Homestar Runner Wiki Forum :: View topic - Rowling Outs Beloved Character

Yeah, I thought the first few reasons were a bit silly. I'm sure that the anagram is a coincidence. However, as the list goes down, the reasons get more and more... what's the word I'm looking for... valid?

Peh. I'm sure you guys know what I mean.

I think a character hinting at an "unnatural" relationship is the only clue that can reasonably be construed that way.

And the last time I checked, the jury is still out on Leonardo da Vinci.

Funny. When I looked for sources on this, I couldn't find any. Can you cite any?

The Star Wars universe does have its token gay couple now. Apparently a Mandelorian blacksmith and his bounty hunter husband.

No, but I don't. I think people should be able to take a joke, when they know it's a joke. If there's a token black character in a cartoon, he's obviously in there for humor, and nothing more - only people who like to accuse other people of things would assume something like racism was the intention. I mean, it's a cartoon. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

Rusty wrote:

I'm not talking about when it was meant to be a joke. When it was meant to be a joke, often times it's hilarious. I'm talking about cartoons aimed at children, not people our age. You know, the kind of cartoon that's focused on story-line instead of gags.

I'd love it if you could name me a time when a children's cartoon had a Token Black Guy.

Rusty wrote:

I'd love it if you could name me a time when a children's cartoon had a Token Black Guy.

You're kidding, right?

I remember seeing them when I was a kid in the cartoons that I watched. I spent my entire childhood watching cartoons (which I'll admit is a little sad), so it's possible that people who didn't watch many different cartoons wouldn't know what I'm talking about.

I'll need to do some more research (I have better things to do), but there are some good examples of cartoons with token Black characters (or token female characters, token fat characters, ect) in the 80s and 90s. Earlier than that there was blatant racism (or sexism, or whateverism).

It was mostly evident in Hanna-Barbera type cartoons, and cartoons about superheroes. Oh, and when I say "cartoons", I also mean "comics".

Stereotypes and tokenism are great tools for comedy. I would never condemn comedy. I am condemning producers who seriously include them in order to pay lip service to rules and standards.

Author:	The Noid [ Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Thanks. Most of those are total crap. Phoenix's are hardcore and usually "flaming". Also Dumbledore being an anagram for that is a lie created by the government, I say.

Author:	KartoonKween'D [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:24 am ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I thought the first few reasons were a bit silly. I'm sure that the anagram is a coincidence. However, as the list goes down, the reasons get more and more... what's the word I'm looking for... valid? Peh. I'm sure you guys know what I mean.

Author:	Lunar Jesty [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:30 am ]
Post subject:
KartoonKween'D wrote: Yeah, I thought the first few reasons were a bit silly. I'm sure that the anagram is a coincidence. However, as the list goes down, the reasons get more and more... what's the word I'm looking for... valid? Peh. I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Well, it's not like anyone would have every picked up on it because of these reasons. I mean, do you think anyone has ever said, "Well gee, Dumbledore is a bit like Leonardo DeVinci. Wait, wasn't he gay? DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!" Nah, the reasons are good to look back at Dumbledore with to help people understand how it's not that much of a stretch. But it's not like anyone would have noticed them without knowing, and that's what I think a sign is, really.

Author:	Duecex2 [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:08 am ]
Post subject:
"If Dumbledore were like any one in history, it would have to be Leonardo DaVinci." Awesome, I hit it right on the money.

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:09 am ]
Post subject:
The problem is that if these are the best "clues" that we can get that Dumbledore is gay in the books, then anything could be a clue for anything! I think a character hinting at an "unnatural" relationship is the only clue that can reasonably be construed that way. That doesn't mean that Rowling didn't plant any other clues, just that any other clues are just too ambiguous. For instance, anagrams are certainly useless as a clue unless the anagram is already close to the original form, which in this case it is not. You can make an anagram from anything with enough letters. You can take "George Bush" and get "He Bugs Gore", and also "Bugger Hose". (No, I didn't figure those out myself, unfortunately.) I don't think it's a bad article... some things like his sense of style and his openness can be taken as a positive comment on homosexuality. I just don't think they make clues. They're consistent with Rowling's view of homosexuality, but consistency itself doesn't count as a clue because there's still no way to tell without her saying it. - Kef

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Rowling Outs Beloved Character http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=12683	Page 5 of 6

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:25 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: I think a character hinting at an "unnatural" relationship is the only clue that can reasonably be construed that way. But remember: that was said by a character who is already deemed completely unreliable anyway, a gossip and a liar. If anything, having Rita Skeeter say anything almost automatically makes it appear untrue.

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:58 am ]
Post subject:
The question is, though, which is intended to be the "untrue" part: that Dumbledore had that sort of relationship, or merely that such a relationship is "unnatural"? It could be construed either way. - Kef

Author:	Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:09 am ]
Post subject:
So wait, did Dumbledong ever love another man...."Phsyically" or did he just say "Hey, that dudes hot"?

Author:	furrykef [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:23 am ]
Post subject:
We don't know and I'm sure that's the way it's going to stay...

Author:	Acekirby [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:31 am ]
Post subject:
I don't know about those "clues"...I'd take them with a grain of salt. The first two, especially, seem like stretches.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:33 am ]
Post subject:
And the last time I checked, the jury is still out on Leonardo da Vinci.

