Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

FYI if nobody has reported it yet:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3754341&Entertainment=true

Well this certainly goes with Rowling's theme of intolerance, for anyone who cares.

For the record, I'm glad she created him this way and had the guts to say it.

Your thoughts folks? I could care less...I actually think it's interesting and makes a lot of sense after reading the article. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that others may be less than thrilled though.

If you could care less, why did you post it?

UMMMMMM...yeah, I read this on Mugglenet....and frankly, I'm disturbed to the depths of my soul.

I thought it was a joke at first...

It seems a completely unnecessary attempt to lengthen the publicity of the Harry Potter franchise now that the books are over. It's a shame Rowling has resorted to such drastic statements in order to lengthen the publicity of a series that, well, didn't need it.

FallenxAngel,

I posted it because this is a Harry Potter forum where HP fans discuss things related to the books and movies. I wanted to hear what people's thoughts were like anyone else in this forum.

For the record, I think Grindelwald was far more intelligent than Voldemort, and that Ginny was the best of the kid-duelests, but could care less if Rowling came out and said that it was not so. It might be something to discuss in forums though.

Meh, the Grindelwald/Dumbledore parts make a bit more sense but other than that its a bit of an unnecessary add on. Why reveal it now? No one would have guessed/known now that the books are done and he's dead...she seems to be taking the George Lucas 'Ill keep adding stuff even after its finished cause I can' route...

She was asked a questioned, and she answered it honestly....I don't see a problem in that.

Why? Why did she have to say something like that after the story's ended? What next? James and Sirius had sexual relations???mad2

I don't see how it makes much difference, personally. Okay, so Dumbledore is gay. But he still did magnificent things with his life and for other people.

It was a bold stroke for JK to "out" Dumbledore, but it just further shows her tolerance for all different kinds of people, and it doesn't make Dumbledore any less of a person.

Unrelated, but : I thought it was awesome how she mentioned fanfics. It really shows that she knows what's going on in the world of Harry Potter after it leaves her hands.

She does. She always makes comments about shippers who want her dead because Hermione ended up with Ron, and not Harry.
Speaking of which, it was kinda clear to me that it's gonna be Hermine/Ron and Harry/Jenny since I read book 2...

Was that revelation REALLY necessary? The books are over with- leave it to the imagination. Can someone *please* remind J.K. Rowling that her job is to write books for children (and those that are young at heart, of course) and not to further political agendas? I always had a sneeking suspicion that Rowling thought very highly of herself as an author, but this proves it imho.
I also agree with whoever said that it is an attempt to create more controversy around Harry Potter now that its over.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=267167

To whoever speculated this, you were right. More reason for religious people (not all of them, you know what i mean) to go on a rant.

Rogue is gonna close this thread ya know.

Originally posted by FallenxAngel
Rogue is gonna close this thread ya know.

She is? why?

Edit: Just realized that its a duplicate, Rogue can close it, my bad.

Originally posted by katie_girl09
Was that revelation REALLY necessary? The books are over with- leave it to the imagination. Can someone *please* remind J.K. Rowling that her job is to write books for children (and those that are young at heart, of course) and not to further political agendas? I always had a sneeking suspicion that Rowling thought very highly of herself as an author, but this proves it imho.
I also agree with whoever said that it is an attempt to create more controversy around Harry Potter now that its over. Um, no, it's not her job to write children's books...It's her job, as an author, to write: to whatever end she wants to do that, furthering a supposed "political agenda" then that's her choice.

Well, I cracked up when I found out the whole "Dumbledore is gay" thing... if anything, it gives the other slash shippers hope; if Dumbledore can be gay, why not Harry or Draco? And the explosion of Dumbledore/Grindlewad that's going to come to the surface... I always thought ol' Dumbly was a bit fruity, myself... Though, the Albus/Minvera shippers got a rude slap in the face... I suppose they'll do as every other shipper who's "ship" has be de-canonized - pretend they can still take the canon on.

Originally posted by katie_girl09
Was that revelation REALLY necessary? The books are over with- leave it to the imagination. Can someone *please* remind J.K. Rowling that her job is to write books for children (and those that are young at heart, of course) and not to further political agendas? I always had a sneeking suspicion that Rowling thought very highly of herself as an author, but this proves it imho.
I also agree with whoever said that it is an attempt to create more controversy around Harry Potter now that its over.

She didn't call a news conference just to say this specific information - she was at a question and answer session and somebody asked had Dumbledore ever had a love he'd lost or something like that.

We all know that JK gives us as much information about the Potter world as we ask for - this just hasn't come up before. She created this part of Dumbledore when she created Dumbledore - and now she's revealing a part of Dumbledore that we didn't know before. She isn't asking for publicity, publicity just naturally draws toward an answer like this.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
She was asked a questioned, and she answered it honestly....I don't see a problem in that.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
She didn't call a news conference just to say this specific information - she was at a question and answer session and somebody asked had Dumbledore ever had a love he'd lost or something like that.

