The Book Page

By ada

October 22, 2007 7:59 AM | Link to this

I think that revealing something as serious as that AFTER the seventh book has been written is nothing more than attention seeking.
Shame on you JK, these are supposed to be childrens books!

By Rod

October 22, 2007 8:00 AM | Link to this

Book sales had started to fall off, she merely wanted some more press time for her book.

By LetItBe

October 22, 2007 8:01 AM | Link to this

There’s been nothing in the previous books that indicates his sexual preference.

I think it funny and very sad that the reactions from some of the idiot right wing religous people are that they won’t let their child read the books. Talk about homophobics!

Even if he was gay, IMHO, so what? There have been gays all throughout history - some in the closet and some not so in the closet. Heck, would it really shock anyone if a past President of the US was gay?

So then, what’s the big deal?

By One

October 22, 2007 8:03 AM | Link to this

I’m glad my 15 yr old avid reader never got into the “Harry Potter” crap. Seems kinda dumb to me……….but then we don’t really care for that science fiction mumbo-jumbo!

By who cares

October 22, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

Wow-who would have thought? Well, Professor Snape shoudl be the new Head master any way. Alan Rickman is a great actor for the part. You would never know that he was on the side of good. The way he acted fooled most all into thinking he was the bad guy, when in fact he was a bad guy turned good. Would like to see him destroy the Malfoy family of snobs. They were like the Olsen’s on Little House on the Prairie.

By deidreNC

October 22, 2007 8:14 AM | Link to this

i think it is ridiculous for her to come out with that after all the books are done..as someone said-attention getting i think. what difference can it possibly make?

By KA

October 22, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this

What I find shocking is that this story made the AP news! Bombshell? HELLO, it’s fiction, not reality!! what’s weird is the fact that we are discussing it here.

By tired

October 22, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this

I agree with LetItBe on this one. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

By FCM

October 22, 2007 8:23 AM | Link to this

What a thing to say! It really has not bearing on the series (other than to fuel a certain Gwenttian crackpot who will say the books are promoting all kinds of things now). However, why is it important to Rowling for us to know Dumbledore’s orientation? Wasn’t it bad enough his brother have a ‘fondness’ for goats?

By ageofpaper

October 22, 2007 8:24 AM | Link to this

You could have said anyone of the characters in the book? Who could tell the way the stories are written. Hey Jennifer you in today? They had a vent over the weekend I swear came from you.

By ron

October 22, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

In today’s politically correct world,gays have to be represented.J.K.Rowling was astute enough to know that a gay Dumbledore at the outset would have had a severe dampening effect on the whole series.Now everyone loves J.K. because she has:one,become politically correct,and two,hit the religious right with a left hook of stunning proportions.Now more books get sold,more money for J.K.Everyone is happy.The gays would rather have had Harry Potter though.

By john

October 22, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Looks like the Harry Potter series is not done. Dumbledore isn’t gay until it is put on paper. Thats like me saying Voldemort is still on the hunt.

By Jeff

October 22, 2007 8:30 AM | Link to this

Howdy all! Back from the honeymoon!

Anyways, on topic, I’m going to agree with others that have said this is nothing more than an attention grab due to lackluster sales.

As far as your question, Phil, I think this only gives the right-wingers and others who didn’t want their kids reading the books even more ammunition. Will they use it? Quite possibly, though only time will tell for certain.

By Aquagirl

October 22, 2007 8:51 AM | Link to this

It’s not attention grabbing so much as clarification. A kid asked her a question, she didn’t issue a press statement announcing Dumbledore was playing for the other team.

Cobb County nuts are flipping out. I can’t wait to see what happens when they forbid their kids to read the Harry Potter books. What makes something more tempting than being off-limits?

Oh, and congrats, Jeff—Welcome back!

By EJ

October 22, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this

Rowling should have left this one up to the imagination of her readers.

By Mike

October 22, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

LetItBe, a lot of people assume that James Buchanan was gay. Granted, not a great president, but he was a president.

Ada, what aspect of having a gay character makes these NOT children’s books? You don’t think children ever meet gay people? Or do you think that no gay person should be respected by children?

Ultimately, Dumbledore’s sexuality might explain more about his hesitancy to fight Grindelwald, and his lack of a romantic relationship. We also know that his waiting to fight Grindelwald was one of the reasons he was so adamant about stopping Voldemort. It adds to the story, and his motivations, but it doesn’t change anything he did, or anything he is.