Author:	Beyond the Grave [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: And the last time I checked, the jury is still out on Leonardo da Vinci. Da Vinci was gay. It was kept under wraps because of the power and influence of the Di Medicis. He was known to have homosexual relationships with his pupils. He also got busted for sodomy, he was acquitted when no witnesses stepped forward.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:33 pm ]
Post subject:
Funny. When I looked for sources on this, I couldn't find any. Can you cite any?

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:57 pm ]
Post subject:
But BTG, I can't help but notice that the article (the same one I read a week ago) uses terms like "speculation" and "alleged" an awful lot. On the charges of sodomy, he was acquitted due to lack of adequate testimony against him. Also, it appears that at least some of the material included in the article regards fictional accounts of his affairs, and not factual accounts. Of course, if the allegations are true, then it makes him a pedophile. Also, read the Discussion Page for that article. There is a link to THIS RESPONSE.

Author:	IantheGecko [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:
He's kind of a retconned token, since Rowling outed him after the books were over. Still, some of those "clues" were a bit of a stretch. Like the anagram of Dumbledore's name. Really, come on.

Page 5 of 6	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	IantheGecko [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Getting back to the topic here, I think Rowling's just bored after the series is finished. So, she's saying something shocking about her books to get attention as well as to get people talking more about homosexuality. If not that, it's at least getting people to talk about her.

Author:	Duecex2 [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, seriously. I think JK Rowling is the only person who controlled a fictional universe that has done this. Did GL do this after RoTS? Nope.

Author:	Didymus [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:21 pm ]
Post subject:
The Star Wars universe does have its token gay couple now. Apparently a Mandelorian blacksmith and his bounty hunter husband.

Author:	KartoonKween'D [ Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:34 pm ]
Post subject:
Here is one thing that I hope that this situation doesn't lead to. Token gay characters. Now, I know that they already exist, but because Rowling is such a popular writer, producers (say, for cartoons) may insist on token gay characters. Surely you all can site a cartoon that has a token Black character who is a ridiculous casserole of stereotypes. What if this happens to gay people? Heck, what if this happens to any group of people? All it leads to is widespread stereotyping and bad entertainment. Seriously. Am I the only one who cringes when a cartoon has a Black character who is obviously only there to be "the Black character"?

Author:	Rusty [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:19 am ]
Post subject:
No, but I don't. I think people should be able to take a joke, when they know it's a joke. If there's a token black character in a cartoon, he's obviously in there for humor, and nothing more - only people who like to accuse other people of things would assume something like racism was the intention. I mean, it's a cartoon. It's not meant to be taken seriously.

Author:	Choc-o-Lardiac Arrest [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:26 am ]
Post subject:
Didymus wrote: The Star Wars universe does have its token gay couple now. Apparently a Mandelorian blacksmith and his bounty hunter husband. Uh... Jango Fett's Mandalorian armour came from the man who adopted him as a boy, when his parents were killed by Pirates and he was held prisoner. Or it went something like that, I havent read the comic in a few months, I'll check it today.

Author:	Didymus [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:29 am ]
Post subject:
I wasn't referring to Jango. I was referring to THIS GUY.

Author:	KartoonKween'D [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:50 am ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: No, but I don't. I think people should be able to take a joke, when they know it's a joke. If there's a token black character in a cartoon, he's obviously in there for humor, and nothing more - only people who like to accuse other people of things would assume something like racism was the intention. I mean, it's a cartoon. It's not meant to be taken seriously. I'm not talking about when it was meant to be a joke. When it was meant to be a joke, often times it's hilarious. I'm talking about cartoons aimed at children, not people our age. You know, the kind of cartoon that's focused on story-line instead of gags.

Author:	Rusty [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:03 am ]
Post subject:
KartoonKween'D wrote: Rusty wrote: No, but I don't. I think people should be able to take a joke, when they know it's a joke. If there's a token black character in a cartoon, he's obviously in there for humor, and nothing more - only people who like to accuse other people of things would assume something like racism was the intention. I mean, it's a cartoon. It's not meant to be taken seriously. I'm not talking about when it was meant to be a joke. When it was meant to be a joke, often times it's hilarious. I'm talking about cartoons aimed at children, not people our age. You know, the kind of cartoon that's focused on story-line instead of gags. I'd love it if you could name me a time when a children's cartoon had a Token Black Guy.

Author:	furrykef [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:14 am ]
Post subject:
I was already thinking of starting a thread about tokenism, so here it is. - Kef

Author:	KartoonKween'D [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:20 am ]
Post subject:
Rusty wrote: I'd love it if you could name me a time when a children's cartoon had a Token Black Guy. You're kidding, right? I remember seeing them when I was a kid in the cartoons that I watched. I spent my entire childhood watching cartoons (which I'll admit is a little sad), so it's possible that people who didn't watch many different cartoons wouldn't know what I'm talking about. I'll need to do some more research (I have better things to do), but there are some good examples of cartoons with token Black characters (or token female characters, token fat characters, ect) in the 80s and 90s. Earlier than that there was blatant racism (or sexism, or whateverism). It was mostly evident in Hanna-Barbera type cartoons, and cartoons about superheroes. Oh, and when I say "cartoons", I also mean "comics". Stereotypes and tokenism are great tools for comedy. I would never condemn comedy. I am condemning producers who seriously include them in order to pay lip service to rules and standards.

Author:	The Noid [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:45 am ]
Post subject:
Dumbledore probably is the token gay character now though unless she says Luna was a lesbian and Filch admirerd Dumbledore or something. I think of a token as the "only one that we know of." So I guess I think of Dumbledore as a token now.

Author:	The Noid [ Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:
All of them were a stretch.