145 responses so far ↓

• 1 korg20000bc // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:08 pm

  Albus was Gay?

  Quick, get Ian MacKellen on the next 2 films!

• 2 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:13 pm

  I’ll tell ya what…I’d have never expected this.

  I’ll tell ya something else…Rowling’s flat-out being untrue when she says she would have revealed this years ago. She knows full well what that kind of revelation would have done for the popularity of the series before Book 7 was out. I’m not at all surprised she “went there,” though up till Book7, I probably would not have guessed Albus was a homosexual. The thought did cross my mind both times I read Book 7.

• 3 korg20000bc // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:16 pm

  A gay character in a novel does not indicate “liberal” Christianity to me. How’d you get there, Travis?

  It is going to make rereading the books a VERY different experience for me…

  Matthew

• 4 korg20000bc // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:18 pm

  She may have revealed it but the editor/publsher would have said “No!”

• 5 Jobrill // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:26 pm

  I don’t know, The cynical part of me honestly thinks “Albus was gay” was a publicity stunt. She’s not been afraid to shove her views out to the front in her books in the past, and it’s not like more popular authors then her and many fantasy authors haven’t inserted gay characters in the past. I’ll admit, I figured Albus/Grindleward would be the most popular “slash” fanfiction couple to come out of book seven but… Eh. I don’t know. This sort of disappoints me. If she really meant this, it seems it should have at least come up rather explicitly in book seven, if only as one of Rita Skeeter’s accusations that isn’t explicitly denied.

• 6 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:26 pm

  “Liberal” is a terrible word. I’m using it as it is commonly used in the current culture wars, really.

• 7 reyhan // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:50 pm

  Dare we hope that Sir Michael Gambon will refuse to play gay and quit the part, leaving it open for Ian McKellen to step in?

  Agree with you, Travis, JKR could never have revealed this until it was all over and done with.

  And agree as well that the religious right (in the US) are going to go ballistic about this. Bet you anything the books will get banned in many of the southern states. Tomorrow.

  I don’t think it changes anything, personally. Did we ever imagine that Dumbledore had had an emotional relationship with any witch? Are any of his present-day relationships tinged with any degree of homoeroticism? Is there anything inappropriate at all in his love for Harry?

  No, no and no.

  Horace Slughorn on the other hand . . .

• 8 reyhan // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:53 pm

  I think that the spam filter ate my comment again.

• 9 Wendy // Oct 20, 2007 at 12:44 am

  I have to wonder if both sides have become somewhat a little smug. For example, we the Harry fans have come along and said “Ha! I told you so, the books are “Christian”, and now with this news the Harry Haters are going to have their “Ha! I told you so” moments.

  Ms Rowling has said “Yes, she is a Christian”. However, is it possible that she may not fully know, or understand, the full meaning of what it is to be a Christian? The reason I ask this, is because I grew up in a Christian home, and went to church; and so if you were to ask me “Are you a Christian?”, I would have replied “Yes.” I would have also told you (if you had asked), that I believe that Jesus died for my sins, etc. However, my beliefs were an intellectual response, based on some facts. It wasn’t until about five years ago, did I really have a full understanding of the Gospel, and what Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, really meant. Up until that time, I would have had either a very “liberal” view of Christianity, or a very “legalistic” one, due to my own misunderstanding, and what had unfortunately been taught to me.

  Anyway, I am wondering when it comes to her Christian beliefs, if perhaps Ms Rowling is in a similar place that I was (and maybe some of you were)in. Is it possible that her beliefs are due to a misunderstanding of the Christian faith, or because of wrong teaching?

  It kind of saddens me that she has made this recent revelation, because I know that the right-winged Harry-haters are going to have a field day. And if what I have said about Ms Rowling’s Christian beliefs are right, then my prayer is that she will come to fully know and understand the saving work of Jesus Christ, that is by grace, and through faith; not something that is earned through morality, or by our own merits.

  Now, I hope that I’m not sounding “smug”, because it may seem that I am coming across as saying that “Ms Rowling is less of a Christian than some of us, because she may, or may not, have a full understanding of the gospel.” But that’s not what I’m saying, and I surely hope that no one interprets it as such.

• 10 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:04 am

  I have no problem that a Christian can write about a gay character in a positive way and not compromise or call their faith into question.

  Matthew

• 11 Eeyore // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:08 am

  Well, I’ve gone from being so pleased about the statements that the Christian themes were there all along and very intentional to being so disappointed with this latest information that Dumbledore was gay.

  My main complaint is that it really has nothing of importance to do with the story. Nothing. So why tell it at all? What was she thinking? If Dumbledore didn’t see fit to reveal this particular aspect of his life to Harry or to anyone in our “hearing”, then why reveal it now? I hate to say it, but it sounds like a publicity stunt or like she is trying to make amends to those who might have been offended by the religious information. So is this something that is a move towards being politically correct in our modern times?

  And now, instead of having to defend Harry Potter to people who couldn’t accept the magic part, we’re all hung out to dry having to defend it because one of the main characters turns out to have been gay.

  It was important for us to know that Snape loved Lily and always did because that was a crucial part of his character and of the story. But Dumbledore? We so absolutely didn’t need to know this. I’m quite annoyed and disappointed in Rowling this evening.

  Pat

• 12 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:10 am

  Jobrill,
  I have to admit that my initial reaction to this news was the same as yours.

  Matthew

• 13 Mrs. Lovegood // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:13 am

  I have to say I wonder if this is a joke. Without reading the actual transcript (the best I can hope for, not having actually been there — unless maybe someone taped it on their phone and it will be on YouTube), it’s really hard to tell. She’s going to have a hard time trying to say, tomorrow morning, that it was just a joke. I just read about 1/4 of the comments on this story at The Leaky Caudron and they’re about 3/4 positive.

  My stomach is in a knot. How do I explain this to my 10 year old son? And right after we just had this discussion with two kids at my church about how JK Rowling was a Christian. I have to say I’m really disappointed in this, even if it is a joke.

