I'm listening to a conservative station to stay awake on my commute in. It keeps my heart going when I'm sleepy. They were lamenting that JK Rollins said that Dumbledoor from Harry Potter is gay. What really upset me, was man after woman called in, furious that JK Rollins would do this. That it ruined the books for them. And this was part of the "Gay Agenda.(TM)"
The call that send me over the edge, was the motherly sounding woman, who immediately questioned him as the head of the school. She wondered if he was secretly a predator. He certainly was unfit if he was gay. She would have never read the books with her daughter had she known.
Do Conservative Christians think that every last gay man is secretly after their sons? Arrrg! What kind of fear do these people live in?

When I heard that he was gay it made a lot of things make a little more sense.


But besides that it didn't change anything in my eyes. Anyone freaking out about it needs to grow the fuck up.

Yes, people are going to get mad naturally at the fact that a famous icon is gay. I don't know why they do get mad, but no matter what, people will get mad.

I personally like the idea that Dumbledore is gay. It shows how much more open and accepting the Harry Potter universe is.

Actually, I thought it was pretty cool when I first heard it.

It's sad that people will give up on a really great book series (well... it was great up til the 5th book, then it got emo) just because they found out that a character was gay. In this day and age people really need to be more open minded, being homophobic will only hold you back in society. If she had let that tid bit of information out while she still had new books coming out I gaurentee there would be parents who wouldn't let their kids buy them anymore.

EmilyTheStrange
If she had let that tid bit of information out while she still had new books coming out I gaurentee there would be parents who wouldn't let their kids buy them anymore.

Hmmm, I agree. Makes one wonder why she did it even now.

Gah! I'm REALLY tempted to move this to the media section...

Those are NOT books that I am into, but whether it's good or not that this character is apparently gay now, I think its cowardly, stupid and irrelevant when authors do this stuff after the fact. The textual character is not actually gay, all she's done is give you another way of interpreting it, which is no more nor less valid than any other one since it is not (apparently) explicit in the books in any way.

If Rowling wants to be progressive and modern by having a gay character then she should be brave enough, have the BALLS to actually MAKE it gay rather than simply claiming that after the series has ended. What I mean is that no matter how "real" you think characters are, their only existence is in the text and the movies they appear in. If that text doesn't reflect the personality and lifestyle she's claiming, then her claims are as valid as Jerry Falwell's claims about Tinkey Winky's orientation.

Heh, I'm not approaching this from some moral standpoint or with a pro or anti-gay agenda, but a literary one. But I think this move by Rowling was extremely superficial! It's a nice sentiment and a limp, little gesture in the direction of inclusiveness, but that's all.

I've seen the same thing happen before exactly. I was at a "meet" the author thing with Raymond E Fiest a few years ago, and when some fans asked him about the relationship of one of the elderly magician characters and his man servant (both early key characters in the book "Magician" ), he said that they were both gay. Well, it was an interesting new way of looking at them, but nothing more than that, it doesn't change the fact that this aspect of the character doesn't actually exist in the text.

And given all that, people's anger and concern over this new interpretation is even more silly! It's insane and people are stupid.

Well, she has around a billion dollars and a Gold blue peter badge. I dont think she worries a lot about losing a few fans, at this point.

Besides, it doesn't say that Dumbledore is gay in the books - it's merely the way JK Rowling thinks about him. We are all free to interpret the character's however we wish. Those who get all bent out of shape should just decide that JK is wrong about Dumbledore. There - Now wasn't that easy?

this is only a story because the homophobes tend to over-react to, um, everything.





edited to be slightly more polite.

Dumbledoor is fictional. He's a wizard fercrissakes. This reminds of my mom who tries to give me advice based on the actions of her soap opera characters.

People get way too worked up about this stuff. I mean I dig HP a lot, but I could give a rat's ass if Dumby was a transexual, much less gay.

I wonder if there is a charm for that???

"TRANSSEXUUM!!"

lol!

OzoneOcean said:

>

At last, I get to disagree with you!

I think you're being unfair to the author here. There's no reason to say that she want to be progressive or wanted to make a point - she just thought of this character as gay, that's all. It isn't in the book, but it is part of her perspective. Everyone has stuff like that, stuff that informs their stories or characters but doesn't make it into the text. It's not like she made a big deal about this, she just mentioned it during a Q & A.

