Harry Potter Author, J.K. Rowling, Says Dumbledore Is "Gay"

Here's the story: Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

Here's a quote:

J.K. Rowling, author of the world-wide best-selling Harry Potter series, met some of her American fans Friday night and provided some surprising revelations about the fictional characters who a generation of children have come to regard as close friends.

In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience errupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonshed fans, Rowling added. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."

My thoughts:

Sad and disappointing. This will only encourage people who were already critical of the books.

Before this news about Dumbledore, I never had a big problem with the Harry Potter books, and I'll admit that I've read them all.

I never understood why Catholics went along with fundamentalists in fearing the magical elements of the series. I know people have compared the books to The Chronicles of Narnia and even The Lord of the Rings trilogy (and, I suppose The Hobbit), primarily because those books also involve magic, but I hold those works in higher esteem.

Here's what has always confused me (before the Dumbledore bombshell): Why are fundamentalist types so bent out of shape about Harry Potter, while not uttering so much as a peep of protest about The Wizard of Oz?

The Wizard of Oz has "good witches" and "bad witches" and contains imagery rooted in Theosophy and the occult (crystal balls, etc.). L. Frank Baum, the author of the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and it's thirteen sequels, was a theosophist.

The quote below is taken from The Wizard of Oz as a Theosophical Allegory:

At a faculty colloquium presented by David B. Parker, Assistant Professor of History, at Kennesaw State University, he suggested a relationship between certain themes, episodes, and characters in the Oz stories and L.Frank Baum's theosophical beliefs. Theosophy was a sort of New Age occult religion that was popular among certain groups of people a hundred years ago; Baum was a theosophist. Parker explains that the basic tenets of theosophical thought are relatively simple and included such notions as cosmic unity, planetary chains, human evolution within seven planes of existence, reincarnation, etc. It was upon re-reading Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that led Parker to discover the relationship between Baum's Oz writings and his theosophical beliefs. Parker states that given its closeness to Asian religion, theosophy might help explain Baum's "dainty China country", the title of one of the chapters in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Through more research, David Parker came across John Algeo's work on Baum and theosophy. Finally, Parker gives some specific examples to illustrate how Baum's belief in theosophy could have several other implications for his writings. These include: 1) Many early theosophists were feminists and theosophy stressed a basic equality of the sexes. And, most of the major characters in the Oz series were female; 2) One can see a similar possible theosophical reflection in Baum's anti-intellectualism. For example, as Parker explains, the Scarecrow, who mistakenly thinks he needs brains ("head-learning"), actually gets by very well without brains, and is in fact the "smartest" of the travelers on the Yellow Brick Road; 3) The theosophical belief in reincarnation can be seen in how Baum's characters sometimes change identities which is the case of Tip, the young boy who is the main character in The Marvelous Land of Oz. At the end of the book, Tip is transformed into Ozma. And, furthermore, as Parker points out, "Ozma" is similar to "Atma", the theosophists' name for the Spirit, the highest level of man's evolution; and 4) Colors were also important to early theosophists says Parker. Charles M. Leadbetter, an important shaper of early theosophical thought, came up with a list of colors and their correspondences with the astral body. Yellow meant "intellect" while emerald green stood for "versatility, ingenuity and resourcefulness". So, as Parker explains, Dorothy on her quest, follows the Yellow Brick Road (intellect) and discovers, at the end, only a humbug (the Wizard)--"head-learning" alone is useless. Only after Dorothy applies the lessons of the Emerald City--"versatility, ingenuity and resourcefulness, applied unselfishly"--does Glinda tell Dorothy that she always had the power to return home.

I've known people who've banned Harry Potter from their homes, but have never thought twice about The Wizard of Oz.

Why the inconsistency?

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Subvet]

It's interesting that she makes this revelation AFTER the final book has hit the marketplace. I really wonder if she wasn't just having some fun at the expense of her fans. What would she have to lose? The woman is already richer than the Queen!

[Jimbo]

I liked the first three books, but thought they went downhill after that. I also think her remarks on Dumbledore were unfortunate and unnecessary...Dumbledore is not a real person, but someone she made up. I don't understand the need to throw this out...I suspect they are politically motivated. Dumbledore is the series' hero...after Harry, of course...and declaring him "gay" helps give normalcy to the lifestyle.

[David]

Rowlings books can not compare to either Narnia or Lord of the Rings. Narnia, no, because CS Lewis' allegorical intent is cyrstal clear. Tolkien, no, because his content is not occult/Satanic in nature--the use of magic by Rowlings in her books is obviously Satanic in nature. It is focused on power and gaining power. Such "magic" is very real, not fictional, and there many real persons who practice it or attempt to practice it. Just fiction? No it is not fictional, whether or not Rowlings or the rest of our secular humanistic/atheistic society beleives so or not.