By JT

October 22, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Frankly, I’m sorry she has chosen to do this. I have no problems with the revelation, except that I don’t for once believe it. The books are wonderful and they have done such a great service to children by building an enthusiasm toward reading. I fear that this will come back to bite her: the more “liberal” of the religious parents will now start burning the books and join the whack job Gwinnett mother in attempting to ban the books.

By ageofpaper

October 22, 2007 9:04 AM | Link to this

I live in the boon docks and my boys go to a small public high school with about 350 kids. I asked them if there were any gay kids going to the school that they knew, they said oh yea sure. I asked if anyone bothered them and they said no why would anyone bother them. The parents are the uptight ones; the kids are a lot more accepting.

By HaveReadall7

October 22, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

What difference does it make anyway?? Why would she have to bring this up now? I agree with the others on here, her sales were lagging and she needed something to give them a jump. These were books written for children to read, she should be ashamed.(not upset with a gay character, but this will cause a lot of kids to lose the chance to read them through no fault of their own.)

I recall reading somewhere, Sir Ian McKellen (Magneto from XMen) wasn’t chosen as the recast for Dumbledore because he is openly gay. How stupid is it now to come out and say that the character himself is gay? I always thought that was a stupid reason - maybe it was just an online rumor.

By Monica Blewbillski

October 22, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this

When asked about his sexuality, Dumbledore said he was just kind of sucked into the gay lifestyle.

By Koz

October 22, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this

It kinda gives new meaning to the word Fairy.

By lovelyliz

October 22, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this

When I look back at my childhood through my adult eyes, I realize that gays have always been there. I just didn’t recognize them as such. I was never a big deal. Then or now.

My 11 year old niece is aware of the revelation and it has not changed her view of the stories either. She loves them as much now as she did months ago.

By mom3boys

October 22, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

You have to remember the circumstances of the revelation: the screenwriter for book 6 was trying to imply that his sadness was due to a woman breaking his heart. She only revealed the “secret” to keep that out…it might never have been revealed otherwise. It does nothing to add or take away from the story line.

By O-Gee

October 22, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

book #8: harry potter and the vat of lube.

By bgirl

October 22, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Shame on you, AJC. All you’ve done is provide yet another opportunity to let bigots and homophobes have a place to say stupid hateful things.

By kenny from athens

October 22, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

I think that Lupin was in to dogs and Draco was a bottom.

By Koz

October 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

Shame on you bgirl, for not having a sense of humor

By Monica Blewbillski

October 22, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

g1 OG

By Phil Kloer

October 22, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

First of all, welcome back Jeff. Good to have ya.

Second, some of the comments so far are just barely inside the line of what’s permitted here. I like a good joke as much as anyone, but let’s try to keep the discussion on a little higher level, or I’m gonna start deleting ugly attempts at humor.

By Joe

October 22, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

This is just more liberal maddness trying to cram their love for gayness down our throats. These freaks should be ashamed of themselves…

By Atlanta Pearl Girl

October 22, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this

OK…. I think she’s trying to peek interest here…… There is no way he is gay. I’m fine with gay if that’s what he is…but he’s not. I don’t care if she’s the creator or not.

Atlanta Pearl Girl

By WestSider

October 22, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this

Consider this…what the &*%# does anything have to do with the type, size, color, weight, gender, etc of who someone likes to sleep with??? This illustrates the absolute absurdity of Political Correctness.

Why can’t children be children and why do they have to know about the details of someone’s sexual preferences? Maybe Snape was really a transvestite…WHO CARES? What does it have to do with the content of their character???

People are not defined by who they like to sleep with: gay, straight, transgendered, etc…that is one aspect of a person’s life…but the PC idiots out there would have you believe that it defines their whole character…this person is a certain way because they are gay or straight, etc…people are individuals and nothing in their character is there by virtue of membership in a certain group. So just let it go…

By kathi Pinion

October 22, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

I NEVER ONE TIME GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WAS GAY. I PREFER TO THINK THAT HE WAS NOT AND THINK IT IS REDICULOUS TO BRING THIS UP NOW THAT THE STORY IS OVER. I AM SURE MY CHILDREN WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT LAST BITE OF INFO. THANK YOU PS I DID ENJOY THE BOOKS.

By Jane

October 22, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this

Enjoyed the books all of them; nothing in them could remotely be even linked to anything sexual—these books are about friendship and growing up under unique circumstances. They show that kids can be friends, be loyal, honest and come out ahead.
Not sure why she felt the need to state this but in all honesty it does not change my opinion of the books.
They are a work of fiction and he is not a real person so why the debate?

By jct

October 22, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

I can not see all this fuss about this announcement. I read this blog early this morning and then went to find out how this ‘announcement’ was made. She was at a book reading. A girl asked her the question. JK answered it.

I have read all of the books multiple times. After the last book was published, fans had lots of questions. Some of the questions that she answered thus far:

The professions of the trio (Hermoine, Ron, Harry). Who did Luna marry and what is her profession. What happens with Neville.

JK has been very forth coming since the release of the last book in answering questions about the characters. She seems to have a lot of back story material that we the fans have never seen. From everything that I could find this morning, it seems that this is the first time that question was asked in that manner.

Whether or not it was about publicity really is a mute point. She has completed a few readings around the US. All have made the news (alternative or otherwise) in some manner. This revelation does not change the way I feel about Dumbledore or the books.

JK is the author and she has the right to defend and create her characters in any way she wishes. Some of you folks just need to breathe.

By Sherie

October 22, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Does it really matter now? Plus, it wasn’t like he was in a realtionship in any part of the book. It is stupid to even bring it up at this point.

By Truth teller

October 22, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this

Why should we be surprised? Witches, warlocks, lesbians, gays…it’s all tied into the book’s demonic back story. Don’t you agree?

By Magenta

October 22, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this

I always suspected that Dumbledore arranged for Gilderoy Lockhart to lose his memory and his job in Book 2 because he represented serious competition for most flamboyant wardrobe.

Who cares??? Unless JKR does a rewrite on any or all of the books, the works themselves will be more meaningful than any comments later on. HP rocks, and Snape lives!

By lovelyliz

October 22, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Believe it or not, chance are that more than one of the people your children interacts with &/or is close to: teachers, relatives, the retail employee who sold your child his/her copy of any of the Harry Potter books, their pediatrician/hairdresser/coach etc. is a homosexual.

Normal life goes on.

By GOB

October 22, 2007 10:23 AM | Link to this

Jeff,

I dont think “lackluster sales” had anything to do with it.

The last book sold 11 million copies in the first 24 hours, breaking the previous record of 9 million, held by the 6th book.

By mom of a potter fan

October 22, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this

Why should this matter at all? (not that there’s anything wrong with it:-)) It’s just stupid. I agree with many that it’s just an attempt to drum up more interest in the books. Next topic please!

By ageofpaper

October 22, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this

Hey Phil, off the subject a bit but could you walk over to the vent guys desk and ask him/her to update Mondays? Thanks now back to your regularly scheduled blog.

By Zoe

October 22, 2007 10:36 AM | Link to this

There has been a gay POTUS. James Buchanan….there are gays in every aspect of life. “Protecting” your children is keeping them from being full functioning adults that will need to work with different people everyday of their life.

I don’t think outing Dumbledore is as big a deal as the media is trying to make it.

By Phil Kloer

October 22, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

Ageofpaper: Wow, I think you just set a record for being off topic. You want me to come over and trim your hedges, too? :)

By aisling

October 22, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

i think more people need to read the actual article. this wasn’t an attention-getting move, she was answering a question about dumbledore’s lovelife. further, she even subtly had to correct the screenwriters for the next movie on the matter as they wrote something in that was a heterosexual reference. kind of obviously NOT PLANNED AS A PUBLICITY STUNT. meh.

and i think people who suddenly just “can’t see him the same way” are exactly those people who should be ashamed of themselves for being hypocrites and biggots and homophobes. at first i admit i was disdainful, not over the news or the fact that JK announced this, but over the inevitable and STUPID uproar this would cause. now i have to say i’m glad. because it just shows people how many of you think you’re so openminded and “not racist” and “not against gays” that deep down, you are. you have a problem.

as for the “it shouldn’t be in a childrens book” - it’s NOT. the affection is implied if you’re looking for it, but ultimately, even with JK’s news, there’s still no actual sexuality brought to light.

everyone should just get a grip and grow up.

By erin

October 22, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this

Truth Teller - No, I dont agree. I dont see any demonic backstory.

I actually DID wonder if Dumbledore was gay after reading the 7th book and his close friendship with Grindlewald. Then I thought, nah Im being ridiculous. I am an adult reading something into a childrens book that isnt there. Especially because all the romances in the books are very G rated and very ‘disneyfied’ (Which I think is appropriate for a kids book)

I much prefer she would not have added this tidbit to public knowledge. I think a character like Dumbledore, your all knowing ‘guide’ character should really not have a sex/romantic life one way or another. Its like your parents - you really dont want to know , you would prefer to imagine the stork brought you.

