news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071...rry_potter
NEW YORK - Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.
After reading briefly from the final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," she took questions from audience members.
She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."
"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.
She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."
Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."
Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past. And explicit scenes with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction.
Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.
Rowling, finishing a brief "Open Book Tour" of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance" and urged her fans to "question authority."
Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.
So, what do you guys think? Did she intend for Dumbledore to be gay all along or has she added this just recently in order to garner more interest in herself, creating some promotion for her next work?
Quote:
Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore
Really? That doesn't sound like the Internet I know... **strokes chin**
Honestly...I always kind of thought he had a thing for Minerva.
*shrug*
So...
Rowling is basically making slash acceptable now?
...she's a marketing genius!
I always knew it.
What's the big deal about all this? The series is over, it's not like this 'grande revelatione' will affect any developments in the series. It's just a sordid tidbit cast to her masses of ravenous fans. If, by reading through the entire series, the reader can't discern something like this, then what point is there by announcing it afterwards? True, re-reading the series with this new information might shed some light on aspects of the story, but is anything going to be significantly changed?
I think Rowling's just trying to hold on to her spotlight for as long as she can.
To those that have: Is this a bigger revelation to people that actually know the characters? From that thing it makes it sound like even less of a revelation.
WAND GOES WHERE?
Who?
Quote:
WAND GOES WHERE?
I don't think I've laughed that hard all freaking week. You, sir, are made of win.
From book 7.
I bet she made that up on the spot 
Hilariously, that wouldn't take away any of the canonness.
I wonder if the films will take this little nugget and run with it.
Oh wait...
HA HA HA HA!
So Dumbledore/Grendelwald is canon after all. 
Oh, My God, conservative angry parental alert. Frankly, I'm not surprised, only because I had a small feeling.
Dumbledore visited Tom Riddle. Alone. In the bedroom.
He rewards male Prefects with keys to a large bathroom.
He's done things with wands that had never been seen before.
The animal most commonly associated with him is a__FLAMING__Bird.
...and his being 'outed' is a big reveal how?
FAB-ULOUUUUSSS!
Oh, in't that so precious!
Quote:
WANG GOES WHERE?
Fixed. 
SPOILERS: Snape killed boned Dumbledore.
Quote:
I think Rowling's just trying to hold on to her spotlight for as long as she can.
I disagree. Rowling had the entire Potter series - plot, characters and their histories, the nature of the Wizarding World, the whole thing - planned before she even approached a publisher.
It's not as though she needs to make a sales push because the books're failing, is it?
And if she did want to make a push, why make the push several months after the release of Deathly Hallows, when it could've gotten more publicity at the time, and it may well hurt her fanbase amongst those members of the bigot community that don't already just buy her books to burn them as witchcraft manuals?
She's already said that she'll write any non-Potterverse books under a nom de plume because she doesn't want any more comparisons and publicity!
Why does any open deviation from the heterosexual norm have to be a publicity stunt? I rather like the fact that she's waited to say this - to prove that gays don't all go around with flashing neon signs over their heads, calling everyone "duckie" and specialising in the sort of tired and cheap innuendo that some of you guys're diving straight into the moment you hear any mention of homosexuality.
Fictional characters can be the same as one in four real people, too! Shock and horror! Hold the front page!
*eyeroll*
Quote:
SPOILERS: Snape boned Dumbledore.
Nah. I'm sure it was the reverse seeing Dumbledore was the Headmaster afterall.
Why does any open deviation from the heterosexual norm have to be a publicity stunt? I rather like the fact that she's waited to say this - to prove that gays don't all go around with flashing neon signs over their heads, calling everyone "duckie" and specialising in the sort of tired and cheap innuendo that some of you guys're diving straight into the moment you hear any mention of homosexuality.
No, I do believe she has more than just "well people can be gay" as a reason - as you said yourself, it is a deviation from the norm. While that is not a bad thing, it is certainly something to attract attention, and doing so usually has some sort of reason to it.
If what you say there is true, her reason is a political point, of all things - because she believes in what you mentioned, perhaps? If so, =/ at her for using her fame to make a political point...that's no better than Hollywood actors who are experts on whatever issue they're paid to endorse.
If not, then at least part of your post is pointless.
For "norm" read "majority".
I can see how you came to that conclusion, but it wasn't the one I was trying to make.
