Holy cow, Dumbledore's gay! — Page 2

On the one hand, I think it was a little cowardly and she could have done better to imply it for the adults and smarter children. Sure, I got it, but I always do with reading (and forcing) homerotic subtext.

But I get how she wouldn't want the controversy and moral outrage over a character detail to completely overshadow the last book.

I remember after I read the book, I made up a bunch of completely false plot points that I would reveal to people along with the one fact "Dumbledore is gay." Then I would say "...and one of these things is true" with the absolutely surety in my mind that it was.

Also, JK Rowling answered a question that a fan asked. Had the fan not asked it, she probably wouldn't have revealed it. It's not as if she just decided to make an announcement out of nowhere.

---

Yeah. I shouldn't talk because I went to the last Academic Harry Potter convention before book 7 came out, but even I was taken aback by some of the fans'...passion for their idea of what Harry Potter is.

---

Jo has books and books of backstory written on these characters. There are literally hundreds of facts about these characters that we were never made aware of throughout the series but which helped her to frame the persons and their narratives. This just happens to be on of those elements that helps create a more fully-fleshed character in her mind. What would have been the point of revealing this in the series? Dumbledore's sexuality does not alter the plot in any way.

Though I am not at all surprised. I had this suspicion about he and Grindelwald. There was just much more there than I thought met the eye and had this been a series about Dumbledore, I think it would have come in to play, but because the story was focused around the Harry Potter character it was an element that had no specific plot purpose.

---

Well, if you'll allow me to go off on a Harry Potter nerd tangent...

Part of Harry's dilemma in the 7th book is how someone like Dumbledore could have been so attached to Grindlewald. Now, people obviously do stupid things when they're in love, so Dumbledore's actions at the time are a lot more understandable. However, had this been known to Harry, I think this would have lessened the impact of the conflict quite a bit.

I dunno, just my 12:30 at night opinon.

Hmmm. Eight books and she never had room for that "Fact"?

Actually, she has entire journals full of "facts" about the other secondary characters in the books that she never could find a way of bringing up in the books. She did write about some characters' romantic relationships, but not enough that this one being left out is some marked exception. What about Professor McGonagall? Is she dating anyone? And Sirius; he was always described as a ladies man, but never once are his romantic endeavors referenced, past or present.

The book is from Harry's perspective for the most part and what immediately concerns him. You're constantly updated on who Ginny is snogging, but with regard to the adults' relationships, it only comes to the narrative's perspective when they announce an engagement or some such milestone. If Lupin and Tonks's relationship was overlooked by Harry until late in book 5 (maybe book 6, I haven't reread lately), it's perfectly realistic that he wouldn't consider any of Dumbledore's romantic relationships (especially since it took place 50+ years previous). These are his teachers and he holds a lot of respect for them in that context, so gay, straight or half-giant, it's really awkward and embarrassing to imagine them in a romantic context. Look at the kids' reaction to Hagrid and Madame Maxime.

---

"However, had this been known to Harry, I think this would have lessened the impact of the conflict quite a bit."

I actually think that's a pretty arguable position. But, it was what it was.

And I do understand that she's only responding at this point to very real curiosity.

Honestly, I don't think it's something that registered too high on her radar. I wonder how she feels now, or how she'll respond to the (doubtless) curiosity engendered.

Well, his beard was always a dead give away that he was a total size queen.

How long until the shippers find a way to use this as proof that Sirius and Remus were lovers and Tonks was nothing but the stupid girl that tore them apart?

---

Well. I can't say that I ever saw this coming.

Dumbledore's gay. Good for him!

Yes, I knew that there had to be a gay character in the series.

---

I kind of picked up on it too, but I didn't know if I was reading too much into things or if there really was something there. Now I know.

I think that JK did this in a good way because like others have said, this gave readers a chance to fall in love with Dumbledore, to look up to him and to see him as a great character without his sexuality playing into it. Just like in real life a person is not defined by their sexuality, at least they shouldn't be.

JK really needs to come out with that encyclopedia now.

---

Here's a few more "facts" that JK left out- let's see how many of you preternaturally observant people noticed these traits:

1) Hermoine is a Furry.

2) Tonks is bulimic

3) Mrs. Potter had a drinking problem.

4) Hagrid has a Dirty Sanchez fetish

5) Remus was a bed wetter into his teens

6) Siruis wore ladies panties whenever possible

7) Minerva McGonigle worked as a phone sex operator in college.

Professor Sprout didn't particularly care for licorice

9) When he was a student there, James Potter used the "room of requirement" as a brothel on 6 occasions.

10) Snape? Well, let me put it this way- Remember how Catherine the Great supposedly died? It works better when you can make the horse weightless.