I really didnt like alot of what she did with Dumbledores backstory in this last book. She went out of her way to make him human, and sort of this master manipulater with a sordid past. I would have preferred him left as a kindly old enigmatic guy. I always felt it was too much information about a character that was better of remaining a bit of a mystery, a bit daffy and eccentric.He just IS. I never felt I needed to know about his childhood….

I DONT think she is trying to sell books and generate publicity. Frankly - she doesnt need to. She probably doesnt even notice the profits from book 7 at all at this point - she has made such an extraordinary amount of money on the books.

She does have yards of backstory on characters - so i guess she had this.

By LetItBe

October 22, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this

Reading most of these posts is very sad to me. I cannot believe that so much hatred and stupidity remains, even in adults.

Today’s kids are more accepting. They know that being gay is no big deal and doesn’t threaten anyone or any thing. Why are some adults so threatened?

So what if some character is gay? Is it that he is the ‘greatest’ wizard that bothers you? Is it that he is in a leadership position?

If the gay character was some lowly person, would it be more palatable for you?

Get over it!!!

By WTF

October 22, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Who cares!!!!!! I think the stories are stupid, and obviously so is JK……….and let’s not forget AJC for fanning the flames (no pun intended!!!)

By lawyerdaggett

October 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this

Absolutely cliche. Why does every story now have to have a gay character? How does this character’s sexual preference add to the story line. Pure rubbish!

By lawyerdaggett

October 22, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Absolutely cliche. Why does every story now have to have a gay character? How does this character’s sexual preference add to the story line? Pure rubbish!

By ageofpaper

October 22, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

Phil, while the trimming would be swell the hedges are not doing so well, for like us they want some rain! I wanted to irrigate them myself, but the wife put a stop to that, she says I am not a well. I hope all is well with the vent person though.

By NICK

October 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Here we go again…Pushing the GAY AGENDA….

The only reason Rowling would even mention the “gay thing” is to bring up controversy in order to sell more book$.

By Tinkerbell

October 22, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Would it change anybody’s opinion of Santa Claus if you found out he was gay? There have been rumors about why he keeps all those elves running around in uniforms!

By Robert

October 22, 2007 11:29 AM | Link to this

My “gaydar” must be warped! I can stand in the middle of Blake’s and ask, “Is he straight?” while checking out the guy in the hiphuggers with the seethrough mesh shirt and glitter in his hair yet I knew Dumbledore was gay. Apparently so did the actor who gave such a gay portrayal in the “Prisoner of Azkhaban”. AND, did any of the other teacher/adult characters have domestic partners? Obviously the child who asked this exposing question has been conditioned to believe that to be successful one must have a spouse. So, who was the strength behind Dumbledore? How about his belief in himself?

By lovelyliz

October 22, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

The gay agenda as opposed to what? The WASP agenda??

By Judy

October 22, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

I’m getting a real kick out of the folks who think JK Rowling needed a publicity stunt to sell more books. The last book sold 6.9 million copies in the first 24 hours. Methinks JK was just having a bit of sport during the interview…

As is it makes any sort of difference in the story or her sales.

By Pandora

October 22, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Who cares? I never allowed my child to read her demonic books anyway!

By LetItBe

October 22, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Nick -

I agree! We must stop this GAY AGENDA. How dare they think that they should get equal rights? Why do they think that they should be treated fairly and equally under the law? Who told them that they should get the same tax deductions as everyone else?

We must put a stop to this at once!

By comp133xi7y

October 22, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

The ignorance displayed here would be astounding if it weren’t so predictable.

First, apparently you don’t read the NYT Bestsellers list or you would realize that Harry Potter is still firmly atop it’s category - a category, I might add, that was CREATED simply because so many slots were being occupied by HP books that other publishers complained. So, any cry of “publicity stunt” is just…well, stupid. Rowling is the most succesful author ever. She is the only authoer EVER to earn over a billion dollars from her books. So, no kids. She doesn’t need to stir up controversy to sell books.

Second - a straight or gay person could die a virgin and still be straight or gay. It’s about emotional attachments as well as physical one. Rowling had as backstory - most good authors have those, kids, and they never get printed - the idea that Dumbeldore was in love with Gridewald which led to his early support of someone who turned out to be a vilain. The volumes and volumes of stuff that Christopher Tolkein has published were written by his father strictly as source material for the books that WERE printed.

Third - the characters aren’t yours. They are Rowling’s. So, you can pretend what you need to pretend in order to keep your prejudices nice and cozy.