Anyone creating anything is inserting their own views into it, or telling a story that they want to tell. I still don't see why the fact that the mix of sexuality in Hogwarts contains something that isn't heterosexual is supposed to be a big political statement any more than making the Weasleys ginger or Hermione a geek who doesn't wear glasses.
Do you say this about any book with a gay, black, female, male etc.... Where do you draw the line?
It's creating publicity because JK Rowling's said it (I don't see anyone here citing Neil Gaiman or anyone else as doing the same thing with their non-heterosexual characters), but I don't believe that she said it for publicity's sake. And there's a difference. If she'd wanted that, like I said, she could've said it sooner or even issued a press release.
Someone asked her a question about a character, and as the person who knew that character's history, she answered it honestly. Not everything's a conspiracy.
I don't see it as some big conspiracy or something wrong at all. It's her story, she can make her characters love moonrocks, for all I care.
I'm just against the idea of using fame or standing to make a point on an issue totally unrelated. If indeed that's what she's trying to do, that is. I won't comment on whether or not she's doing that, because I don't know enough about her or her books to have an informed opinion.
Quote:
If what you say there is true, her reason is a political point, of all things - because she believes in what you mentioned, perhaps? If so, =/ at her for using her fame to make a political point...that's no better than Hollywood actors who are experts on whatever issue they're paid to endorse.
Even if that is true that doesn't make anyless revalent does it. Everyone put their thoughts, feelings, views, and/or lack thereof in everything they do anyway. This just Rowling's way of doing it. As for revealing this at all, it nothing unusally authors/creatives to reveal concepts that they couldn't get fully across in their work. Very few things ever come off as good(or better) in the real world then they do in our head.
As for why I'm posting this at all. I wanted to contribute something along the lines of "the wand" qoutes but since someone bet me to "He's done things with wands that had never been seen before".
I'll just settle in the fact that Dumbledore can finally reveal his true feelings for Harry:
I'd like to point out I was watching Order of the Phoenix at the IMAX yesterday and got into a conversation with a nice old couple sitting besides me who laughed, thought I was kidding and then seemed kind of stunned that such a superfulous detail would be added, they settled on jokingly commenting "perhaps she was upset the church wasn't burning her books anymore"
That amused me.
Me, I don't care why she said it. If it's not in a book it's not canon.
If we believed the words of a creator on these things then Star Wars would have been a fully planned out vision Lucas had in the 60's. Anyone who has seen the prequels and still believes that is a silly sod.
Therefore.
Write it in the book or it's (creator) fan fiction.
i read that in the sunday times today, some gay rights people are upset that she didn't make it more obvious in the books. oo
I would prefer a gay character in a book that's just like a normal character, but y'know, homosexual, than a gay character that's stereotypically flambouyant and whatnot. @ Becca
As for making a point, there's a difference in putting your own views in writing and what I mentioned.
It's just that, I don't read fantasy fiction so I can listen to the author's political opinions (again, if that's what she's doing at all, which I'm not saying if she does or not), just like I don't watch hollywood movies to listen to the actor's views on whatever disaster they care about.
I was amased it made it into the news as much as it did.
To me it is a little bit crazy to blow it into such a big thing. I mean, we have actual news to focus on and we're devoting articles to how a fictional character is homosexual.
I would have put it under "strange news" on Skys website myself.
Hence my comment about it making news because it's JK Rowling, and that means that news values come into play more than usual - which goes double in some areas of the US for talking about the hot button issue of having the audacity to not be straight.
This is a story that's being created by the media more than the people involved. Once the genie's out of the proverbial bottle, Rowling can't control how much noise people make.
And again, I'm fascinated by this idea of making Dumbledore "obviously" gay. If she'd used any cheap "flaming queer" stereotypes, there'd probably've been people complaining about the unnecessary stereotyping from those exact same groups - particularly since we're talking about a teacher, in a position of responsibility over underage kids.
I really don't see the big deal, myself. I mean, whatever, at any point in the books he was too old to have a sexual orientation, am I right? He ended up regretting everything from his past, anyway. Anyone who goes into an uproar over this is, well... overexcitable?
That said, I wasn't expecting anything like this. <_
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
I find people's reaction to this utterly hilarious. Making such a big deal over a fictional children's book character is simply ridiculous, just like the Christian groups who complain about it promoting witchcraft.
Eh, it's just fun and easy to make fun of it. I think those of us here making fun of the whole thing don't really care about what she had to say, or "OHNOES HE'S GAY, LET'S MAKE FUN AND RIDICULE" to spite her type of thing.