I agree with you totally that her assertion has no more weight than yours or mine. From what she said, she seems to understand that.

Who knows? Someday we'll have openly gay wizards.

ozoneocean
...I think its cowardly, stupid and irrelevant when authors do this stuff after the fact.
If Rowling wants to be progressive and modern by having a gay character then she should be brave enough, have the BALLS to actually MAKE it gay rather than simply claiming that after the series has ended. What I mean is that no matter how "real" you think characters are, their only existence is in the text and the movies they appear in. If that text doesn't reflect the personality and lifestyle she's claiming, then her claims are as valid as Jerry Falwell's claims about Tinkey Winky's orientation.

I can't help feeling JK is being terribly attention-seeking at this point. It's all a bit "HEY! HEY! LOOK AT MEEEE! TALK ABOUT MY BOOKS! STILL IMPORTANT! *whine!*"

The books are over, they've been read by practically everyone who wanted to read them and know how they ended, and now everyone's gotten over the OMG shocks of that last book, you need to let it lie JK. And okay, every author gets attached to their creations, and every author loves it when other people do too... which is why I'm so convinced this is just the result of some weird seperation anxiety. She's desperate for people to be talking and thinking about her creations still, because she still is.

I bet anyone who wants to take me up on it a hundred bucks she eventually writes a sequel of some kind, or at least a spin off set in the same world. I know she's said she won't, but I bet you she will... for all of the reasons I've said, plus the fact that's she's... just not original enough to do anything else. In my opinion. ;)

bobhhh

Um, transexuals are not inherently weirder or more objectionable than gay people. I'd much appreciate it if you didn't use transexuals as your example of "things that are even worse than gay people."

After all, we want everyone feel welcome on the boards, right?

StaceyMontgomery
bobhhh

Um, transexuals are not inherently weirder or more objectionable than gay people. I'd much appreciate it if you didn't use transexuals as your example of "things that are even worse than gay people."

After all, we want everyone feel welcome on the boards, right?

I don't think that and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My point was it would be even more contreversial and cause even more of a stir amongst confused fans, more gossipy if you will.

It was an unfortunate choice of words when what I really was trying to say is that Dumby is fictional so I am little concerned with gossiping about his supposed sexual preference.

Hey I live in SF, I love TS, some of my best freinds ...

StaceyMontgomery
this is only a story because the homophobes tend to over-react to, um, everything.

s'truth

heh, I read about this on another forum AGES AGO. Where have you been, man?!

But yeah..... I'd have to agree that it's very stupid how some people assume that just because somebody's gay means that they'd be a preadtor of children in the books.
That's just as bad as saying that there shouldn't be straight male teachers in an all-female boarding school because everyone knows that straight, adult males would just love to *GASP* tap some of that hot, illegal underaged ass. *rolls eyes*

bobhhh

- I'd say that was MY turn to over-react to things, my apologies.

ozoneocean
Those are NOT books that I am into, but whether it's good or not that this character is apparently gay now, I think its cowardly, stupid and irrelevant when authors do this stuff after the fact.

I agree with this. For her to say it now, it's sort of like she's trying to impress everyone with her tolerance and open-mindedness, or putting on some kind of show. Really, the fact means nothing to readers. It tells us what she may have used to direct his personality in the books, but in the end it doesn't mean anything. It's as if she suddenly revealed to us that Draco was a vegan or Hermione found mustaches unattractive. Who cares?

Dumbledor is still Dumbledor to me, even if he's gay. He'll always be seen to me as that fun loving, candy hording, whimsilcal man as he did before he came out of the closet. Nothing changes for me.

It just explains why he wore such colorful outfits now. ^_^

bobhhh
It was an unfortunate choice of words when what I really was trying to say is that Dumby is fictional so I am little concerned with gossiping about his supposed sexual preference.

But people LOVE gossiping about the sexual preferences of fictional characters. Isn't that the most important and urgent issue in our modern times? Think about the children!!!

(Sorry if you took the above seriously... It isn't... If you actually agree with it, I'm scared for you.)