By Famuan

October 22, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

LOL!! (laughing at the people thinking JK Rowling did this to sell more books) LMAO!!!!! to sell more books?? ROFLMAO!!!!! yeah, ok…she was trying to reach the last 15 people on the island of Gayzoria who hadn’t bought one yet. LOL!! Yeah, she’s shaking in her Manolo’s at the thought of the impending bankruptcy from the drop in sales!! LOL!!

By Mcf

October 22, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

This really pertains to what??? COME ON REALLY WHY???

By Newbie

October 22, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

I wish this hadn’t made it to the media (although I don’t see how it couldn’t)…

For Pete’s sake, NONE of the teachers at Hogwarts had a significant other - are we going to start wondering about them, too? Jeez, folks, get a grip - if JK had given everyone a backstory, the books would be 5000 pages long!

Let it go - Dumbledore was Dumbledore - a wise, flawed man who tried to do his best. Harry, too. And Snape. And Ron and Hermione. I want my children to see that, and I’ll bet that’s what JK was aiming for, too.

By Amanda

October 22, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this

One of the things which made Rowling such a fantastic series author (and the Potter books a fantastic series) was her skill at forshadowing events in later books. She forshadows almost obsessivley, with small details from the first book playing a huge role in the seventh. Yet there was not a peep about any romantic relationships Dumbledore had throughout the series. As thrilled as I am to see such a well-loved author writing promient and respected gay characters, I have to wish she had put this into the 7th book, or a sequel, or even one of the movies. As is, it feels so forced and like a plea for attention. Her books are strong enough to speak for themselves.

By RC

October 22, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

I was there at the reading and revealing. It cetainly made an already memorable night more memorable. Another atendee’s comment was that it would be on the internet and in the news before the event was over.

She was right.

OBTW, a parent in attendance thanked JK for giving her the oppoutunity to talk with her child about the topic.

The evening was delightful and the reveal was just a small part of it. Too bad that people who were not there have such a narrow focus.

By Craig

October 22, 2007 1:00 PM | Link to this

Tell me, what are the acts of parting a sea or turning water into blood if not witchcraft?

By Rod

October 22, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

Yeah, RC - you were there. Sure.

By LisaB

October 22, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

What is the big deal? I personally could care less. JK just wanted attention. My kids don’t read HP because it’s not for them. And I would never buy them a book which openly discusses homosexuality. My kids, my choice. As for the HP books, well, she was never gonna get my money anyway.

By Dumbledore

October 22, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

I AM NOT GAY!!!

By Randy

October 22, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this

LisaB - get a clue.

Obviously the HP books don’t openly discuss homosexuality - that’s why the readers didn’t know the guy was gay.

Your poor kids.

By Kate

October 22, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this

At what point does an author lose the power to control the meaning of a text or novel? When JK pronounces Dumbledore as gay, it is her interpetation of the character.

Imagine if Shakespeare were to come back to life and tell us that Hamlet really was insane. Though of us who believe that he was crazy like a fox would thumb our noses at him. The character is no longer his to construct.

The alchemy that occurs once the reader reads the novel transforms the meaning of the novel for that individual. How it is interpreted is not necessarily in the hands of the author.

By Randy

October 22, 2007 1:28 PM | Link to this

Oh, another thing LisaB - you stated:

“I personally could care less.” That means you do care, because your caring level could be even lower.

You meant:

“I personally couldn’t care less.” That means your caring level is as low as it gets.

Maybe if you and your children read books such as the HP series, you’d write a little more intelligently.

By RC

October 22, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this

“Tier 2, box 42, seat 6” is what it says on my now cancelled ticket.

After her reading and Q&A time, Ms. Rowling signed a book and gave it to each member of the audience. This took over 2 hours, but was certainly worth the time we waited in line. The event was organized by Scholastic books. Attendees had to present his/her ticket to get the auotgraphed copy that had a dated hologram sticker attached to the signiture to atest to authenticity.

By Yikes!

October 22, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

*Oh my, the gays are taking over with their GAY AGENDA!!!We MUST put a stop to this immediately! *

By Pen

October 22, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this

It appears that whatever her reasons were for disclosing this bit of “does not matter at all” information…….it worked. Now everyone is talking about Harry Potter again. On another note. I hope this one made Ms. Mallory even angrier…..her arguments and beliefs are a wonderful source of laughter!!!!

By Albus D

October 22, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

I think JKR misunderstood me — I just have a wide stance. Sorry for the confusion.

By itsmeagain

October 22, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

all those people saying this is ammunition for crazy religious conservatives, jk rowling is English, and there are hardly any religious nuts there (i claim this to be true as i am English). Point being, i dont know that she cares what a few American crazy people think.

