Didn’t see this one coming. Apparently Dumbledore was gay.

JK Rowling says wizard Dumbledore is gay – washingtonpost.com

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.

Rowling said she had read through a script for the movie adaptation of the sixth book in the series, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” and corrected a passage in which Dumbledore was reminiscing about past loves by crossing it out and scrawling “Dumbledore is gay” over it.

I never would’ve suspected that Dumbledore was supposed to be a gay character, but then I suppose that was probably the point. It should make re-reading the novels in the future a little more interesting as now I’ll be looking to see if there’s any subtle hints as to Dumbledore’s sexuality in them.

Update: Had to include the LOLCat once I saw it.

26 thoughts on “Didn’t see this one coming. Apparently Dumbledore was gay.

  1. I guess the christians will consider “Big Gay Al” another reason to hate on these books. This may get interesting.

  2. You know, I always thought some of the passwords he had for his staircase were a bit odd. Then there was the fact that he was always impeccably dressed even late at night. And he did mince a bit as he walked, sometimes…hmm…

  3. It’s interesting how in depth the characters of the book series go. I wonder if this means there is going to be a prequels or sumptin…

  4. It’s interesting how in depth the characters of the book series go. I wonder if this means there is going to be a prequels or sumptin…

    I dont think so. Dumbledore’s sexuality was largely irrelevant to the plot. She only brought it up because someone asked her if Albus ever had a true love or something like that.

  5. I sort of got the impression he was gay—something about the wording of the Grindelwald story, and the fact that he was so completely devoid of romantic attachments—but it was irrelevant to the story, as you say, and it was just another aspect of his character, like the colo(u)r of his eyes.

  6. I think Rowling has developed a bit of a perculiar attachment to her creation and has invented a strange fantasy world for them- no doubt including herself.

    Either that or shes already craving attention since lost.

    Dont get me wrong – I loved the series and I dont think i’m a homophobe – I just consider all this a load of rubbish.

  7. I think Rowling has developed a bit of a perculiar attachment to her creation and has invented a strange fantasy world for them- no doubt including herself.

    Well if she has its not entirely unreasonable, after all she’s been living with these people in her head for about 17 years.

    Either that or shes already craving attention since lost.

    I don’t think so. She may not have considered the information to be such a big deal. She may never have brought it up if no-one had asked about Dumbledore’s love life. I mean she was on a book tour taking questions when this happened. She didn’t call a press conference to say “Dumbledore is gay”.

  8. Truth is a lot of authors come up with complete biographies for their primary characters filled with material that may never see the light of day in any novel, but which are important in remembering who those people are as the author writes over the years.

    I still entertain the idea of writing a novel someday and when I get the itch to work on one I usually start by writing down short bios of the primary characters. I’ve written hundreds of them over the years, but have yet to turn any of it into a novel.

  9. LH you seem to have a certain personal dislike for Harry Potter/Rowling. May I ask why? I’m not criticizing- I feel the same way about Eragon and Narnia. Just curious.

  10. I don’t think that it would have been an issue if WB’s scriptwriters hadn’t taken liberties with the material.  Like Melissa Etheridge didn’t out herself until a reporter printed something about a “boyfriend” and she had to correct the misinterpretation of what she had said about her partner. 

    I agree with Julian & Les:  You live with these characters so long that what shows up in the books is only a fraction of their personality/backstory.  Look at all the stuff that didn’t make it into the Lord of the Rings and had to be teased out of notes by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay.  And, too, JRR and Edith Tolkien’s tombstones bear the inscriptions “Beren” and “Luthien”.  Both characters were sooooo incidental to the Hobbit and LotR we know.  But that’s the part that was important to them. 

    Enough armchair psychoanalysis from me for one day, at any rate…

  11. The reverse can also be true, though.

    People have probably interpreted all kinds of shit into characters the author never gave a second thought. There was a delightful play on German TV years ago where Goethe’s ghost fails a verbal exam about his own work…

  12. There was a delightful play on German TV years ago where Goethe’s ghost fails a verbal exam about his own work…

    That’s a hoot!  Can you just imagine what poor Shakespeare would go through?  Aiyee.  (‘Course, he’d probably laugh his @$$ off at Star Trek VI:  “You have never experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon.”  Well, *I* laughed my @$$ loose—but, then, I’m a dork that way…)

  13. That’s a hoot!

    It is. I wish I had a copy…

    Goethe’s ghost agrees to help out a hapless student—little does he suspect. When asked about some character, he replies “oh, he’s just a fool”, only to be told in excruciating detail what the throw-away character stands for. In the minds of people making a career out of over-interpreting his work, that is.

  14. Iargued much the same about Shakespeare at A level- WS was churning these things out, he probably didn’t analyse things to that degree.  I believe some ‘experts’ will say thats his genius- he didn’t have to, he knew instinctively.  We could always ask Martha and the Dr

  15. Iargued much the same about Shakespeare at A level- WS was churning these things out, he probably didn’t analyse things to that degree.  I believe some ‘experts’ will say thats his genius- he didn’t have to, he knew instinctively.

    Hey now, arguing about this stuff is the only joy that mediocre writers (like me) had in English class!  Don’t suck all the fun out of it!  Spoilsport…  wink

  16. LH, I rather liked the scene in the first movie where they were talking about what Harry’s parents preferred in their wands. I thought the whole thing was a phallic reference on the part of Rowling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.