  My church has a child protection policy. Granted, we try to be gender-neutral, so the policy really is that no adult should be alone with a child, no matter what the genders of the adult or the child are. However, generally, a heterosexual man would be more careful about meeting privately with a female student. Let’s pretend, for a moment, that the Harry character was a female. Wouldn’t it have been inadvisable, at the very least, for Dumbledore to meet with a female student in the way he met with Harry in HBP? So, if Dumbledore really was gay, wouldn’t it have been wrong for him to meet with Harry?

  This has made me very unhappy and I’m feeling like I’d rather not read these books again, now. I hope I wake up and find she meant it as a joke, though either way I think I’ve lost a bit of the respect I had for JKR.

• 14 Athena // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:42 am

  Hi, Travis,
  Am new to your site and really enjoy it. While I love the HP series as a whole but was not crazy about Deathly Hallows, I’m really disappointed to learn this info about Dumbledore. We probably all know gay people whom are kind, caring, and loving human beings, but in this day and age, when HIV/AIDS has been rampant worldwide since 1980, I think it is irresponsible of Rowling to include this element in Dumbledore’s character. He is the main mentor in the HP series, and the implications of his lifestyle must be considered as he has served as a role model to millions of child readers. Maybe it can be said that his romantic feelings were set years and years in the past so this should not be at issue, but as HP was not dreamed up unitl 1990, when the AIDS issue was in full swing, maybe JKR could have thought it through a little more. I love the books overall and see that she is using this aspect of Dumbledore to further illustrate acceptance of others, but I don’t think it was her wisest choice.

• 15 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:48 am

  I have a feeling that this will be the news that the mainstream media seizes on rather than the confirmed Christian content.

  Matthew

• 16 Black Angus // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:32 am

  Unlike the Christian content of the novels, I had no idea Albus was gay. Still don’t. And ‘falling in love’ while he was in a very confused time of his life sixty years ago determines his sexuality? I can think of no other evidence for it in the rest of the books. Obviously the script writer for the movie didn’t see it either and had to be ‘corrected.’

• 17 Shaunna // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:33 am

  Yeah, I was shocked when I heard what Rowling said. I was not expecting that. I want to know what John Granger has to say about this. He defends her books against Christians who hate them…Now what will he have to say??? I would hate to be in his shoes right now. “Um….well…..yeah…” What COULD he say! “Take in all the other Christian points throughout the series, but ignore that minor detail.”??? I can’t wait to hear his comment.

• 18 Ashton // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:35 am

  Well, I’m completely disgusted with J.K. Rowling.

  I’m so sick of the secularist worldview being shoved down my throat. And now she’s joined in. Wonderful.

  Never thought I’d contemplate burning my Harry Potter books…I’ve loved them so much these past seven years. And now I’m just wondering why I spent the time I did reading them each 10+ times, instead of reading my Bible.

• 19 Wendy // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:36 am

  Sorry, I just realized that my post is probably long-winded, and probably doesn’t make much sense in context with the original post.

  Anyway, I just wanted to say that I agree with what Matthew has written, in that I don’t believe that because Ms Rowling had written Dumbledore as “gay”, it now brings her faith into question. But unfortunately, there will be those who will stab her with her own sword…so to speak.

• 20 Shaunna // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:39 am

  I completely agree (Ashton). This news was very depressing. How can I defend these books now? I will be expecting a lot of phone calls tomorrow from people I defended Rowling too. I will no doubt hear the well-expected, “I told you so” from all of them…oh goodie…

• 21 Shaunna // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:48 am

  I still think that Christianity is clearly written and expressed throughout the entire series….BUT, now everytime a person defends the series or speaks of the Christian aspects through out…they’ll be reminded of Rowling’s statement of Dumbledore being gay. This doesn’t make things easy. But hey, if you run across those “Christians” that think homosexuality is O.K. then it’s all good, huh. But if you think that homosexuality is just as sinful as lying to your parents…then defending Harry Potter will be a little bit more difficult now.

• 22 Wendy // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:02 am

  Personally, my feelings about all this are rather mix. On one hand, I don’t think this new revelation takes away the Christian allegory (or whatever is the correct term is) from the books. But on the other hand, Ms Rowling has made it more difficult for those of us who have defended her, and the books.

  Perhaps it is all a publicity stunt, or maybe knowing the backlash that she had already received from many in the Christian community, Ms Rowling has chosen to add “fuel to the fire.”

• 23 Wendy // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:52 am

  I was just thinking; in some ways I am not surprised by this recent revelation (well, I am, but I’m not…if that makes sense). I have also maintained in the back of mind, that Ms Rowling is most likely a “liberal” Christian.

  While I don’t agree with much of what is taught in “liberal” Christian theology, my fear for Ms Rowling is that no grace will be extended to her (or us, for that matter) by those who lean towards the more “fundamentalist” Christianity.

  My answer to all this…prayer. And I will be praying that both sides of the Christian fence will react in such a way, so that Ms Rowling’s is truly transformed by the truth of the gospel.

• 24 Michael // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:08 am

  Hey guys long time no see! It’has been a while but this news has roused me to make a comment.

  I think it is wonderful Jo has included a gay character into her world. I think it is very open minded of her. Unfortunately it’s a little too late to make much of a point with his character as the series is done.

  And I am a religious person. I’m not gay but I am a huge advocate for equality. And I honestly couldn’t care about the right winged, nit wits who want to burn the books at the stake. Sorry but the books in no way makes children want to practice or believe in the occult. And they will do even less when it comes to gay community.

  You guys are a very smart group of people. Why even take not of what these behind thinkers believe or say. They are a laughing stock. If any homophobic comments are made by them, they only manifest from their backward ways of thinking. I think Jo has done a fantastic thing in having Albus as a gay character. To me it makes her appear to be a very tolerant and open person who is willing to embrace all kinds of human. The right winged fools have the privileged of being white, straight and in no minority. I don’t see how these forum wars are going on today… I honestly can’t. It’s the 21st CENTURY! We need to be open and accepting… my god is that. Open and tolerant. He created us all the way we are. And honestly, these fools haven’t even read Potter. They sound like seventh grade school children who are willing to ‘diss’ on the book purely because it’s the ‘cool’ thing to do. LAME!

  End rant.

• 25 RC // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:47 am

  Well, homosexuality is definitely condemned by … !
  The gay people, the are sinners as anybody else. I just wonder why JKR, the “Christian” makes such a statement? Was it important for the storyline?
  You guys here at SoG start to realize JKR is not really Christian, she is just a huge snob. Sorry to say so.

