Dumbledore is gay

[bokko]

According to Rowling
Does this justify a new topic you ask? Well I don't know, seemed to be enough news for quite a few.

Does this surprise anyone, or did you see it coming`? Curious as to what reactions if were created when harry potter fans found out.

[SizeableSSonic]

Church is gonna be: "OMGWTFBBQ SHEZ CRRPTING TEH CHLDREN'S MINDS, SHE'S MAKING THEM GAY!!!!!!!!111111"

[Innoc]

Which church SS? You do realize that a "monolithic" church does not exist that speaks and moves as one right?

oh and

[Ihmhi]

Crap, he did not have any women in his life aside from his sister, did he?

That is a huge statement she is making. Taking bets on future Potter geriatric slashfic... now.

3 to 1 odds on Dumbledore X Snape.

[Rutabeggar]

I don't understand the purpose of her saying this. I've read the Harry Potter series and I don't see how Dumbledore being homosexual has anything to do with the story, his character, and the other characters around him, it has NOTHING to do with the plot in ANY way, shape, or form. If anything, this calls into question the quality of character that Dumbledore is, being the headmaster of a school with little boys, and particularly befriending one in Harry Potter.

[ekiM]

Yeah, homosexuals are all paedophiles. Fuckwit.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

I don't understand the purpose of her saying this. I've read the Harry Potter series and I don't see how Dumbledore being homosexual has anything to do with the story, his character, and the other characters around him, it has NOTHING to do with the plot in ANY way, shape, or form. If anything, this calls into question the quality of character that Dumbledore is, being the headmaster of a school with little boys, and particularly befriending one in Harry Potter.

Yeah, that was my first thought. AFAICT it adds nothing to the story and only serves to potentially alienate a certain part of her audience.

[Suite307]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Yeah, homosexuals are all paedophiles. Fuckwit.

WINNARRRR

[YomMamasHouse]

I think it is good she did that. I can see her doing doing it only to piss off people who have something against gays. I also would have done it to provoke those assholes from churches that say Harry Potter is blasphemous reading because it promotes sorcery among young ones, those people really need to find a new purpose in life.

If anything, this calls into question the quality of character that Dumbledore is, being the headmaster of a school with little boys, and particularly befriending one in Harry Potter.

I don't see how him being gay should matter, having a gay man in charge of a school is only as bad as having a straight man in charge, since both girls and boys attend the school. You sound like one of those wives on divorce court who won't let her husband befriend any women because she thinks they are going to have sex. You seem to think homosexuals are more inclined to molest children than all the good wholesome straight men in the world.....

EDIt

Yeah, that was my first thought. AFAICT it adds nothing to the story and only serves to potentially alienate a certain part of her audience.

The only people who would alienated are homophobes, so I don't think they are a tremendous loss.

[fishBurger]

Controversy = publicity.

Publicity = $$.

by this simple equation, gay = $$.

Next she will say he did molest children, because pedophilia is more controversial than homosexuality = $$$$.

[Rutabeggar]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Yeah, homosexuals are all paedophiles. Fuckwit.

They may not be pedo's but what about the other male professors in the story...are they also gay? Why just single out Dumbledore, one of the stories most important characters? And all the young boys in the story aren't necessarily young. So what I just don't understand is why now, when it has nothing to do with the story, there are still 2 more movies to be made, it just doesn't make sense...Whatever, if he's gay, he's gay, even though it has nothing to do with the central plot/story line.


No need to be so hostile, just voicing an opinion just like everyone else.

[ekiM]

If you read the article you would know that she was answering an audience question.

Suggesting that homosexuality calls one's character into question warrants hostility.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Suggesting that homosexuality calls one's character into question warrants hostility.

I'm not defending someone saying that homosexuality calls one's character into question, but you're wrong. Doing so does not warrant hostility, it may warrant a righteousness, but not necessarily hostility.

Scuzzy

[Rutabeggar]

Originally Posted by ekiM

If you read the article you would know that she was answering an audience question.

Suggesting that homosexuality calls one's character into question warrants hostility.

But it does doesn't it? Maybe not as a person, but the character altogether, meaning if you have read the books, you know Dumbledore specifically as just Dumbledore, you don't have to know about his lifestyle, you don't have to know about his personal life, because it doesn't add anything to the story. But mentioning he's homosexual, does this change your perception of the character, does it make him somehow different in the eyes of readers, especially young readers who may or may not understand what being homosexual is. Does it warrant parents reading to the same young kids to explain to them what they may not be able to explain or ready to explain aptly for the child to understand fully. I just can't see what it does for the books.

I think I should clarify that when I say character, I don't mean ones personal character, I mean the character in the story. Just so we're clear.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

The only people who would alienated are homophobes, so I don't think they are a tremendous loss.

You're wrong on that. Try to be a little more open minded.

[Dr.Uudge]

Originally Posted by fishBurger

Controversy = publicity.

Publicity = $$.

by this simple equation, gay = $$.

Next she will say he did molest children, because pedophilia is more controversial than homosexuality = $$$$.

100% success rate. Same formula. Same results. Since the beginning of time.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by Dr.Uudge

100% success rate. Same formula. Same results. Since the beginning of time.

Do you really think that's it or is it some notion of making social commentary on Rowlings part?

[Rutabeggar]

It's almost like throwing a black guy into a movie about an all white fraternity for diversity or something...while said black man is in the movie, he does not have anything to do with the plot/structure of the story, but is there to appease people who think that the "all white" aspect of the movie is racial.


In this case, after the fact that the books are complete, the man is DEAD in the next to last book of the series, she throws in that he's gay. It could be publicity, maybe more homosexual people will buy the book knowing one of the central characters is also gay. Seems like she's playing both sides to make more money, as if she needs more.

[Dr.Uudge]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Do you really think that's it or is it some notion of making social commentary on Rowlings part?

If Rowling's series had been historically known for insights into society and the people within, it wouldn't be such a big deal for her character(s) to be related in any way to the loaded words "gay" or "homosexual" or whatever other load terms might be used, like pedo, etc etc.

On the one hand, according to christian sources, the harry potter series, if anything, seem to advocate significant, but often unaddressed things, such as that its not only permissive to ignore and disrepect someone who is more knowledgeable and wiser(as potter is always rewared for his disregard for the advice of elders) but that it's a good thing to do so. But writing an article about things like this does not gain good publicity.

If she is making a social commentary, and she has not done so in a significant way in her previous writings, or at least, has not chosen more important, however less publicized issues, why would she choose such a charged issue to suddenly voice her observations? The so-called gay-issue has notorious been used in the last decade in the media for law making, publicity, and profit, at least in taiwan, perhaps certain parts of europe, largely in the US (hate crimes bill for US, queer eye for the straight guy, rosie o'donnell, etc) and rather than helping the gay community, has only further muddied up the waters for any sensible and/or rational discussions.

I'm a christian. And from a christian perspective, this move is like killing 3 birds with one stone: the gay community is exploited for profit, the whole religious vs non-religous issue is going to get her books freely advertised by both religous and non-religious sides, AND it gives anti-religous groups(as opposed to non-religious) a reason for promoting the potter series, ultimately gaining her more free ads and more profit. Its a formula that has been working for generations.

That dumb bint should just keep her mouth shut