By Katie Lynn

October 22, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

So she says this AFTER all the books are out? That’s pretty lame.

By Phil Kloer

October 22, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this

Kate: Your comment takes this topic to a whole new level, and I thank you for it. Given that people have very specific things to say about Dumbledore and the wide stance issue, we’ll stay with that for now. But I’m gonna put this in my file of cool issues to discuss at a later date.

By Tammy

October 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

I for one am glad that JK Rowling did not include her views of Dumbledore being gay in the books. These books are mostly geared toward children and young adults. This is not something that should be discussed in children’s books. Parents have the right and responsibility to teach their children their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong. As she did not put it in the books, I feel that the reader has the freedom to view Dumbledore as they please. I still view Dumbledore as being “straight”. So if JK Rowling’s announcement that she views Dumbledore as being gay upset you, remember, he is a fictional character, not real. And because she did not put it in the books, you have the freedom to view him as you please.

By comp133xi7y

October 22, 2007 3:22 PM | Link to this

I have to disagree with you, Kate. I’m not a big fan of post-modernism in literary criticism to begin with, but I think your example is off. Hamlet may be one of the most dissected, discussed and dissertationed work of English lit ever. Its author has been dead for centuries.

Rowling, on the other hand, is alive and well - the ink on the first printing is barely dry, She obviously wrote these books with specific backstories in mind, and is choosing to reveal them. I think it’s a touch arrogant to suggest that one’s personal interpretation of a character is equally valid as the author’s vision of the character.

It strikes me as the height of cheek to imagine Rowling saying “Yes, Dumbledore is gay” and having someone else say “Well, I don’t think so, so he isn’t”.

I fully accept the post-modern idea that one’s own interpretation of a work can be perfectly valid to that person, but when confronted with irrefuteable evidence that the author intended otherwise, one should at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that intent. It’s kind of a Schrodinger’s Cat situation - while Dumbledore was in the box, he was neither straight nor gay, but now that he’s been observed, well…

By comp133xi7y

October 22, 2007 3:28 PM | Link to this

Tammy - whether you think homosexuality shoud be discussed in chidren’s or young adult fiction is your opinion, it is not fact. The fact is that you have the right to determine what books your child reads - it is not your place to presume to tell an author what he can or can not write. Don’t rely on artists to censor their work because you are a bigot - personal responsibility goes a long way.

And as I said before, you can delude yourself in whatever way you deem necessary in order to maintain you illusions and prejudices. It won’t change the fact that in every single book, while Rowling was writing the character of Dumbeldore, she knew as she scribbled or typed that he was gay.

By Andrew

October 22, 2007 6:48 PM | Link to this

Someone wrote that “this is nothing more than an attention grab due to lackluster sales.”

WHAT!?!

Deathly Hallows sold over 15 million copies IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS! She has broken every publishing record in HISTORY and is a self-made BILLIONARE. If you honestly think she would do something like this for attention you are insane.

I was at the event that night and she did this because she was asked a question “Did Dumbledore ever find true love” and she answered it honestly, and in the process moved the gay rights movement forward through fiction.

Shame on everyone for criticizing her for this, she was willing to take the wisest most powerful character representing the ultimate good throughout one of the most influential children’s stories in history and make him gay. Her books were always about tolerance, bigotry, discrimination, and now she has merely expanded these themes into our own world where LGBT individuals are oppressed and disciminated against.

Props to JKR for this!

By Kate

October 22, 2007 8:23 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Phil!

Comp Point taken on the Dumbledore/Hamlet analogy. But my question remains—how long does JKR maintain control of her characters? She’s still alive and can provide backstories. OK, but for how long? Can John Updike come along now and tell us that Rabbit was abused by a alcoholic father or some other tidbit that will change the reading of the character? What is the statute of limitations?

P.S. I liked the Schrodinger’s Cat analogy.

By Jeff

October 23, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Regarding “lackluster sales”:

I contend that even 15 million in 24 hours was “lackluster”, and I contend that I am correct in saying so.

Herein being my point: If your goal is 45 million, 30 million, or even 16 million, and all you got was 15 million, the number is “lackluster”.

Same thing on any test I took while I was in school, or any I will take in future schooling. I have a single goal: 100. On every test. Every time.

With that goal, even a 98 is “lackluster”. No matter if everyone else in the class scored in the single digits, the 98 is “lackluster” because my goal was 100.

By Jeff

October 23, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Also, another point:

HP7 may have sold 15 million in 24 hours. I’ll grant you that.

How has it done since?

According to the New York Times Best Sellers, the only HP book on ANY list is HP ONE, and it is only in the Children’s Book list, Series Books sublist. Even there, it is number TWO.

Truly, upon investigation, it looks more and more like “lackluster sales” is indeed appropriate terminology and reasoning for “revealing” Dumbeldore.

By Aquagirl

October 23, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this

Dear me, Jeff, your honeymoon has made you happier, no doubt, but not any wiser. Well, married life is the beginning of wisdom for most men, so perhaps you will improve. If your wife is all you say, you will soon have the wisdom of Solomon. :)

Back on topic: You are correct if you aim for 100 and score 98 on an exam, you consider that “lackluster”. But JK Rowling has stated clearly why she would announce Dumbledore is gay; to influence people and make a statement. She said the whole series was about acceptance and tolerance. So what she’s trying to score a 100 on isn’t placement on best-seller lists or other such numerical values that you seem to see as the measure of success.

Maybe she does want to sell more books, in the way Bill Gates wants to make more money, but it has nothing to do with sheer number of books or the money she would gain. What she wants is to bring about a change that she sees as good. Her main game now is to accomplish that through her books, whether she sells more or not. There are so many Harry Potter books in print, if they didn’t sell a single one for the next year, there would still be enough for everyone in used bookstores and libraries, or to borrow from friends. The market is saturated. And there’s still a movie in production, yes?

It’s exactly why there are so many wingnuts grunting that it doesn’t matter, she wants to sell books. It does matter. It will have an influence. And they can’t do a bloody thing about it except minimize, ignore, or demand book-burning.

By RC

October 23, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this

I agree with Andrew’s firsthand account of JKR’s revelation. She further elaborated that one of the underlining themes of her books is love and what her characters did because of love or the lack of it. This included Dumbledore’s “blindness” to the evil in Grindewald and Snape’s conficts when dealing with Harry. It added to the richness of the story as JKR developed her creation. I believe that it is the complexity of her characters that will have readers discussing Harry Potter for many years to come.

For example, JKR chose to read about Ron’s return to Harry and Hermoine. Again, another example of what her characters did for love and the disappointments that her characters felt when someone he or she loved let them down.

Controversial themes are pervasive in children’s literature. The few topics that have been mentioned in this forum are only the beginning. These are the books that students want, are checking out and reading. (I know this because I am a children’s librarian.) If you are not open to discussions about what your child is reading, your child will still read the book at school or at a friend’s home and simply not tell you.

Bottom line .. devote some time to what you created, your children. Read what they read, discuss it openly, fairly and present your views in a non judgemental way. And, be thankful that they can read.

By Seressia

October 23, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this

Actually Jeff, I think that NYT list that HP is #2 on is for the entire series. All of the titles on the children’s list you mentioned are series. (And yes, the HP books are children’s books, published through the children’s fiction imprint Scholastic.)

Meyer’s Twilight series is 3 books and all the others are also multiple books—which is why it is just listed as “Harry Potter” instead of “Harry Potter and the…”

Also, Wal-Mart and other superstore retailers don’t report to the NYT, so their bestsellers list isn’t an actual representation of books selling the best.

By comp133xi7y

October 23, 2007 7:57 PM | Link to this

Kate - I think we should at least let the author die before we take away his or her power to define his characters, don’t you? Shouldn’t Updike be able to shed light on his Rabbit books, even though he claims to be done with them, for as long as he lives?

Jeff - as the right-wingnut you obviously are, I imagine that the only exposure to the NYT you have ever had was searching to find SOME reason to attack the character and intent of the “darn librul” J.K. Rowling. I, on the other hand, have a Sunday subscription to the paper, and I read the NYT review of books every week. The Harry Potter series has maintained its top-selling slot for several years, and even if the “Twilight” series is currently number one, I guarantee you that HP will be back in that top slot once the furor for the newest book in the series dies down.

Even if it doesn’t, you fail to appreciate the fact that Rowling is a billionaire - the ONLY billionaire author…ever. I realize that reason and logic don’t usually enter in to the thought processes - and I use the word “thought” hesitantly - of right-wing conservatives, but surely even an intellectually crippled wingnut such as yourself recognizes that someone who already has so much money and fame that she could live out the next few centuries in the lap of luxury has absolutely NO NEED to create controversy to sell a few more books.

Particularly when she is virtually guaranteed that her books will continue to sell THEMSELVES for generation upon generation.

Gosh, I love ideologically-motivated idiots.