• 26 Alastair Roberts // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:52 am

  I can’t say that I am especially surprised by this revelation. I am, however, disappointed. Quite apart from anything else, revealing such details about characters outside of the books cheapens the books themselves. The questions raised by a book should largely be left unanswered. The desire to settle all such ambiguities is characteristic of the excesses of fan fiction. Rowling’s willingness to pander to such speculation about characters lowers the value of her work, IMHO. One of the things that I most love about a good book is the manner in which it creates a space within which our imaginations can play, the ambiguities giving us the option of reading the book in many different ways. When an author settles ambiguities like this I feel cheated. It is Rowling’s task to write and it is our task to read; I wish that she wouldn’t do our part for us.

• 27 Maria // Oct 20, 2007 at 7:50 am

  I’m pretty disappointed about this. I was surprised and never saw it coming. I don’t see why she made this statement now at the end of the book, and I don’t think having a gay character who teaches so many good lessons is really a good thing. I still don’t think it takes away from the Christian themes of the book. I do think it’s going to give the Harry haters more fuel. The only thing I will say is that she’s portrayed the married couples as mostly being happy and things working out where as the dumbledore relationship certainly wasn’t good. I wonder if that’s what she was doing? I would probably have more trouble with this if Dumbledore was portrayed in a gay relationship that was happy and everyone was accepting. but still…

  Maria

• 28 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 8:39 am

  And alastair has hit the nail right on the head. One of the undertones at the Prophecy 2007 conference was, “Ms. Rowling, thanks for the series, but could you please stop talking now?”

  I’m going to respond to lots of this discussion in a podcast, but I do want to say this:

  For those of you who now “hate” the series and are mad you “wasted your time” reading it - did you have any clue Dumbledore was gay before last night? If not, how does this revelation ruin anything? If the canon itself doesn’t advocate for homosexuality, and you hadn’t heard last night’s revelation, how is it that you suddenly want to burn the books?

• 29 charismom // Oct 20, 2007 at 8:52 am

  What horrible news to greet me this morning. I am just re-reading DH now, and appreciating so much about all the things we’ve talked about here… and then this happens. I feel as though someone spilled a bucketful of dirt all over me. Now this is all anyone will ever think of when they think of Dumbledore. I was so happy that the books managed to resist the temptation to give in to heterosexual sin (e.g., Harry and Ginny didn’t sleep together), but only to give in to this…. Romans 1 is clear - the spiritual consequences of homosexuality are particularly devastating and I feel compassion for those struggling with it. It would be one thing, I guess, to acknowledge the struggle. But it is another thing to just accept it as a legitimate form of “love” - especially in this confused and sexually rebellious cultural climate. Sigh. I am just glad that there are others of you out there who share my sense of loss.

• 30 Laura // Oct 20, 2007 at 8:54 am

  If the series were about Dumbledore being gay, then I’d have huge problem. There’s really not even a hint of it until the last book when we see his utter enchantment with Grindelwald, and even then you’d have to connect a lot of dots to figure it out.

  I still think, as a fairly conservative Christian, that the series has a lot of merit. I wouldn’t throw it out because one character turns out to be gay…after all, we don’t actually see him sinning do we?

  I don’t think I’ve ever posted before…”hi”

• 31 charismom // Oct 20, 2007 at 9:07 am

  Travis,

  Just my quick thoughts: I’m certainly not going to burn the books - but I really do hope that after I work through all this I will still be able to enjoy them. As much as before? I don’t know… In thinking about the canon issue I am reminded, actually, of Islam. The Koran is the “main thing” - the written word - but the Hadith is the collected sayings of Mohammed, which Muslims revere and treat as a form of Scripture, too. It seems to me that the HP books correspond to the Koran, while Rowling’s comments seem to amount to a sort of Hadith. So the issue becomes… how much weight do we end up giving her comments? I am afraid it will be difficult for the books to stand on their own without the baggage of JKR’s “oral traditions.” I’ll be interested to know what everyone else thinks.

• 32 Beth // Oct 20, 2007 at 9:12 am

  Frankly I’m not sure I believe it. I mean, I believe that Jo believes this about her character (seeing that she made him up and all!) and I’m sure that knowledge must have informed her on some level as she wrote his character, but that doesn’t come clear through the stories themselves. I don’t see any real evidence to support it in the books. In fact, I’ve always held firmly to the belief that Dumbledore and McGonagall had special feelings for one another, DESPITE the fact that Rowling debunked that. It’s a case of characters “knowing more” or revealing more than their author intends. Doesn’t mean Dumbledore couldn’t have had confused feelings for Grindelwald at a young age. Just means he changed he changed and grew in that way as he did in other ways (resolving to not put himself into situations where he was tempted to power, for instance).

  As for why she chose to reveal this bit of information now, when it wasn’t necessary and when it would indeed fuel the fire of the anti-Harry folks…it’s hard to speculate. On a human level, I think she enjoys the publicity. I even think she may enjoy fanning the flames. And there’s a tiny bit of me that thinks she *wants* to distance herself from Christians, since every time the media talks about Christians in reference to HP, they talk about the people who hate her work and want to ban it. One wonders if perhaps Ms. Rowling has not had much opportunity to know and speak to other kinds of Christians. The Christian world doesn’t divide neatly into raving theological liberals and ardent fundamentalist conservatives! The spectrum is thankfully much wider than that.

• 33 Bob Myers // Oct 20, 2007 at 9:52 am

  After reading the last word of book 7, the author lost all power to amend or change my perception of the book. There is really no space in my imagination about the sexuality of Dumbledore anyway.

  I attribute it to “weakness” in JKR’s person unable to resist amending her finished masterpiece, but not in the quality and power of her work as an author. I think book 7 is especially effective in baptizing the imagination about eternal life won for us by a sacrifice of love. This does not take away anything for me. If I want to, I’ll just think that Professor McGonigal had a fling with Dumbledore and they always were sweet on each other…. (My imaginative space is my own!)