Homophobic individuals do not think gay = attraction to ones own gender. They think gay = all forms of possible sexual deviance and depravity. Therefore, all gay people are interested only in sex in all ways shapes and forms. They have no morals or desire for love or commitment. (Ironic, considering the opposition to gay marriage...) They must all be degenerates walking the streets in leather with whips, flashing children and wanting to molest and screw anything that does or doesn't move.

As far as the faithful supporters of conservative talk radio go there are always groups of people who live in fear and hatred of outsiders as a matter of course. This is precisely why they are so susceptible, in this particular case, to the not so subtle manipulations of the professional propagandists known in the United States as conservative radio talk show hosts.

These hosts want their audience members to writhe in self-righteous horror and outrage over the sexual orientation of a well-beloved fictional character. This isn't because these same hosts necessarily believe in the supposed horrors of homosexuality themselves, but it's pretty much a proven propaganda method for control in that you periodically raise their ire at the EVIL liberals of this world and their determination to destroy all that is good and righteous. This way, not only will they knee-jerk obey your suggestions at a later, critical time, but will almost always fail to see what you and the conservative leadership are actually doing when not in the lime light. Anyway this is my take on the conservative talk radio phenomenon, and it's faithful membership, in the United States.

All of this is important for artists to understand only because you can use this in various aspects of your artwork, if you happen to do the sort of cartooning that involves heroes and villains and the occasional mob on the rampage. You want to make your mob scene and your villains appear to be more than mere stereotypes? Understand their deepest motivations, be aware of what pushes their buttons, and determine if they are being cynically manipulated by an even greater evil.

Bwahahahahaha!

Er - excuse me. I got something stuck in my brain for a moment there. Ahem! Let's take the dear granny that was so aghast to discover that Dudmbledore was declared a homosexual by his creator. Be assured that in most respects she really is a dear, sweet lady that never breaks the law, that remembers her children's and grandchildren's birthdays, is very active in her church, who considers herself the veritable soul of charity and love. Now picture her contemplating with a wide smile the notion of a world full of loyal readers of the Potter books, and the author too, as they burn in the fires of hell forever and ever. Sort of makes you contemplate shuddering. Bingo you have drama!

As for Rollins herself, I find that I am in agreement with nearly every perspective take on this thread. By this I mean that she might indeed be merely an attention junkie desperate to keep interest high in her finished work by generating a new controversy. But on the other hand she might merely have innocently been pointing out how she thought of Dumbledore in order to keep him tightly in character. Finally she may actually be an alien creature here to warp our perception of fine literature. Eh? Did I let that last one slip out?

Nonetheless I agree with the people maintaining that since she did not specifically out Dumbledore between the pages of her books she is merely evincing an opinion for all of her authorial cachet. Dumbledore's sexual orientation is a non-issue so far as the affecting the quality or contents of the books are concerned except for the homophobic among the world's population.

What would fascinate me, though, is learning how many of the current crop of outraged homophobes were are also among the groups of agitated Christians that wet themselves in fear over the possibility of the Potter books encouraging children to take up the practice of witchcraft.

this ruins the books for me...i mean here i thought that he and one of the maids were getting raunchy in the library. i mean geeze, that ruins THAT fantasy.

i mean for all we know he could be doing those stereotypical gay actions like wearing short shorts, or dancing the YMCA while everyone is in class.

i feel so cheated....

Oh yeah! let's hear it for the Village People baby!

Someone else pegged the growth of the books perfectly for me; I was a faithful reader prior to the last two. As the books became more grim and moved farther away from the 'gee,-wiz-willikers it's magic' aspects into something resembling Tolkien's Lord of the Rings on peyote, I stopped reading the series.

This reminds me of the time when Ellen DeGeneres came out on a TV show she was doing...and the show tanked. Now everyone knows she is gay...but so what? I think she is freakin' hilarious. The problem I have is when one thing about the person or in this instance "character" has to be put out there and take precedence over above and beyond who they are individually are.

And a number of different people and groups do it.

Like with christian musicians. They can't just be a christian who plays rock n roll, rap, pop...etc. They have to classify themselves as a christian artist. Or black person...or a gay person...or a latin person...why do these labels have to be precedent? Why can't you be just, you? Does it truly matter to differentiate?
For me I wouldn't go see a gay comedian if labelled and promoted as such. Would I go see a comedian who happens to be openly gay...yes...if they're funny. I hope this is making sense.