By Kate

October 23, 2007 8:49 PM | Link to this

Comp—As long as they’re alive. Not that I have thought about this any more than a knee jerk response…but, say, JKR informed us that Harry wore a pink tutu under his invisibility cloak. Or, more seriously, Harper Lee comes along and says that Atticus Finch was really a child molester. Obviously, there would need to be clues in the text to support it, but where does it end?

I do not cling to a post-modern totem, but I think that some of the tenets have validity.

P.S. Stop picking on Jeff!!!! He is ever faithful to the blog even if we sometimes would like to smack him with a mackerel.

By comp133xi7y

October 23, 2007 9:17 PM | Link to this

Come now, Kate…absurdism doesn’t become this discussion.

What would wearing a pink tutu have to do with Harry’s motivations as a character? Dumbeldore’s love for Grindewad explains why an otherwise admirable character would have flirted with philosophies that wouldn’t otherwise seem to mesh with his own personal beliefs. The examples you have imagined don’t contribute to the characters in the least, and serve only to carry this discussion to logical absurdities.

And no - I won’t “give Jeff a break”. I have no patience for ideologically-driven bigots.

By Kate

October 23, 2007 9:47 PM | Link to this

My examples were writ large (with a crayon) just to make a point, Comp. You know this. You are obviously well read….tell me what you think.

Do you think, unilaterally, that an author can provide backstory forever? Or are there limits? Is so, what are the limits?

I don’t have any problem with the content or the timing of JKR’s disclosure. I’m just hoping to broaden the scope a bit.

Re: Jeff~ We all have room to grow. Labeling someone (that you don’t know) an ideologue shuts both of you off. Just sayin’

By comp133xi7y

October 23, 2007 10:20 PM | Link to this

I concede expertise and knowledge of a character to he or she who created it. As much as I enjoy dissecting motivations or analyzing themes and motives, I have to assume that their ultimate arbitor is the author who created them.

So, no - I can’t arbitrarily assign a timeframe after which it is no longer appropriate for a creator to discuss his or her creation. To hearken back to your Hamlet analogy - should we, tomorrow, uncover some previously undiscovered bit of text that revealed that Hamlet drowned Ophelia and intentionally skewered Polonius, and should that text be proven authentic, then I would necessarily accept those facts as the intent of the author.

Simply put, I believe that an author’s creation ultimately belongs to that author. We may discuss, argue about, analyze, carve into pieces, squabble over minutiae or otherwise obsess about our favorites works of literature, but at the end of the day, they exist as their creator created them.

That does not, by any means, mean that we SHOULDN’T do the aformentioned things. After all, how likely is it that Marlowe or Shakespeare or Moliere or - to follow to the extreme, Euripides or Aristophanes - are going to somehow shed new revalations about their works?

However, yes - I do believe we owe it to authors to honor their creations as they intended them to exist.

As far as “Jeff” is concerned, let me say that I’ve read his comments on many a blog, and I find little about him to recommend him as a decent human being.

By Jeff

October 24, 2007 8:28 AM | Link to this

I’m not going to lower myself to debating comp here, but I will say this:

EVERYONE has an ideology, and it comes out in EVERYTHING that ANYONE does.

My own ideology is based on three things:

1) The Original Church. Not what is now accepted as “christianity”, but the doctrines that the people of Antioch- the first to be called “Christian” - held dear.

2) The Constitution of the United States of America.

3) Individual Liberty and Personal Responsibility.

Note that I have never once said that no one should read HP. In fact, T, my wife, loves the series. I’ve simply said that I personally have no taste for it, and that unless something is clearly supported in the text, the author has no business coming forward with unsupported details.

It would be like Lee Child coming out and saying that Jack Reacher is gay. He sleeps with a different woman in every book, and while it is mentioned in The Enemy that he personally has no problems with homosexuals, his sexual preferences are clearly defined in both The Enemy and all other Reacher stories. (I can’t tell you much more about The Enemy in regards to homosexuality without giving away much of the book, but suffice it to say that homosexuality becomes a major issue in the book.)

By Kate

October 24, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

I do believe we owe it to authors to honor their creations as they intended them to exist.

I don’t disagree with this, but I think there are limits to what the reader will put up with. It’s one thing to have a recurring character over several books or a series whose character is revealed over time. It’s another thing all together to fill in a back story after the fact and to do it in another medium. At some point, the reader will stop trusting the author.

I can’t read Faulkner’s addendum to The Sound and the Fury (where he tries to explicate Caddy) without thinking: WTF? Step away from the typewriter, Billy. Leave Caddy alone

By HacyTadia

October 30, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this

You don’t really need or want that lifestyle, it might hurt y’all slowly more…….Just tell him you don’t wanna repeat something your not too proud of z7uas.