It's just, y'know, Harry Potter... and Dumbledore... and now he's grade-A gay. Popularity plus mass homophobia plus immaturity divided by ones own secure self multiplied by not being racist equals some funny stuff right there.
I don't see why immature jokes should be scolded at. 😛
Hold on...
Presumably, being racist would be a boolean variable. You either are, or you aren't. This is represented by zero (in this case, you aren't not a racist, or to avoid double negatives, you are racist) and non-zero (you aren't racist). Assume the person is racist. Thus, "not being racist" is zero. Anything times zero is zero, so "one's own secure self" is irrelevant. Thus, "some funny stuff right there" is equal to... division by zero?
Universal implosion maybe?
It just occurred to me that I forgot Homophobia.
Eh, the result's the same either way, so...
Maybe he meant multiply the whole fraction by Not Being Racist, therefore racist people aren't funny?
Add a plus between the factors in the denominator, and then you have something.
But Jin specifically stated that you multiplied by Not Being A Racist. You can't just pull operations out of nowhere! :
But racist people are funny... Chappelle and Mel Brooks have proven that
Awesome. My algorithm just means that, hey, if you're gonna be racist, it ain't funny. If you say racist and stereotypical crap in a manner that is joking and not harmful, and you don't have a single hatred of any one or anything in you, (minus your usual qualms), then it's funny as hell.
Quote:
But racist people are funny... Chappelle and Mel Brooks have proven that
See but that's the thing, they don't believe in the crap they spout. They take stereotypes and have a field day with it, we consume and laugh at it because, hey, it's all partly true, and who doesn't like making fun of someone here and there?
S'all good.
Well played, Rowling. Well played.
~Tobe
I thought those zealot Christian types would just give up by now.
What burning bush have you been living under? XD
~Tobe
Quote:
Awesome. My algorithm just means that, hey, if you're gonna be racist, it ain't funny.
As the denominator becomes smaller, the value of funny becomes infinitely larger.
So if one is sufficiently racist enough without being totally racist (bringing "NotBeingRacist" to 0 as a result), that would no longer result in SomeFunnyStuffRightThere being undefined. Rather, its value would be increasingly infinite as NotBeingRacist's value continued to approach its limit of zero.
And if One'sOwnSecureSelf approaches zero - implying a very very VERY insecure person - then the value of SomeFunny StuffRightThere approaches infinity even faster.
You'd have to have an immensely small value for the sum of Popularity and Immaturity to even compensate. But then the value of funniness decreases!
So basically what you said Jin was that if you are really popular and/or really immature, then your "SomeFunnyStuffRightThere" value increases immensely the more racist and insecure you are. o.o
I'm tellin' ya, you need to rework that algorithm! It's clearly not a foolproof...um, proof.
I have an important announcement concerning my MoFics.
Tergonaut is straight.
...wait that isn't exciting news? Why not? It's totally relevant.
OBJECTION!
Tergonaut's sexuality is non-traditional. He has an Echidna obsession.
This is significant.
And what his transformations into a woman?
We either have a transsexual's obsession with echidnas, or an androgynous humanoid...with an echidna obsession.
Either way, it's freaky.
Oh, and TERRORNAUT once had a thing for echidnas, if I recall correctly. "Cookarai" ring a bell?
And Terrornaut is a...plant woman thing now, if I remember right.
Straight? Terg, you're as straight as an escalator.
Quote:
And what his transformations into a woman?
We either have a transsexual's obsession with echidnas, or an androgynous humanoid...with an echidna obsession.
Either way, it's freaky.
Oh, and TERRORNAUT once had a thing for echidnas, if I recall correctly. "Cookarai" ring a bell?
And Terrornaut is a...plant woman thing now, if I remember right.
Straight? Terg, you're as straight as an escalator.
Mang, Terg's so bent, boomerangs come to him for advice.
I'm telling you, if he was any less straight, they'd have to map him in non-euclidians!
In fact, when Terg goes shopping, his belt size is Helioform!
Heck, he ended up going back in time once. You guys know what happened, get this. He went to a carnival, and they invented the helter-skelter!
Thankyou, I'll be here all week, try the echidna, Terg sure did!
Quote:
Straight? Terg, you're as straight as an escalator.
Given Ultra's fascination with the more masculine yet youthful self discovering side of naruto fanfiction I'm in no position to debate his prowess at recognizing weird obsession. o.o
~Tobe
*glares at Rico angrily*
RICOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