This, however, will be argued and re-argued. It's really beside the point now. Rowlings' admission (or pure on the spot media pandering) proves that there is a fundamental disorder at work here, both in her thinking and in her books.

A few "I told you so"s are in order here, and they need to be said loud and clear so parents who have been duped by their witless pastors, Catholic radio celebrities, and not a few bishops, and, lest we forget, quite a few Catholic bloggers, can act quickly to correct the damage that has been done.

[David]

Also...

I don't really understand your point about Wizard of Oz. There was a lot of stink about the Wizard of Oz from many groups claiming to be Christian and otherwise. The contravercy, however, has died down, as it will about Rowlings twenty, thirty, forty years from now. Just because there's not that many people "protesting" Wizard of Oz, doesn't make Rowlings' books good or bad. It has nothing to do with Rowlings.

[christie]

I think the stink was bigger this time because the author herself released this information; otherwise, like with the Wizard of Oz, it was merely a 'scholarly' attempt at literary psycho-analysis, etc., usually motivated by a political agenda but not written by the writer, director, etc. of books, films, you get the point.

This is not only the Wizard of Oz, either. Just google feminist theory or feminist history for examples of similar things with a feminist twist. For example, look at this course syllabus: http://www.oberlin.edu/english/syllabi/fall98/377gorfain-f98.html

[JMC]

Well, okay, so Dumbledore never married. It happens. I, too, feel that this proclamation of Dumbledore's supposed homosexuality rings false. I think she's pandering to the media spotlight now.

[Evan P]

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):
America Deceived (book)

[Jeffrey]

There is some inconsistency, I think though it has to do with the overall messages of the books and the overall influence of it and its author. IE, for one reason or another these books are more likely to encourag experimentation with wicca, witchcraft, etc. than the others and are less 'innocent' in general.

Will not kids reading these books feel like it'll fun to actually try to cast some spells for real with their playmates? And with improperly formed parents would they be prevented from doing so? Even though fantasy is now very prevalent, it is a fact that this will happen, and who knows how much damage is done?

These books may well be a significant part of a spiritual push for this sort of thing to become even more prevalent amongst the young. Then again, in other ways it is as good bad as any other fantasy generally, and just a target due to popularity and the need to resist this sort of thing on some level. Anything this popular gets detractions, and hype because of those.

I've read some of the books, I found them incredibly unoriginal and boring, very poorly written books that were worth not reading and reading almost any other book instead for both entertainment and edification. I certainly wouldn't inflict them on any child or anyone for that reason at the very least.

[Mark B]

I enjoyed the Harry Potter series, and this won't change my opinion. I think it was unfortunate that she mentioned that Dumbledore is gay, because the gay rights people are going to use this to further their cause. It's already happening.

Actually, the fact that Dumbledore is gay is not, in and of itself, a problem. Afterall, the Catechism says that just having homosexual feelings is not a sin. If Dumbledore lived a chaste life, then he was living the way he was called to live.

By the way, isn't it kind of silly we are talking about Dumbledore as if he was a real person?

[Literacy-chic]

Okay, as an academic and a literary critic, I want to see her textual evidence that the character is gay. In every book she has revealed something new that she hadn't even remotely thought of while she was writing the previous ones. This is just one more example. Where will it end? When I teach literature, one of the things I tell my students is NEVER TRUST THE AUTHOR--at least, what the authors say about their own works. If it's not in the books, it might as well not exist. After all, the author isn't looking over the reader's shoulder whispering the "true meaning." That's the purpose of those little black marks on the page.

[Red Cardigan]

Literacy-chic is absolutely right (and she said in one neat paragraph what it took me an entire blog post to write).

[Literacy-chic]

Thanks!

[james rich]

Well, I do think the comment was very unfortunate. Now, everytime a reader reads the part about Dumbledore saying, 'I love you, Harry,' people will be thinking of other things. She did it to herself. She will regret saying this in such an off-handed way. People will be talking about this for decades...if not longer. She did it to her work..and it can not be undone. How foolish. All in the guise of being inclusive and understanding.

[Sarah C.]

In the books there is literally nothing in them that says Dumboldore is gay. I am quite upset with the people that think the Harry Potter books promote withcraft. Because it dosent, yes kids will think its cool but once you explain it to them they will understand that its unreal. Besides the books main theme is the evil of bigotry. It has good witches and wizards and bad witches and wizards just like the Wizard of 'Oz. The other main theme is the need to control the power you have. Besides books 4-7 should not be read by children they have the theme of death which most childrem do not understand.

