Search Beyond Hogwarts:
J.K.'s surprising revelation about Dumbledore
by David Haber
Just a little over a year ago, on August 2, 2006, J.K. Rowling made a statement at her reading in New York City, at Radio City Music hall, that was big news and related directly to what we talk about on this web site. Well, tonight she's done it again. This evening, again in New York City, this time at Carnegie Hall, J.K. Rowling dropped a bombshell on the Harry Potter fan community.
> Read the full article
Pages: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > >>
Reader Comments: (Page 22)
Yeah really, can't someone just be vain? People really show their own bias with comments like that. So anyone egotistical, flamboyant and literary must be Oscar Wilde. Come on now, break outta that box you keep your head in!
Posted by hollyanna from new jersey on February 27, 2008 1:59 PM
Okay, so when I heard this, the first I thought of was "J.K. is selling out." I think she is an unbeleivable writer, and has incredible books, etc. But when you get down to it, she's human. If I had a billion-dollar series that captured the world indeterminantly, and suddenly all the rush, all the excitement and attention disappeared, I would miss it. Quite frankly, I think J.K missed all the Harry attention. I think she just said this to stir up excitment again. Dumbledore isn't . He can't be. Making him would make him too human. It doesn't make sense.
Posted by raha from Lexington, sc on February 27, 2008 3:25 PM
Thinking about dumbledore differently is not about his bravado. It purely based on the fact that he was always around harry, a young boy. That he had a "special love" for said boy. That's kind of sickening to think about after believing someone has god-like qualities of being pure and humble.
Posted by raha from Lexington, sc on February 27, 2008 3:32 PM
Looking back after reading the seven books, never did it cross my mind that Dumbledore was a man. If someone, after Rowling pretty much said that she felt Dumbledore was a man, interprets that the love Dumbledore felt for Harry is other than one of fondness, especially since Dumbledore always knew about the prophecy, and of protection, admiring Harry's strength of character, courage, and sense of right, then if one feels that is a sickness, it is within your own twisted mind.
As a man myself, I didnt feel one way or the other about Dumbledore as I read the books. He seemed so neutral to me, but staunchly on the side of right and good, but asexual. It never crossed my mind once that he was .
J K Rowling created the character; as such, she is the ultimate authority as to who and what the character is, she said so herself. If she says she always thought of him as , which is what her actual quote was, then who would know better than herself?
It matters not whether you think he was or not, throughout the series, it was never mentioned. If after knowing, it changes the story for you, I am sorry. It doesnt change the story at all to me, doesnt change his sense of right or wrong, self-sacrifice for others, love of his fellow man(not in a literal way), or his courage, he would be the same person either way. The only thing that changed was the individuals perception of him.
If one cant think a person cannot be such a person, does the opposite work as well, that a straight person cannot be evil, despicable, and hating? We all have parts to us, good and bad, its how we decide to be that makes us a good person or not.
Dumbledore was perhaps the one character in the Series that, to some, until it was revealed he might be , that exemplified all that was good about humanity. I, for one, while reading the books, held him to the highest standard and he never dissappointed me. What is written in the book reveals a wonderfully moral character. Being would not have changed that at all.
Posted by MIke McGrath from Columbus Georgia on March 1, 2008 10:29 AM
All the people that thought dumbledore might have wanted harry or whatever are messed up. First of all its j.k.'s book so she can do whatever the hell she wants, and second just because he was doesnt mean he was a pedofile. But its not like a sub story was going on, that him and harry were having sex. come on guys.
Posted by aherko on March 3, 2008 4:40 PM
So what if he was , it really makes no difference because it was never really mentioned in the books. Dumbledore was and is still loved by many of us obsessed Potter readers. The fact that it was not brought out in the books was something that JK herself had said if she had known that would be the response, she would've revealed her thoughts on Dumbledore earlier.
Posted by Kay Lynn Pack from Marysville MI on March 3, 2008 6:23 PM
Dumbledore could be polka dotted with a torqouise tongue for all I care, he WAS, and still IS the man in all of the Harry Potter books. Why should him being have anything to do with it?
Posted by James789 from Vallejo CA on March 4, 2008 1:22 PM
I don't think that ANY of the exerpts from the book prove anything of Dumbledore being . It makes no difference to the plot at all if he was or not, so why even worry about it?
Posted by Anonymous on March 13, 2008 9:30 PM
i honestly think that this revelation should never have left J.K.R.s mind. i think that DH degraded dumbledore greatly, and i think that him being is taking away the superhero characteristics that make him seem so fantastic to the younger fans. i think that it takes away from the character greatly. dumbledore has always been a hero of mine too, and this mixed with DH has honestly chipped at the character. i never would have imagined from the story's points that dumbledore was , and i hope when i read the books again that it never pops into my head. and as for him having a relationship with Doge or Grindelwald, i think that it shouldn't be mentioned in any books that might be written about Dumbledore's life. i'm not saying that any of my intense love for the books has gone, i'm just saying that the subject of sexual preferences of the greatest wizard of all time shouldn't have been mentioned, it's just an awkward subject that, i believe, takes from the real magic cast by the story. it humbles the godly aura cast by Dumbledore's presence in both movie and book.
Posted by andrew from cedar city, utah on March 26, 2008 5:25 PM
All personal respects noted but dumbldor , no matter what Jo said Give me a break! that is rather wrong ( i have nothing against people some can't help it) I am strait! thus my love for Sirius
Posted by Salania Verena-Black from Grimmauld Place #12 on March 28, 2008 10:59 AM
Personally i think that JK Rowling was just having s withdrawl from lake of attention to her in the news. I think that Rowling wanted more attetion
Posted by Andrew Peti from London, England on March 28, 2008 9:35 PM
I know that JK Rowling is the creator if this series and the characters, but it's not totally believable that Dumbledore is . I'm strait but I have friends who are so it's not something that would bother me. Dumbledore's character, along with all other HP characters, have in a way come alive from the movies and because of our devotion to the series. This really just sounds like a publicity stunt.
In a way (if this makes any sense) Dumbledore doesn't really have a sexual orientation. He's the behind-the-scences leader of the wizarding world and there hero/role model. He never dates, or has stories of dating; he is our "parent" type figure of the novel. Plus, if there were any hint of ity, it most certainly would have been in Rita Skeeter's book.
Posted by Teresa from California on April 2, 2008 5:11 PM
Pages: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > >>