<p>yeah./<em>/</em>/</p>
<p>yeah...that's gonna ruin my childhood</p>
<p>As cliche as it is unnecessary. Does she think she is doing a service for the LGBT community somehow? If she'd had guts she'd have put it in the books. As it stands, it looks like your run-of-the-mill "see how liberal I am" gesture.</p>
<p>Eh, sounds like she was just throwing the fanboys a bone.</p>
<p>Pointless, though. Of course, I thought she should have killed off Harry at the end.</p>
<p>MelancholyDane: Uhh.... no.</p>
<p>When authors create a world as expansive as Rowling's, they tend to take enormous amounts of notes on the characters, and create facets of places and people that never, ever make it into the books. These background details are used to inform characterizations, and also create a sort of illusion of depth to the world that the books explore.</p>
<p>So, clearly, part of Rowling's background notes on Dumbledore included him being gay. Why did it not factor into the writing? Well, because it wasn't relevant. Dumbledore's sexuality never really played a part in the book, just like McGonagall's, for example. But that doesn't mean he didn't have a sexual orientation, and in J.K. Rowling's mind, I'm sure it was clear, even if it was never explicitly mentioned in the books.</p>
<p>So when asked about it (as she was), why not tell the truth as she conceives it?</p>
<p>For me, Dumbledore will never be gay. </p>
<p>Here's why:</p>
<p>Ok. So the author just pops up after the 7th and last book is way over and says, out of nowhere: "Dumbledore is gay"</p>
<p>I agree with MelancholyGay. It sounds like a huge attempt to do the gay community a favor and gain applause from liberals. </p>
<p>But really J.K. Rowling? Really he is gay? Oh wow- that's odd because there was never a single hint in the entire series. As a matter of fact, the only hint remotely close was in Book 1 when Dumbledore tells Professor McGonagall that "he hadn't blushed so much since Madame Pomfrey liked my new earmuffs". Therein, Dumbledore blushing twice- both times with women. That's the one single thing remotely close. </p>
<p>Because she (J.K. Rowling) knows darn well that if there had been evidence on Dumbledore "been gay" in her books, her books wouldn't have been half as successful as they were. If she really, truly, believes in her so-called tolerance <em>cough</em> acceptance <em>cough</em> of the gay lifestyle and so forth, then why didn't she advocate it using the super popular books as a medium? Why didn't she take a risk in her strong views on homosexuality and spread her opinion using one of the main characters in her books? Why didn't she?</p>
<p>I'll tell you why: Because the books would have sold nowhere as much as they did and she wouldn't have been as successful author. </p>
<p>And okay, some people would have read the books anyway. But do you really think they would have sold so much if Dumbledore was dating Professor Snape? Would so many parents have taken their kids to watch it? Would so many kids around the world from so many different cultures have read it?</p>
<p>No, they wouldn't have. </p>
<p>So J.K. Rowling is been a huge hypocrite pretending she cares alot about the gay community and and long-life liberalism and let's all hug each other and dance naked in the rain. She doesn't. </p>
<p>She weighed her options- more money or propaganda? More money or propaganda? Do I write it or do I shut up? And she went for more money. Naturally. </p>
<p>So she can't come now and pretend like Dumbledore is gay after she never ever mentioned anything and since there never ever was any clue whatsoever in the book. </p>
<p>He is not (and will never be) gay.</p>
<p>And let the flaming begin.</p>
<p>He isn't gay, and never will be, because you say so? Okie dokie, smokie.</p>
<p><<<for me,="" dumbledore="" will="" never="" be="" gay.="">>></for></p>
<p>For me. Keyword: for me.</p>
<p>I agree with 1of42. But really, who cares?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
I agree with MelancholyGay.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That is a great Freudian slip. Oh, the irony.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
So J.K. Rowling is been a huge hypocrite pretending she cares alot about the gay community and and long-life liberalism and let's all hug each other and dance naked in the rain.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That's quite a misrepresentation of the liberal lifestyle. We spend more time laughing at Bill O'Reilly, who thinks we dance naked in the rain. Most liberals are pretty pessimistic but will never admit it. But I do agree that Rowling is helping to rot kids' minds, not through homosexuality or witchcraft (which aren't bad things) but by teaching people not to think. Each generation of writers is worse than the previous ones, since the golden age of Aeschylus and Sophocles. Except the Victorians, they were pretty cool too.</p>
<p>MetDethGNR: That might be a valid argument if Dumbledore showed any signs of any sexual orientation. Since he didn't, it's safe to say that Rowling decided that he should be more or less asexual in the books, which is quite a different thing from him being in the closet. For God's sake, the man was ancient in the books - does sexuality play any great part of the lives of the ancient old men you know, gay or straight? Not at all. I think it's a little rich to accuse Rowling of timing it for money.</p>
<p>For the record, I myself am more liberal then most. I'm not a reactionary conservative or anything like that. I'm just someone who cares about artistic integrity. I stand by my statement that her "announcement" is unnecessary at best and a shallow ploy at worst.</p>
<p>Also, I'd give more weight to the "expansive world" argument if the HP setting weren't as riddled with inconsistencies as it is. They're fun books and I enjoyed reading the series, but it's not an alternate universe on the level of Tolkien's or others' by any stretch of the imagination.</p>
<p>o...my....goodness... The society is already corrupted...</p>
<p>lol
join my facebook group!
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20006837624%5B/url%5D">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20006837624</a>
i like the double entendre on it...</p>
<p>also, I think dumbledore is more of a symbol in the first 6 books, a bit too perfect for anybody to relate to. I like how in the 7th book Rowling portrayed him as a lot more human, and so the audience could better relate to dumbledore. I think that this whole dumbledore being gay thing actually makes dumbledore even more human in the sense that he has one more "flaw" (for lack of a better word....no offense to gay people, please don't flame me on this).</p>
<p>It's not as if Dumbledore's sexuality would have affected the outcome of the books at all. I mean, how would you have expected JK to allude to Dumbledore's sexuality, anyway?</p>
<p>I applaud Rowling for telling the world about Dumbledore's sexuality.</p>
<p>Truly, it didn't factor into the books, AT ALL. His sexuality (and McGonagall's and countless others) is never mentioned because it didn't matter to the plot of the books. Besides, like the person above me said, how (and for WHAT legitimate reason??) would she have included it?</p>
<p>Gay kids NEED more positive gay role-models to look up to. Thank you, JK, for making Dumbledore an outstanding example.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Gay kids NEED more positive gay role-models to look up to. Thank you, JK, for making Dumbledore an outstanding example.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"You too, can be a gay wizard."</p>
<p>rofl, goldshadow.</p>
<p>and a silvery white patronus leaked out of Dumbledore's wand...</p>