I hope this adds to the discussion and not take away from it.

Harry Potter IS overrated.

cmon. When a character in Harry Potter is revealed to be gay in the end, it gets front page attention and it gets discussed in "debate and discussion" and not "media" forums.

Like so what if dumbledore is gay? As if his gayness will change the world.

I can put up a little twist in my comic... like make Eman gay or Claudita into an undercover agent for Hell. I know you'd blast me and be like... WE DONT CARE ABOUT YOU OR YOUR COMIC SO SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP PLUGGING IN HERE!!!

But harry potter... ooooohhhh as if dumbledores gayness is soooo special. :( I just lmao at all sides involved. Gay rights activists... the Christian right... all too pumped up over a book. lol!

LMAO AT DUMBLEDORE'S GAYNESS!!! Its just a book folks. JK Rowling has got you all brainwashed. lol!

It is not possible for you to detract from this discussion when you're using that avatar.

Where did that come from? I haven't heard that... my mom would have surely informed me!

Well, granted, I do live in the middle of nowhere... but that means that it would be on the news for three days.

Before I say anything else, I find the number of different ways "Dumbledore" has been spelt on this forum rather funny.

Okay, just looked it up on Wikipedia:

"While speaking at Carnegie Hall on October 19, 2007, J.K. Rowling was asked by a young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love". Rowling said "Dumbledore is gay" and "fell in love with the charming wizard Gellert Grindelwald but when Grindelwald turned out to be more interested in the dark arts than good, Dumbledore was terribly let down and went on to destroy his rival." That love, she said, was Dumbledore's "great tragedy.""

*laughs* I'm sorry, I suddenly can't take this seriously. I see Rowling with the word "SARCASM!!" leaping from her lips.

But, it says that it was in return of a fans question ("Does Dumbledore ever find true love?"), so I don't think it was like a "Oh, my popularity must go on!" sort of thing. It was a Q&A session, and somebody asked, and she responded. It was like how she revealed that Harry and Ron went on to become Aurors and revamped the entire MoM system after the book had been released. It's just something that the author(ess) knows about the character that really didn't have any place in the book itself. Now that the series has ended and she has no reason to keep any of those secrets, she can tell everybody whatever they want to know about the characters.

Though I do agree that all this BS about him hopping to the front page of the papers is ridiculous. Honestly, like there's nothing else that goes on in the world besides Dumbledore being gay!

Wait, I thought Snape killed Dumbledore or something.

mlai
Wait, I thought Snape killed Dumbledore or something.

yep, he's DEAD which makes this whole thing so pointless.

Question:

WHO CARES?!

No, really. Who honestly cares if he was gay or not? He was a fictional character, who died in the second-to-last book! What does it matter that he was gay?

All this will do is get anal-retentive mothers to look over the books again, then send angry letters to the bookstores and such, about possible gay references. It just ruins the whole thing.

As if the propaganda with the witchcraft bit wasn't bad enough...

freefall_drift
I'm listening to a conservative station to stay awake on my commute in. It keeps my heart going when I'm sleepy. They were lamenting that JK Rollins said that Dumbledoor from Harry Potter is gay. What really upset me, was man after woman called in, furious that JK Rollins would do this. That it ruined the books for them. And this was part of the "Gay Agenda.(TM)"
The call that send me over the edge, was the motherly sounding woman, who immediately questioned him as the head of the school. She wondered if he was secretly a predator. He certainly was unfit if he was gay. She would have never read the books with her daughter had she known.
Do Conservative Christians think that every last gay man is secretly after their sons? Arrrg! What kind of fear do these people live in?

I've heard something like this at school but it was more like Harry was gay or something.

ZeroVX
Question:

WHO CARES?!

No, really. Who honestly cares if he was gay or not? He was a fictional character, who died in the second-to-last book! What does it matter that he was gay?

a. It generates publicity for Rowling.

b. It gives the talk radio right something to rant about instead of the losing war, and their president who has a 24% approval rating.

c. And it gives the mainstream media some mindless fluff to discuss--instead of serious matters, which they abhor.