We all know that JK gives us as much information about the Potter world as we ask for - this just hasn't come up before. She created this part of Dumbledore when she created Dumbledore - and now she's revealing a part of Dumbledore that we didn't know before. She isn't asking for publicity, publicity just naturally draws toward an answer like this.

I agree with you both.

Personally, I don't see any problem with declaring Dumbledore a homosexual; indeed, it seems rather obvious, now that I think of it. Why didn't Dumbledore confront Grindelwald sooner? Because he loved him.

You know, I really despise the whole "children's book" offense/defense. In my opinion, the wide range of issues dealt with in the books make it a much more adult story than most others that I have read.

BTW: If people are going to condemn J.K. Rowling for answering questions about topics not covered in the books, they may as well condemn all authors, and anyone who speaks about their works after they have finished them - I don't think I have ever heard of one who has not addressed issues/topics from their work outside of their work, to the benefit of the audience.

And also, it seems that some of you (but not all) have not noticed when reading the books that much of the entire series is a testament to tolerance of those who are very different. How can you not get that? How could you not see that while reading the books?

One could just as easily substitute "Mudblood" for a racial slur, or look a little harder at the classism issues most notably shown between the Malfoy family and the Weasley family.

Dumbledore is gay- so what? It's not like he's Voldemort/Hitler and wants to commit genocide!

Still, I laughed.

I think if Voldemort was meant to have been like Hitler he would have made a special enemy of the goblins rather than muggle born witches and wizards.

It is rather bold of the author to make Dumbledore's sexuality explicit. It's not difficult to see it implied in the text, but the difference of the author making it explicit will excite alot of hostility that would not have been an issue otherwise.

Originally posted by Sam Z
Why? Why did she have to say something like that after the story's ended? What next? James and Sirius had sexual relations???mad2

shock I totally hope not!


news was.. err, unexpected.

Rowling get's a Phail in my opinion, just a stupid childish attempt to gain some minor publicity and raise the hopes of all the yaoi fangirls out there.

I guess what it boils down to is this: do you think any less of Dumbledore because he is gay? Are any of the great things he did throughout the series diminished because you now know he is gay?

If you answer yes, then that is a real world issue outside of the Potterverse. If you answer no, then you are quite likely part of the tolerant folk that Rowling believes creates a better world.

Originally posted by lionlover2053
I guess what it boils down to is this: do you think any less of Dumbledore because he is gay? Are any of the great things he did throughout the series diminished because you now know he is gay?

If you answer yes, then that is a real world issue outside of the Potterverse. If you answer no, then you are quite likely part of the tolerant folk that Rowling believes creates a better world.

I don't think it's fair to simplify this down to the extent of "If you disagree with this you're clearly homophobic." If Dumbledore was a straight character, do you think there would be hundreds of people arguing for gay rights complaining to Rowling? If Rowling's main theme behind the books was equal rights (Which is a theme but by no means the main theme) then she would not feel the need to state Dumbledore was or wasn't gay.

But clearly because I feel that this is just a terrible and unnecessary attempt to revive publicity for the Harry Potter franchise, I'm sure the next set of posters will now brand me as Homophobic

Who cares a persons sexual preference doesn't matter, unless of course Ron walkin in on Dumbledore and Harry going at it.
I just think it is sad that she even brought it up she said and I quote, saying she didn't feel the need to be explicit about Dumbledore's sexual preferences because she wanted to focus on character and plot development. If you want to focus on that then don't bring it up at all let the readers figure it out on their own.
She is just trying to be politically correct and get free plubicity.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Who cares a persons sexual preference doesn't matter, unless of course Ron walkin in on Dumbledore and Harry going at it.
I just think it is sad that she even brought it up she said and I quote, saying she didn't feel the need to be explicit about Dumbledore's sexual preferences because she wanted to focus on character and plot development. If you want to focus on that then don't bring it up at all let the readers figure it out on their own.
She is just trying to be politically correct and get free plubicity. She answered a question. What do you want her to say, "moving on"? Then people, maybe even the same people hounding her now, would be hounding her for not answering questions that fans asked.

To me it sounds staged, maybe a publicty stunt to raise controversy thus increasing the sales of her last Potter book IDK just my opinion

Goodness!

She was at a question and answer session as a part of her open book tour of the US - Someone asked a question about Dumbledore's true love.... and then she said that he was gay. She's built up the character with that quality - he's been gay throughout all seven books. It's just she didn't come out and say "Professor Dumbledore is gay" in the books, and someone's asking about it, and so now she's revealing it.

In another interview she told what Dudley heard when he was attacked by the dementors - something that wasn't told in the books. Does that mean she was just looking for publicity there, too?

