Fundy Meltdown Time: JK Rowling says wizard Dumbledore is gay

Gee, it's a fictional character in a book they don't like, but this will give them "SEE? SEE? They're CORRUPTING our CHILDREN!!!!" ammo. I'm waiting for the "Mah little Billy Bob wasn't gay before he read that Harry Potter book!" gripe:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071020/ts_nm/rowling_dc;_ylt=AnDpvyMiRtWPx57GKYIcDI9g.3QA

Speaking at Carnegie Hall on Friday night in her first U.S. tour in seven years, Rowling confirmed what some fans had always suspected -- that she "always thought Dumbledore was gay," reported entertainment Web site E! Online.

Rowling said Dumbledore fell in love with the charming wizard Gellert Grindelwald but when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark arts than good, Dumbledore was "terribly let down" and went on to destroy his rival.

That love, she said, was Dumbledore's "great tragedy."

"Falling in love can blind us to an extent," she said.

The audience reportedly fell silent after the admission -- then erupted into applause.

n/t

As an aside, "The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," (The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005) had JKR saying Gellert died in the big battle with Dumbledore in 1945 - but of course now we know he was just imprisoned until 1998 at which point he is killed off.

I always like it when a character comes back to life! :-)

a bit of her talk, and didn't hear anything like that. something from a reliable source, please?

Well, in that case you have a problem with half of the news on this website.

But here, let me satisfy your "I didn't actually LOOK at the cite, but I'll snark off anyway" ass.

Time Magazine, or is that not reliable enough for you either?
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674073,00.html
The author was in the U.S. this week for a book tour, mainly for schoolchildren, but I had been lucky enough to win a ticket in a sweepstakes for the only evening event in New York City. So there I sat, gazing down in awe as she read from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, answered questions from the audience, and then signed two thousand books, including mine. As Rowling settled down, the crowd did not. On the edge of their seats, they clung on to every word coming from the woman on the velvet-covered throne, often bursting into applause or laughter. As she started to read a passage from the book, the last in the Harry Potter series, it was clear that she was just as excited as the audience. She read with obvious delight, putting on brilliant voices that rang true to every character, and even bursting into a fit of giggles when Ron, holding up the magical Deluminator gadget, said he heard Hermione "coming out of my pocket."

But when the questions began — they had been submitted by audience members before the event — she came into her own. Finally able to talk freely about the end of a series that had been so long-anticipated, she left nothing out. The big revelation of the night came when she was asked if Dumbledore had ever found love. With a sigh, she seemed on the verge of saying no, but then revealed, "my truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." After a collective gasp, the audience roared with applause. Rowling was clearly astonished by the positive reaction and exclaimed, "if I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" She went on to say that she thought Dumbledore had fallen in love with Grindelwald, a Dark Wizard he defeated in battle in 1945, which possibly made it forgivable that he had not seen Grindelwald's true nature, because "falling in love can blind us to an extent."


WTF is wrong with you??? Do a little checking before you shoot off your mouth, why doncha? Google IS your little friend, too.

I had listened to the coverage of her reading at carnegie, and that wasn't there.

I also read the book the day it was released. have you?

Gee, the news article only QUOTED THE AUTHOR.

But oooh, you LISTENED to coverage. So we should believe YOU?

Apparently YOU MISSED some of it. You weren't there, were ya? But reporters from TIME MAG, AP and other outlets WERE. And they're all reporting the same damned thing.

I don't see you apologizing for calling me a liar, there. You might start with that, after you take that size Nine outta your mouth.

You were WRONG. And a real BLOWHARD too, with your snarky, ill-advised, not-too-bright insulting remark about a mainstream cite that everyone here uses.

And what's with "I also read the BOOK!!!"

So fucking what? I doubt you'll find author book-signing quotes IN THE BOOK. Will you?

That's the lamest attempt at trying to change the subject I've ever seen, BTW.

:eyes:

sensitive today, aren't we?

but then, your comments are sensitive and to the point, and mine are snarky. I get it.

Here, let me put it in front of you once more, so you can see it with your own eyes. "We" aren't "sensitive"--"we" are simply calling you on your pointless snark.

niyad (1000+ posts) Sat Oct-20-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. uh huh. she was reading to children at that event, wasn't she? I heard
a bit of her talk, and didn't hear anything like that. something from a reliable source, please?

the books?

<snip>

Rowling said Dumbledore fell in love with the charming wizard Gellert Grindelwald but when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark arts than good, Dumbledore was "terribly let down" and went on to destroy his rival.

<snip>

And if not, how were people supposed to know this?

likely be the "Star Trek" types of the future.

She was apparently fleshing out the characters for the acolytes whilst signing two thousand books.

You know it, because the author SAID it. It's all about her vision.

saying what he had seen, and albus explaining what had happened, including his seeing at the end exactly what grindelwald was like.

ever since its release. And it's a stinker. As to Dumbledore's sexuality, there was no indication one way or the other, and it is irrelevent to the plot.

Rowling's been doing this kind of trashing of each character after the fact (claiming they were something other than how they are portrayed in the books) in an attempt to mess with the fanfiction writers, any of whom could (and several have) written better stories than her final volume of the epic.

I never even gave Dumbledore's sexuality a thought. Didn't seem relevant to the story at hand. Guess now we must go back and understand Captain Nemo, Robinson Crusoe, The Count of Monte Cristo, etc to see where they lay sex-wise. I think Rowling was being a bit facetious about this and trying to mock those who have to know everything about everyone in fiction and non-fiction.
Please I hope that my guess is true Sex is not the most important thing in the world - unless you are an adolescent male.