[A Simple Sinner]

Bothersome to me is how this will play out as the rest of the books are adapted to the silver screen.

I really can't imagine - short of a HUGE box office tank - that the rest of the books won't be made into movies...I guess the question now in my mind, is how will this play out?

[Subvet]

Simple Sinner; maybe Dumbledore will be cast wearing lavender robes and holding his wand with a limp wrist.

Talk about a tempest in a teapot, I can't believe so many intelligent people are getting their panties in a twist over this!

[Henry Karlson]

Actually, the revelation is not a positive revelation about homosexuality, but a revelation of its darkness and the kind of self-destruction it leads into.

She explained who it was he was interested in -- basically, Dumbledore "fell" for the "great evil" before Voldemort. That's right, he fell for an evil man (read the last book, and you will know who he is). And what is more, this led 1) to the death of Dumbledore's sister and 2) eventually to his own death. That's right, instead of being a positve role model on homosexuality, this shows the destructive nature and taint it provides.

Many people, it seems, do not know the last book. The last book goes into a great amount of detail into Dumbledore. He is not the kindly, saintly man people think; instead he was a user of people for "the greater good." His plan was to have Harry used as a sacrifice, Harry and Voldemort killing each other. This, however, came through and with him because of his earlier relationship. In other words, it shows how the homosexuality leads to objectification of others and willingness to use them, instead of seeing them for the true person they are.

To put him as gay after that final revelation really puts a very morbid look at the lifestyle.

[Literacy-chic]

Well, admittedly, I won't buy the things until they go into paperback and my son's school library has him on the waiting list to check out #7 (so I can read it with him), but I have heard enough about the Dumbledore revelations elsewhere to know that he doesn't exactly come out smelling like a rose. And I don't think Rowling knew she was going to "expose" Dumbledore as anything but a saint until the moment she wrote those passages. Hence, evil wizards that no one has heard of before. Gee, why didn't someone collect a wizard card of him in book 3? 'Cause he didn't exist in her wildest imagination when she wrote the earlier books. And now, since she wrote the Dumbledore scenario mentioned above, she has decided to put another little twist--but it's pretty much too late. It's not about condemning or promoting homosexuality, it's about self-promotion and bad fantasy literature--making it up as she goes along rather than having a plan or a consistent, well-articulated mythology.

[TM Lutas]

Some of the commentary above seems to have lost sight of the teaching that homosexuality as an attraction is not in itself sinful. It's a trial of the spirit and such people are supposed to live chaste lives. There is no evidence that I know of (and I've read every one of the books) that Dumbledore was sexually active with men. So long as Rowling does not start talking about the sex life of Dumbledore or her other characters, I think it's still safe to stay on my book shelves.

[Basil Mccormick]

I came upon your web-site, i.e., "Cathoic Info & Events"! It is very interesting & informative.

Thankyou,

Sincerely,

Basil McCormick
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
M4V 2C8

[Basil Mccormick]

I have already done it!
Ciao, B.Mc

[JIMMIEPOOH]

HO, WILL ALL OF YOU RIHJT WING CATHOLIC NUTS GET OVER IT

[JIMMIEPOOH]

OH, WILL ALL OF YOU RIGHT WING CATHOLIC NUTS GET OVER IT

[postcatholicreader]

Regarding Jimbo's post:

"Rowlings books can not compare to either Narnia or Lord of the Rings. Narnia, no, because CS Lewis' allegorical intent is cyrstal clear. Tolkien, no, because his content is not occult/Satanic in nature--the use of magic by Rowlings in her books is obviously Satanic in nature. It is focused on power and gaining power. Such "magic" is very real, not fictional, and there many real persons who practice it or attempt to practice it. Just fiction? No it is not fictional, whether or not Rowlings or the rest of our secular humanistic/atheistic society beleives so or not."

I'd like to remind him that the magic in The Lord of the Rings is specifically focused on gaining and maintaining power, and depriving others of that power.

Interesting thought just now, how many people pray to God for the "power" to defeat their opponents? What is satanic about power in Jimbo's opinion, the means or the end?

As for Rowling's revelation, I believe that she did always see Dumbldore as gay and gave up that information after being asked about him in a public forum, and after the introduction of the character of his former love interest in her last book. Good on her for the sake of her fans everywhere, whether they be gay or straight, Christian or not..

[postcatholicreader]

Sorry, I quoted the wrong person above, it's David I believe, and not Jimbo.