Originally posted by katie_girl09
I always had a sneeking suspicion that Rowling thought very highly of herself as an author, but this proves it imho.

I also agree with whoever said that it is an attempt to create more controversy around Harry Potter now that its over.

What exactly is the issue if she does think highly of herself as an author? If you believe Rowling can't rightfully have a high opinion of herself following the success of the series then who, in your mind, does have the right?

I don't believe it's an attempt to build on the success, not in the slightest. She answered a question directly and honestly, so what if it's not what you wanted to hear? If she had said that Dumbledore had a secret wife, or had sworn celibacy, would you all have reacted the same way? Just because *shock horror* she's said Dumbledore's a homosexual, everyone's jumping to conclusions.

Makes sense to me. Overlooking Grindelwald's more unsavoury character traits, for a start. They do say that love is blind.

Well, I'm not sure whether Dumbledore's character was built as a gay from the very start, or throughout the books. I have't seen or read anything in the books that would indicate that DD is gay or he is not straight.

I think JK is using her influence and publicity to pursue a political agenda. On one side its a good effort to promote tolerance from someone as influencial as JK. On another side it feels a bit weird DD and the fans to be used like that.

We might not have seen, or read anything in the books to show that Dumbledore is gay. At least not anything that would be obvious (some will say that Dumbledore's reluctance to fight Grindlewald was down to love, and thus a more subtle hint) However, even though we havn't seen any "evidence" this doesn't mean to say that Dumbledore wasn't always designed as gay, or didn't always exist as gay in JKR's mind. Jusr because hes not depicted as swanning around with limp wrists and a love of pink or any of the other stereotypical gay traits doesn't really amount of anything. To say that shes using it and the fans to persue a political agenda is unfair. A random question was asked and she answered honestly, she had no idea that question would be coming so her answer couldn't be so false. It is hardly suprising that one of her main, and most loved characters would be of an alternative sexual preference seeing as the entire book has undertones of tolerance and/or the lack of it in society.

Ahh but remember his plum coloured suit? Like that of former Prime Minister Blair Also some might suggest that it is effeminate to shed tears infrount of a boy, like when Harry says that he told Scrimgeour that he was 'Dumbledore's man through and through.'

I don't think that she was not expecting a question to Dumbledore's love to pop up honestly. Because that is among the few questions that was never asked. Dumbledore she presented as the greatest beliver in love and it is only natural that such question will come.

Despite everything, I still think that this was plannedm JK is not someone that would leave matters to the occassion.
I don't beleive that she did that to increase the popularity of the books, they are famouse anyway. I think she acts this way because "is the choice we make"

I heard a lot of stuff about this, but I thought everyone was lying.

Seeing that it's true still doesn't change the way I see the book though. I don't think she even had to say that he was gay, it wouldn't have made much of a difference in the story.

Originally posted by Sam Z
She does. She always makes comments about shippers who want her dead because Hermione ended up with Ron, and not Harry.
Speaking of which, it was kinda clear to me that it's gonna be Hermine/Ron and Harry/Jenny since I read book 2...

Jenny? Who's Jenny?
I'm guessing that you mean Ginny.

smart guess. Leyts go bck to the subject

He is still my famouse character ever

Let's just face it, that it shouldn't matter what sexual preferance a person is, and in this case it doesn't change the story one bit.
unless of course Ron walked in on Dumbledore and Harry going at it.

I found this kindof shocking to be honest.. only because I never.. and I think most the people are the world didn't pick up on it as well.. Ah well.. good on her for doing that, she wasn't looking for any more attension for her books, she was answer a kids question - honestly, not being afraid of the truth - or who he was. Good on the women!

Originally posted by Sam Z
She does. She always makes comments about shippers who want her dead because Hermione ended up with Ron, and not Harry.
Speaking of which, it was kinda clear to me that it's gonna be Hermine/Ron and Harry/Jenny since I read book 2... Jenny?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Goodness!

She was at a question and answer session as a part of her open book tour of the US - Someone asked a question about Dumbledore's true love.... and then she said that he was gay. She's built up the character with that quality - he's been gay throughout all seven books. It's just she didn't come out and say "Professor Dumbledore is gay" in the books, and someone's asking about it, and so now she's revealing it.

In another interview she told what Dudley heard when he was attacked by the dementors - something that wasn't told in the books. Does that mean she was just looking for publicity there, too?

JK knew the series would end after the seventh book, so maybe earlier it popped into her head, and she decided to withhold that information until the end of the series as she/her publicist might have been worried of such news being spread halfway through the series

It's a smart move, as I can guarantee that if she had stated this earlier, there would have been major issues, and possibly a slump in sales as many parents already didn't want their kids reading about witchraft, and now the wizard is gay
Not to seem ignorant, but earlier (as you all know) being gay was much more taboo than it is today