledore has been dead for a while now...
dnt u think its truley out of place?!!
:@

Answer 10

Grow Up People...
she din't mention it in any of the books because she wanted to avoid all the unneccessary controversies... she din't want parents to snatch away the books from their children--- as most of them would have done...
but it all fits... doesnt it??? ONE REASON WHY DUMBLEDORE WAS HESITANT TO FACE GILLERT and defeat him....
his love made him keep up with all the nonsense gillert was upto in that young age.... U THINK A GENIUS LIKE DD DIN'T SEE WHAT WAS BECOMING OF GILLERT ALREADY???
love is blind
:)