At Long Last: A Book Review

J. K. Rowling asserted last month that the character Albus Dumbledore in her Harry Potter series is gay. That is, in short, freakin' bull crap. Here's why:

1. She decided to "out" Dumbledore after she finished the series. Way after. Give me a break. I have read all 7 fabulous books (despite some grammatical and punctuation errors), and there is no allusion to Dumbledore's sexuality in any of them. Yes, he's a single old man. Yes, he wears purple robes with stars on them sometimes. But, being stereotypical or judgmental is the opposite of what Rowling is trying to teach through her books. Her heroes in the books are an orphan, a "mudblood" (someone who doesn't have magic parents), and their really poor friend. The typical victor, the one with "infinite power", is the one who loses in the end. Dumbledore has simply devoted himself to a lifetime of service to his true love: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. People in real life do that all the time. They're called priests....ok, bad example.

2. Even if Dumbledore were gay, which he is NOT, it has no effect on the story. And, the story itself even refutes it. The only mention of a suspicion about Dumbledore's sexuality occurs in the 7th book, when a slimy reporter named Rita Skeeter asserts that an inappropriate relationship could exist between Dumbledore and Harry. Everyone (the book's characters as well as the readers) knows that she is lying. It's part of the plot. So, there ya go.

3. Rowling is doing it for attention. Publicity stunt. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. She is already a multi-millionaire from writing this series and selling the rites for movies. I don't exactly think it's a wise marketing move to say that the "God-figure" of a book, the moral hero, the "good wizard" is a homosexual. In summary, one article I read says this:
But it is possible that Ms. Rowling may be mistaken about her own character [Dumbledore]. She may have invented Hogwarts and all the wizards within it, she may have created the most influential fantasy books since J. R. R. Tolkein, and she may have woven her spell over thousands of pages and seven novels, but there seems to be no compelling reason within the books for her after-the-fact assertion. Of course it would not be inconsistent for Dumbledore to be gay, but the books’ accounts certainly don’t make it necessary. The question is distracting, which is why it never really emerges in the books themselves. Ms. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay, but there is no reason why anyone else should.

I heard that Rowling may soon publish a book of short stories that are off-shoots of different minor characters' lives from the series. I'm definitely going to get that...But she better not try to say that one of the characters got a nose job or had a navel ring or did something else that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY after the book comes out. If so, it's over between you and me, Rowling. Kapeesh?