• 34 Sean // Oct 20, 2007 at 10:09 am

  I know this has hit everyone like a surprise jab to the stomach. J.K. and I go back a long way, so I just thought I’d let you all in on a few other character surprises:

  Ron Weasley: Paranoid Schizophrenic
  Ginny Weasley: Genital Warts (big ones)
  Draco Malfoy: Purchased the entire Care Bears collection on DVD
  Mr. Weasley: Drug addict
  Mrs. Weasley: Compulsive eater
  Hermione Granger: Has her own secret house elf
  Harry Potter: Awe, I can’t do it. He’s untouched.

• 35 reyhan // Oct 20, 2007 at 10:52 am

  Sean, you forgot about the part where Hermione beats her house elf.

  Personally, Dumbledore’s gayness doeesn’t bother me. I think you can believe in Jesus Christ and be gay; I also think that you can be a good person and be gay. You can also be an atheist and a nasty person, and be gay. It’s completely unrelated. I think that sexual orientation is determined in the womb (something about the maternal hormones) and nothing JKR or anyone can write or say can affect that. Your children are safe (or not, depending on what happened in the womb).

  To those of you who question why JKR outed him now, I say: weren’t you the same ones clamouring for more backstory on the characters? You should have quite while you were ahead.

  Get over it. It’s not like he’s got an unusual fondness for goats or anything …

  Those of you who want to burn the books, well, there is a long-standing tradition for that. While the burning of 20,000 books by the Nazis in Berlin in 1933 stands out in recent history, some Chinese emperor ordered the burning of all existing books (plus the people who wrote them) in 210 BC. Some Pope ordered the burning of all copies of the Talmud back in the 13th century. And of course John Calvin burned a bunch of Michael Servetus’ works in 1600. In an attempt to conserve fuel, he had Servetus’ manuscripts tied to his waist when he had Servetus burned at the stake.

  Want to go back there?

• 36 Alis // Oct 20, 2007 at 11:18 am

  This has little to do with the central conflict of the story. Good triumphs over evil. Is that triumph any less because of one detail that Rowling has provided about a character? The books themselves leave Dumbledore’s sexuality ambiguous, even if Rowling does not.

  I don’t see why loving Dumbledore’s character should be so drastically different now. I’m not about to stamp out the Christian content out of Deathly Hallows merely because the series containts a single element (which isn’t textually supported though it’s supported by the author) that I disagree with.

  I’m suprised that this has caused greater uproar than Harry using the Unforgivable Curses.

  The world has many distasteful things in it, but does that mean I cannot appreciate its beauty?

  I prefer to keep this same perspective about the Harry Potter series.

• 37 Michael // Oct 20, 2007 at 11:31 am

  I can’t believe this. You guys are that disappointed? Jo outs a character and all I see are Homophobic replies. If she said that he had a wife and cheated on her, I doubt this would have raised half as much fuss, but as the guy is GAY you see him is differently. It’s sad and a testament to how society views those who are different. I don’t believe being gay is a sin. That to me is just bogus. A cover for one’s homophobic feelings. I thought this fandom was more intelligent.

  Albus was willing to have Snape DIE for his cause. When he was younger, his actions were really no better than Voldemort’s and yet we can forgive him for that but because he has an attraction to the same sex, people are going as far as to believe that he is straight when the author has said otherwise> Jo, for the first time in since EVER is able to talk about the series openly to her readers who are always wanting so much information about their beloved series. She just gave us a piece, a controversial piece and we respond like this? I’m quite disappointed.

• 38 Sandra Miesel // Oct 20, 2007 at 12:01 pm

  The new disclosure does fit Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindlewald. (And therefore the earlier villain was also gay so orientation does not determine outcome.) The tragic results of that fling could be contrasted with Snape’s heterosexual love for Lily that is an inducement to virtue.

  As a Catholic, I follow the Church’s teaching that having an attraction to one’s own sex is not in itself sinful. There’s no indication that Dumbledore ever acted on his inclinations again or had improper relationships with his students.

  Earlier in the series, I’d taken Lupin’s story as a parable of homosexuality. The director of PoA must have thought so, too. But his “condition” is controlled and not wilfully acted on. Later he marries, has a child, and dies heroically.

  So unless Rowling reveals that Dumbledore’s brother really was into beastiality, I’m not going to worry about this.

• 39 Beth // Oct 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm

  I felt like I should come by and clarify my earlier comment, written in a hurry and in the first moments of my reaction/response (hopefully more response than reaction, but still!).

  I do believe that a book can “know” more than its author, in some mysterious ways. My husband and I have had some interesting conversations about this in regards to the HP books. I don’t have any trouble believing her stories are more “orthodox” than she is, because I think she herself was learning and being shaped through the writing of the stories. Although Rowling’s “wrestlings” with faith come through, the ultimate themes and parallels with the Christian Story shine through grandly. Maybe because as the Great and True Story, this narrative makes the most coherent and loving sense of the world and of suffering and difficulty.

  Of course these are Rowling’s books and she’s the only who truly knows her characters: their flaws, their hopes, their dreams, their back story. But we know these characters too, through the wonderful story she has given us.

  One of the best things she did in DH, in my humble opinion, was to give such complexity and richness to Dumbledore’s back story. One of the first things my husband said after we finished reading it aloud together was that she might be remembered more for “humanizing” the standard wise old mentor wizard figure than anything else she’s done.

  What frustrates me about her “revelation” that Dumbledore is gay is that it really adds nothing to our appreciation of that complexity, and in fact, given the current climate in our culture, seems to detract from it. I don’t want him turned into a “token” character that people either celebrate or decry based on their strong beliefs and feelings either way.

  What’s important about Dumbledore and Grindelwald in the story is that Grindelwald’s lust for power is something that momentarily blinds Dumbledore to his own better impulses. Whatever he felt for Grindelwald at the age of 17, love or admiration or whatever we choose to call it, was destructive and idolatrous. Dumbledore had to escape it — he had to resist falling into the same lust for power as Grindelwald. That’s what’s important and interesting. The rest of it doesn’t much matter. Why Rowling felt it necessary to reveal I’m not sure, since it will likely lose her readers — both concerned parents and yes, concerned Christians. I’m frustrated that this might sidetrack some people from actually giving the books a chance.

• 40 Dn Kevin // Oct 20, 2007 at 12:20 pm

  It is a surprise, no doubt! I do not suppose to speak for John Granger, but coming from the Eastern Christian perspective, being gay and “living” gay are 2 different things. All of us are encumbered by the Fall. We all have the weight of it on us, and it manifests in different ways. Eastern Christianity would say that being gay is the result of the Fall pure and simple, but all of us are affected, and we must struggle to put on Christ and be transformed. I’ve always considered Dumbledore a great ascetic who has, to a great extent, become dispassionate. In other words, he is not ruled by tendencies that weaker men are. He has transcended his own personal defects to a degree. He was tempted by power, and distanced himself from it. It might well be the same here. I don’t know Ms Rowling’s mind so I cannot say this is her intent, but it is consistent with traditional Christianity for someone to “be” gay and not “live” gay.

  I think we have indications in the books that Dumbledore might have become Platonic in his attitude and behavior in regards to his homosexuality. It might be better to have a celibate gay character leading the way than a licentious heterosexual mentor. Which one is more damaging? The one that is heterosexual and promiscuous? Or the one who is homosexual and has overcome such passions? We are all sick and diseased as a result of the fall. Albus is no different, but it seems, from the text of the books anyway, that he has overcome/is overcoming these passions. The nature of the passion is irrelevant, the overcoming of it is what should be praised.

  Love this discussion forum, guys. It warms the heart to see such thoughtful discussion on weighty topics. Keep it up.

  God bless,
  Fr Dn Kevin

• 41 revgeorge // Oct 20, 2007 at 12:57 pm

  Everybody’s missed the really big news coming out of JKR’s talk. Neville Longbottom marries Hannah Abbott!! And she’s the new landlady at The Leaky Cauldron!

  Which actually fits in better to the continuity of HP than the Dumbledore’s gay revelation. Because if you look at it, pretty much everyone portrayed in the books is either definitely heterosexual or single.

  Practically everybody’s parents are married, even the bad guy’s parents like Malfoy, Crabbe, & Goyle. You don’t hear of anyone being divorced, except for Riddle Sr abandoning his wife. If families are broken up it’s because of the war.

  Snape is single because of his unrequited love for Lily, although we’re led to believe it’s just because he’s a vile person. As for McGonagall there’s a long history of spinsters in books, & as for Dumbledore there’s a long history of wise old professors who’ve never married, like Prof Kirke in Narnia.

  All of the main characters are obviously heterosexual. There’s nothing ever hinted at in the books at all of anything other than heterosexuality being the norm, because you can’t assume someone’s gay just because they remain single.

  So, JKR’s revelation is rather incongruent with her own written world. In a sense it’s irrelevant because it has absolutely no effect on the story. So, it doesn’t really matter what one’s position is on homosexuality, I think it could be agreed that this revelation just comes way out of left field.

• 42 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:08 pm

  Michael, you wrote: I don’t believe being gay is a sin. That to me is just bogus. A cover for one’s homophobic feelings. I thought this fandom was more intelligent.

  You’ve got your right to your opinions, man, but don’t go questioning the intelligence of those who have deeply thought-out religious beliefs, a’ight?

  Thanks.

• 43 Eeyore // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:10 pm

  Travis, you asked what our reaction towards the books will be now. I’ll probably still re-read them, and try to do as others have suggested–stick with what’s actually in the books and not what Rowling has added.

  I’d been looking forward to the promised encyclopedia about HP, but I may just skip it if this is any indication of the sorts of things that will be included.

  For all the times that Rowling has gone out of her way to make the point that these are children’s books, it seems to me that she crossed a line that shouldn’t have been crossed. As a parent of three she should have known better than to bring up a character’s sexual orientation.

  Quite a few over at TLC said they saw the connection when they read the books, but I didn’t. I saw two boys who became friends, bonded by their political thinking and nothing more. If more of their relationship was important for the story then it should have been written in, but it obviously wasn’t. And she should have left it that way.

  The fan fic people are loving it, and in the last two books I can now see that Rowling herself has spent a bit too much time reading some of it. In the earlier books, it always sounded like it scared and appalled her to think what some were doing with her characters. Now she seems to enjoy the whole thing.

  In our day camp training there is a thing that we talk about, especially with young counselors. Wish I could remember the technical term, but it doesn’t matter. It’s when someone older is in charge but ends up joining in an activity because they remember how much fun it was when they were kids. In fact, they should be stopping it, but they don’t. By becoming part of the problem they make it worse as it blurs that line of what is appropriate and acceptable. In the instance when they join in, they have regressed to their childhood and are no longer acting in the responsible “adult” role.

  I think Rowling is doing the same thing in joining the fan fic folks. Not all of them are teens, but the ones who write the slash fan fic are not particularly mature in their thinking. It just seems like that’s what she is doing–regressing to be part of a group that is younger.

  Bob Myers, I’m going to try to do what you said–stick to what is in the books and not let what she has said influence my enjoyment of them. I just hope I can do that. The Christian content, as well as a great story, are still there.

  Pat

• 44 Alis // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  Congratulations, Neville!

  And I agree that this is being made into a much larger issue than it should be. I find Harry’s use of the Unforgivable Curses far more difficult to deal with.

• 45 revgeorge // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:23 pm

  Michael wrote,

  “Jo outs a character and all I see are Homophobic replies. If she said that he had a wife and cheated on her, I doubt this would have raised half as much fuss, but as the guy is GAY you see him is differently. It’s sad and a testament to how society views those who are different. I don’t believe being gay is a sin. That to me is just bogus. A cover for one’s homophobic feelings. I thought this fandom was more intelligent.”

  Michael, by your definition, would anything qualify as ’sin’? Or could anyone’s reaction about any behavior be written off as a defect in the person who has a difficulty with that behavior? When exactly can we say a behavior is inappropriate or wrong or sinful without being called intolerant?

  I bring this up not so much to start a discussion, because I’m sure, as Travis would point out, this is not the place for such a discussion, but because of the accusations you’ve made about a lot of people here being homophobic.

  Aren’t you being just as intolerant & unopen towards people who’ve expressed their difficulties & disappointment with JKR’s announcement? You’ve made a statement of opinion, that you don’t think homosexuality is a sin, & you’ve branded anyone who disagrees or questions your opinion as wrong, & not just wrong but hateful. How is that different from what you accuse people on this blog to be doing?

  Just something to think about.

• 46 revgeorge // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:30 pm

  Thank you, Travis, for addressing this homophobia issue. I’m sorry I didn’t see your post before I posted mine on the subject. Otherwise I would’ve kept quiet.

• 47 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 1:57 pm

  revgeorge, no problem - your comment just got lost in the spam catcher. It’s up now.

• 48 Richard Abanes // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:31 pm

  Hello,

  I see it didn’t take long for you to delete my post Travis. Too bad. But again, I have to say it - ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL…Good luck Harry Potter worshipers. So much for her books being a Christian novel designed to “baptize” the world into the gospel and spread Christians values and beliefs.

  This is what I have been tryong to say in contrast to you and John Grainger for so long — the books are NOT meant as a Christian vangelistic tool, nor was it ever Rowling’s intention to bring some Christian message to the masses by using hidden codes. She is a person who has embraced smatterings of all kinds of religious, spiritual, mythologcal, philosophical, humanistic ideas and grafted them all into a diverse derivative story that read very well. Certainly you can find elements and symbols loosely connected top Christianity, but also loosely (and not so loosely) connected to all kinds of beliefe systems - primarily occult imagery and mythology.

  The whole Dumbledore is gay thing just points more clearly to the kind of views Rowling has, which are consistent with a non-Christian worldview and her own lifestyle and views on sexuality (for example, her willingness to date a married man - her now husband, that it is, whome she was dating before he was divorced).

  [starts timer to see how ling it will take to get this post deleted].

• 49 Ginevra // Oct 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm

  Eeyore said: “As a parent of three she should have known better than to bring up a character’s sexual orientation.”

  But characters’ sexual orientations have been brought up throughout the entire series: Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, Harry and Ginny, Harry and Cho, Ron and Hermione, and so on. I think what you meant was, why bring up a character’s sexual orientation when it is one many disagree with?

  As you may have guessed, I am a moderate to liberal Christian, though conservative in many aspects. I am aware the bible names homosexuality as a sin, but I am unable to reconcile in my mind why a biologically determined condition (at least in part, if not in full) is wrong. For now, I accept that I do not have all of the answers. God has the answers, and that is enough. We know only in part now what we will someday know in full. I also know that it is not for me to judge.

  Why should we treat homosexuality as different from other sins? I don’t think we should, but it seems many of you feel differently.

  As to claims that this quote is a publicity stunt, I am certain this could not be further from the truth. Pretend, for a moment, that this statement has not come out. The Jo that we knew yesterday, would she ever in her life do anything or say anything for the sake of publicity? Is it in her nature? Is it in keeping with her character? Absolutely not. Just because you disagree with her choice in outing Dumbledore, which you have every right to do, please do not demonize her motives.

  So, why did Jo wait until now to reveal this information? Partly, I am sure, because this information is a spoiler. Why should she reveal the information at all? From http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1572399/20071019/story.jhtml, Jo was asked if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love. Because in Jo’s mind, Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald, she was simply answering this question directly and honestly. Yes, she could have said that Dumbledore was in love but refuse to answer the object of his affection, or she could have refused to answer the question altogether. But she didn’t, and I am fine with that.

• 50 Signe // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:36 pm

  I agree with Fr. Richard John Neuhaus who has posited that there is a difference between having Same-Sex-Attraction which may describe Dumbledore, and being “gay” which is the active pursuit of a particular lifestyle. My take is that Dumbledore’s feelings for Grindelwald were in the nature of a “schoolboy crush” with which the fact and fiction surrounding British boarding schools is replete. There are no intimations in any of D’s other relationship with adults or students were anything other than aboveboard. I see him leading a chaste if lonely life after his “disappointment” in Grindelwald and channeling his energy as headmaster to teaching students to avoid his mistakes (always in a non-directive manner) but not always succeeding, e.g., Tom Riddle.

• 51 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:44 pm

  Wow… Richard Abanes = Bitter Man.

  Matthew

• 52 Fantasy Fiction for Christians: Christian themes and symbolism in Narnia and Harry Potter // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:45 pm

  So Dumbledore Was A Homosexual…

  Don’t know what to make of this. I’ll process it and get back to you.
  Later: Big discussion at Sword of Gryffindor. I’m still digesting.

  ……

• 53 Dave, the Longwinded // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:55 pm

  Reyhan, you and I are of alike mind. We’ve spent much of our time pouring over these books, considering all kinds of connections. Now, Rowling is giving us all exactly the kinds of extra-textual nuggets we’ve been speculating about, and fandom turns on her?

  This is why I have a hard time viewing this purely as a publicity stunt. Rowling is a smart woman and has to know that much of her fanbase consists of those that read the books primarily for their Christian themes. Outing Dumbledore had to be something that she knew might divide those who have so vocally supported her.

  Frankly, I find the suggestions in the above comments that sexual orientation is linked to pedophilia to be disturbing. We’ve admired a character for his honesty, principle, and devotion to Right and Truth for 3000 pages. Now, some are up in arms, wondering if Dumbledore was fantasizing about Harry in inappropriate ways that are never even hinted at in the text.

  For a fanbase so devoted to a beloved series primarily because of its teaching of principle, compassion, and self-sacrifice, I’m extremely disappointed in the reaction to this news.

  I respect the moral viewpoints I see here in wondering whether or not homosexuality is a “sin” in theological terms. But, so is unnecessary torture. We can forgive Harry his flaws as a realistic depiction of human weakness, even as he is a Christ symbol. If we can do this, I think we can forgive a role model like Dumbledore for this “sin”, especially if we can forgive his other flaws with which he actually does manipulate and harm people.

• 54 Pax // Oct 20, 2007 at 3:56 pm

  I think there could be a link to Dumbledore’s kindness toward certain characters such as Lupin and Hagrid that might have developed as a result of him having to deal with his own issues about being “different”. In that sense of it, perhaps his sexual orientation may be important. Can wrestling with our own sin, whether through self-examination or through the scrutiny of others ever lead to good? Was Dumbledore’s sexuality something he exalted in or was it the “thorn in his side”?

• 55 RC // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  I agree with Richard Abanes! Lukewarm “Christians” may now celebrate, but Lily is the evidence JKR does not know what Christianity really means. When Snape asked for forgiveness he was rejected. JKR said she wanted revenge because of her teacher in chemistry from her childhood. A true Christian attitude I suppose.

• 56 Sean // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  It seems that people are addressing this in a number of ways (I thought mine was mildly funny. Thanks Reyhan for playing along).

  1) Just because the author said this doesn’t mean I have to incorporate it into my Harry Potter world. Dumbledore wasn’t gay when I read the book and so he doesn’t have to be gay now, no matter what J.K. says. I think there is some kind of academic ism that Travis could apply to this approach. In general this is likely the approach that will stand the test of time. In the future, unless J.K. adds the character info she has released post HP 7 to the series in some way, only academics will do the author research necessary to link this kind of stuff together.

  2) Dumbledore being gay is an unacceptable condition of his character, thus converting one from a Harry Potter fan to something otherwise. This is likely to be the case for Christians who have defended their reading/loving of the series by relying on themes that mesh with their religious beliefs. I think this is the most disappointing response. Suggesting that a character has flaws (a sinner) really should make perfect sense. My question to the religious scholars is: Does homosexuality rank somewhere in a list of sins as worse or better than another? My understanding is the answer is no, in which case, this should cause no more consternation than to say that Dumbledore coveted Malfoy’s wife. Of course, if I am wrong about such a comparison, forgive my ignorance.

  3) Dumbledore’s gayness is not an issue worthy of changing a fan’s opinion of the book. This would include a variety of different people, Christians and those who identify themselves as less religious who for their own differing reasons can fit this into their Harry Potter world view without much problem.

  4)This series was always a pagan pile of rubbish, bordering on satanism and finally we’ve got the truth. I don’t have too much to say on this viewpoint other than I wouldn’t waste your energy on such fundamentalist views.

  I still think coming up with our own list of character issues would be more fun.

• 57 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm

  Funny…I don’t recall myself, Mr. Granger, or anyone here arguing that Rowling was trying to spread Christian values, beliefs, or write a series as an evangelistic tool. Over and over again, I’ve sided with Ms. Rowling on this - she never set out to write a morality tale or a book of lessons for people. She did not set out to teach Christianity with this series.

  The argument has always been that there are distinctly Christian elements in the Harry Potter series, and this Rowling has definitely confirmed, just two days ago.

  In other words, the “Dumbledore is gay” revelation is in no way inconsistent with anything we’ve said. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Rowling would affirm homosexuality as a legitimate option; lots of professed Christians do. You’re not going to find a Christian in the world who isn’t mistaken about something.

  Thankfully, God doesn’t keep the kind of doctrinal and moral checklists that some folks do. Last I checked, salvation was still by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

• 58 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  Hey, RC, lots of people sinned in the Bible, too. Lots of ‘em got away with it, and some were even justified for it.

  If people continue to argue against the view that JKR set out to write a thoroughly Christian morality tale, I don’t know what to say. How does that saying go?

  “Why do you argue against that which nobody believes?”

• 59 Richard Abanes // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:14 pm

  >Wow… Richard Abanes = Bitter Man.

  ???? say what?? I’m not sure at all how anything here make sme bitter? I deliberately posted in a fairly lighthearted manner, because truth be told ,this has all become fairly silly. lol. Just wanted to jab a bit with good old Travis and all of you - and make a few points along the way about the whole Rowling, Christian, Grainger, yada yada yada thing. Bitter? Me? Hardly. If anything, the whole Dumbledore thing strikes me as tremendously entertaining.

• 60 RC // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:17 pm

  I´m a woman. I m once again shocked how stupid men can become if an Isobel like Rowling preaches her “Personal Jesus” in her Mission Impossible.

• 61 Richard Abanes // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:18 pm

  >Funny…I don’t recall myself, Mr. Granger, or anyone here arguing that Rowling was trying to spread Christian values, beliefs, or write a series as an evangelistic tool.

  You can’t be serious. OMG. The whole thrust of you and Grainger over the last years has been just that — i.e., that Rowling was, to use good old John’s words — trying to “baptize” the world into the truths of Christianity ala some kind of modern day C.S. Lewis. Anyway, as I said early, good luck and have fun spinning this one. Cheers! (insert smiley face to show my light-heartedness).

• 62 RC // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:19 pm

  God loves the sinner, indeed, but hates the sin, Travis. God bless you.

• 63 Sean // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  “I´m a woman. I m once again shocked how stupid men can become if an Isobel like Rowling preaches her “Personal Jesus” in her Mission Impossible.”

  Great, now your messing with Mission Impossible. Now THAT is a great series of Movies (and in fact, the TV show was really quite good)

  All joking aside, I have no idea what this above means, if anything. Oh, wait, my intelligence is in my pants right now. Sorry.

• 64 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:38 pm

  RC,
  That truely is a bizzare post. What does it mean?

  Matthew

• 65 RC // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:41 pm

  @sean
  of course you cannot understand. As you said yourself, in your pants. Good, you are aware of this. There is maybe still hope for you.
  God loves you, even I do even you show disrespect and are just a little derider.
  I will tell you this: you are blinded by false teachings. You want to believe in all this stupid nonsense JKR preaches. And because you have decided to listen to her lukewarm message you got lukewarm yourself. Anyway. I will not argue. This is not my intention. God bless you.

• 66 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:48 pm

  Richard Abanes -”If anything, the whole Dumbledore thing strikes me as tremendously entertaining.”

  I’m sure it does and your gloating attitude is very apparent. Your next post confirms what I was saying and shows your usual tactic of quoting one word ie. “baptize” and then follow it with your own opinion and say that its wrong.

  You haven’t posted here for so long or been part of the discussion but now you have some more ammunition you’re back in a jiffy.

  Oh well…

  Matthew

• 67 Amy H. Sturgis // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  FYI, my report from attending the event is now here.

• 68 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm

  Richard Abanes,

  Ok, I have thought about my “bitter man” comment and it was out of line. I don’t know you well enough to be able to say that with any certainty or truthfulness.

  I unreservedly apologize.

  I do, however, disagree with your stance and tone and timing of your contribution.

  Matthew

• 69 Sean // Oct 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm

  Wow, I guess I should’ve seen that coming.

  Just to expand on my “derision”

  1) It is a classic mistake to suggest that an entire group of people are susceptible to manipulation based on the attribute of their gender. Further, I fail to see any reasonable link between J.K. Rowling’s gender as having such ability to manipulate the members of my own. (No pun intended, really)

  2) I think that the post I quoted is difficult to understand and I see no reason why you shouldn’t elaborate if you feel your point of view is worthwhile. If I am unlearned in the language of Isobel and “Mission Impossible” now is your chance to improve my ignorance.

• 70 revgeorge // Oct 20, 2007 at 5:01 pm

  To say that one cannot profitable read something just because the author is not doctrinally pure is really a stretch. Being a Lutheran minister, I certainly care about doctrinal orthodoxy, but I read lots of stuff that isn’t just from a purely Lutheran background.

  To follow the logic of some people here, I couldn’t read anything by Tolkien & extol its Christian elements because Tolkien was a Roman Catholic & thus his theology is deficient. Nor could I read anything by Lewis & extol its Christian imagery because he was an Anglican. That’s just bunk.

  Apparently some people think the only book Christians can read is the Bible, otherwise we risk falling prey to some kind of false spirituality. Well, the world is full of false spirituality, which is why we cannot read or watch or listen to anything uncritically. But we can read, watch & listen. Which is why being well grounded in the faith helps to keep us from being lukewarm.

  At least Granger & Prinzi critically analyze the content of the HP books. Which stands in stark contrast to how books by Warren & Osteen & the Left Behind series are often treated by evangelical Christians. To listen to some of them talk you’d think those author’s books sprung from the very hand of God Himself!

  So, the Harry Haters will never be satisfied. If JKR would espouse a perfect view of orthodox Christianity, live a spotlessly clean lifestyle, & get God’s approval from heaven, people would still criticize her & the books.

• 71 Sean // Oct 20, 2007 at 5:04 pm

  Well said revgeorge.

• 72 Nancy // Oct 20, 2007 at 5:10 pm

  I can’t even comment. I’m disgusted by you narrow-minded, bible-beating, let’s-trade-our-daughters-for-some-cows religeous freaks. A single character being gay is going to turn you off from some of the most brilliant books ever written? If you’re that small-minded and intolerant, go back to reading the Left Behind series where you belong. And hand over your library cards to people who actually want to read and learn about things that are different from themselves. So much for learning from each other.

• 73 korg20000bc // Oct 20, 2007 at 5:31 pm

  Ok all,

  Time we ALL (including me) reaquainted ourselves with the rules for commenting.

  follow this link:
  http://swordofgryffindor.com/rules

  Matthew

• 74 Wendy // Oct 20, 2007 at 5:34 pm

  You know, I think revgeorge has written the best reply, so far. IMHO

• 75 Jamie // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:00 pm

  I think we need to stay focused on the books. After all, this is what has brought all of us together in the first place, eh? What is one of the most obvious themes of the books? Choice: It’s our choices that define who we truly are.

  Okay, so Dumbledore is a homosexual. Those of us who agree that Rowling is employing Christian themes need to keep our heads focused here. Let’s go back to what Rowling has reminded us about choice. We all have our “great tragedies” (as she observed about Dumbledore’s love) yet it is our treatment of these dispositions that lead to our greatest victories. One reason we found Dumbledore to be such a convincing leader was his vulnerability. He had flaws and was able to lead Harry through his own experiences and observations. If as sin is an offense against religious or moral law (http://m-w.com/dictionary/sin) then it is the choices that we make to rectify those offenses that must be judged. Personally, I believe that God gives each of us our own battles. Some of us fight depression and anxiety; others fight weight or gambling addictions, etc. For me the sin actually takes place when we choose to act in such a way that violates the moral law, not the actual disposition. Though we may not condone the actions of the person dealing with these “sins” we cannot condemn them. At least, my religious faith will not allow me to turn my head on them, especially when we see someone trying to overcome those sins.

  What is there in the books which allude to this orientation? Not much until Book 7. In the context of Deathly Hallows, we see Dumbledore’s reflections on his choices of the past as immature and passion-driven. We see the results of Dumbledore’s maturation over the course of the series and we admire him for that. It’s only now that we understand what he was actually overcoming in its full extent. If we look to the lessons regarding choice again, can we then entertain the notion that Dumbledore, in his experiences, is trying to continually fight this battle, this sin, and since we see no obvious allusions to Dumbledore’s recent pursuits of this sinful path assume that his choice to live beyond his sin is prevailing? If so, how does this revelation all the sudden negate what we fans have already believed about Dumbledore’s effectiveness as a mentor for Harry as he moves through the archetypal Hero’s Journey? Stylistically, from a literary perspective, I believe this simply adds another more complex and enriching layer to the literary context and study of the books.

  We know that Dumbledore’s greatest fault was that he was too easily blinded by his love for people around him. My hope is that we don’t get blinded by our love for Dumbledore as we thought we knew him to the point that we can no longer look at this from a mature and logical perspective.

• 76 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm

  Matthew, thanks for the rule reminder.

  Now let me say this one more time: Rowling is not preaching to anyone. There’s no preaching. She’s not ordained. Anywhere. She’s not specifically speaking for any church in the Harry Potter series. The Harry Potter series is not preaching; it is not church-sanctioned literature. It’s a series of fantasy novels.

  She wrote books, none of which had anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality, and then told us months after the last book was out that she always “thought of” one of the characters as gay. And no one had more than the slightest inkling of that until last night.

  Did Abanes really just use OMG?

• 77 Johnny // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:13 pm

  Richard Abanes,

  No one was trying to say that the Harry Potter books were an evangelistic tool for Christianity. If you actually downloaded and heard some of Travis’ podcasts, you would hear him saying that J.K. Rowling is not trying to write the Left Behind series. I can give you the episode number so you can check it out. JKR has always said that she never intends to preach in her stories, but that morals are always drawn.

• 78 Johnny // Oct 20, 2007 at 6:17 pm

  Travis,