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 23)
What angers me the most about this is the people who say that it makes these books not appropriate for children anymore. That makes absolutely no sense. It's actually more inappropriate to show Harry and Ginny's kids, because that means they actually had sex.
How is ity any more inappropriate then ity? That logic makes no sense. It's no use blinding children from the real world, because even if you don't agree with rights, it's not like you can protect them from the truth and lie to them forever.
Posted by Anna from USA on April 5, 2008 08:19 AM
Even though Dumbledore being may have chandged the way some people think of him, I think that since it doesn't affect the plot much, it's not that important. If it was, J.K.R. would have mentioned it earlier or put it in one of the books.
As for Lockhart, I agree with 'someone from America' that he is just vain. He seemed to like charming the las.
Addressing some of the earliest comments:
I'm trying not to be judgemental, but I can't see why anyone would have thought that Tonks was lesbian. Just out of curiosity, if anyone knows please tell me. In "Foreshadowings in Prisoner of Azkaban", it also mentions that Lupin and Sirius may be , but a lot of comments explain why they aren't.
Posted by Anonymous on April 6, 2008 06:22 AM
Personally, i have never much liked Dumbledore, but to think of him as .... im shocked!
I think Rowling made a mistake in saying that Dumbledore is , it makes us think: "hmmmmmmm he might of been trying to hit on Harry" (this is pure imagination) But it just seems WRONG that Dumbledore is , as someone else here said: I think of him either as a widower or a family man, or a strong but silent man.
Posted by Callum from Perth, Aus on April 14, 2008 06:24 AM
You know, it really doesn't matter to me wether Dumbledore is or not. But I do think JK has been kind of brave telling this. Mind you, I'm sure a lot of people not appreciate it.
Posted by Miss Moonlight from The Netherlands on April 15, 2008 10:31 AM
Dumbledore's infatuation with Grindelwald actually lends a very strong element of authenticity to Dumbledore's past. Obsessive infatuation is what often leads a person down the path of evil, be it an infatuation for ambition, a set of ideals, or a person. In case of Dumbledore we knew from ly Hallows that he was ambitious, but could his ambition alone be strong enough for him too be so easily carried away with the plans of Grindelwald? The obituary on Dumbledore although a tad biased in his favour tells us clearly that Dumbledore was a caring and considerate person even in his youth. So it seems quite clear to me that there was a force stronger than his ambition that swayed him into designing schemes with intents that were not much different from Voldemort's. His infatuation for Grindelwald fits that requirement perfectly. As for the angle to his character, I think it is another remarkable attempt by Jo to stand up for the section of society that unfairly discriminated against
Posted by Abhay from India, Mumbai on April 23, 2008 9:40 PM
I was shocked, but pleasantly surprised at the same time. Dumbledore just made more sense to me when I found out.I agree with Abhay J.K's trying to show us the prejudice that is unfairly depicted.
Posted by Shannon Fanthorpe from Surrey, England on April 27, 2008 12:51 PM
I honestly believe that J.K. Rowling was just trying to expand interest or just join what has become popular to talk about when she said Dumbledore is . First of all it makes no difference to the story, second all the instances mentioned in the original article were about friendship. Boys can have male friends without being . And my third point is that Dumbledore himself mentions going to spend time with rosemurta, not to mention the very close relationship he has with Professor McGonagall.
Posted by Karen from East Windsor, New Jersey on April 29, 2008 09:05 AM
Well, I thought, when I first heard this that it was outragous. I of corse am a Christian. Yes, I know. (pauses for boos and hissing) I do like Harry Potter. I thought that it was supposed to be a "kids" book. I already thought that it was inapropriate for kids because of the intensly huge amounts of violence and gore. The Inferi alone make for a scary scene in the upcoming HBP movie. So, my point is that Harry Potter never was a child's series. Mabye when it first started, mabye the first 3 books, but when you hit GoF, and Voldemort coming back and everything, it is just to violent.
So, having said that Harry Potter is not a child's book, this is of no consequence really. If you look at it from a logical point, it makes sense. Dumbuldore had an infatuation with Grindlwald, and possible Snape. He never married either.
The reason homosextuallity is inappropriate for younger kids is because it is generally not accepted. I come from a Christian background, so I know about all this.
For me, I personnaly am not going to raise a fuss about it. The thing that upsets me the most is that J. K. Rowling did this just to expand her fanbase. She already has a huge fanbase, so why did she do this? She is already a billionare, so why did she do this? people already like her books, (not sure on this one, but just guessing) so why did she do this? I'm not sure, but what we can be sure of is that Rowling never be satisfied with the amount of money she has made thus far. Why do you think she is always sueing people? But that's another conversation for another time.
Posted by JustanotherHarryPotterfan from Elizabeth City, NC on May 12, 2008 6:57 PM
One thing that makes me angry, is when I read through the comments. And I see comments saying ''I thought this was for children''. So what? Is it not a children's book if it contains ity!? Why is ity inappropiate for children!? Why can't there be ity in children's books? Please answer me! A friend of mine is actually , so I find these comments offensive!
Posted by Aaron from Norway on May 26, 2008 07:34 AM
Oh my God! I respect everyone's opinion all that, but honestly! If Bathilda said that Grindelwald would be a comfort to dumbledore, can't he comfort him by just being a friend? And has it occurred to you that J.K. Rowling just said he's because there's been no mention of him being married and she just had to give an explanation? There isn't any mention of Professor McGonagall being married... that doesn't mean she's a lesbian! Maybe after what hapenned to Arianna, Dumbeldore couldn't bring himself to marry? Think abut it.
Posted by Alizeh =) from Karachi, Pakistan on June 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Why should being have anything to do with his characteristics and traits. Does being really make such a big difference?
I was quite surprised with the revelation, but Dumbledore is still one of my favoutite characters. I am quite saddened that some people have let this one small revelation ruin their idea of the books, the author and the character.
Posted by Will from London on June 15, 2008 10:37 AM
Although it does not ruin my view of the books, it changes my view of Dumbledore. I thought in the end Dumbledoor would end up marring Professor McGonagall. Oh well... Dumbledore always stood out.
Posted by lyd from MI on June 16, 2008 2:19 PM
Pages: << < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > >>