Why One Harry Potter Star Skipped J.K. Rowling’s Books—and Still Delivered an Acting Masterclass

Here is a bit of Potter trivia that still catches people off guard: both actors who played Dumbledore famously skipped the Harry Potter books. And somehow, it worked.

Gambon never read the books, on purpose

In a 2009 Los Angeles Times interview, Michael Gambon said he did not crack a single J.K. Rowling novel before taking over as Hogwarts' most powerful professor. His logic was blunt and very actor-brain:

"You'd get upset about all the scenes it's missing from the book, wouldn't you? No point in reading the books because you're playing with [screenwriter] Steve Kloves' words."

That unapologetic approach did not keep him from putting a stamp on the role. Gambon shows up as a wartime Dumbledore: sharper, quicker to snap, dryly funny, and a little dangerous. As the films tilted darker, that energy helped define the back half of the series.

Harris did not read them either

Michael Gambon was not breaking tradition. Richard Harris, who originated Dumbledore in the first two films, also said he did not read fiction and never read the books. As he put it (via IMDb):

"I haven't, even today I haven't read them. Not because they're not grand, I know they're great. I love the script, but I don't read fiction, it's as simple as that. There's more fiction in my life than in books, so I don't bother with them."

And yet Harris gave fans a Dumbledore that still gets called the closest to the page: warm, measured, grandfatherly, quietly authoritative.

Two Dumbledores, two eras

After Harris passed away, Gambon inherited the role right as the series took a hard turn in tone under Alfonso Cuaron and later David Yates. Working strictly from the scripts, Gambon leaned into a version of Dumbledore shaped by rising darkness: strategic, unpredictable, and carrying wartime authority. Even if it was not exactly what some readers pictured, it lines up with where the character goes in the later books.

The contrast between Harris and Gambon has fueled an endless debate about which screen Dumbledore feels "truer" to the source. Fans are still arguing that one out in Reddit threads years later. The twist, of course, is that neither actor used the novels to build their performance. They trusted the scripts, their instincts, and the directors steering each film.

What the films change about Dumbledore

• Vibe shift: On the page, Dumbledore is calm, whimsical, almost ethereal. He leads with silence, dry jokes, and gentle nudges. Harris captured a lot of that early on. As the movies sped up and the stakes got heavier, the films drifted toward a more forceful screen presence.
• Volume knob: Book-Dumbledore rarely raises his voice; his authority is all stillness and certainty. In the films, especially with Gambon, he is louder and more reactive. The Goblet of Fire selection scene is the go-to example: soft and cool on the page, explosive on screen. Personally, I think the bigger choice works for the movie even if it makes book fans twitch.
• Inner life on mute: The novels give you steady access to Dumbledore's private burdens - regrets, long-game planning, guilt - with Half-Blood Prince doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The films streamline that interiority to keep momentum, which tightens the plots but trims some of the character's layered introspection.

Where I land

If you grew up with the books, Harris probably feels like walking into a familiar room. If you came in through the films, Gambon is the battle-scarred general you expect by the time things get grim. Both can be "right" for the era they played - and both got there without ever flipping past page one.

Got a take on book vs. film Dumbledore? Drop it in the comments. And if you want to revisit the debate, all Harry Potter movies are available to stream on Peacock.