Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I think that Rowling pulled off Dumbledore's complexity well. This new revelation certainly helped me relate to him more, at least.

That may be so for you, but I would submit that such a reaction is entirely subjective. It doesn't help me to relate to him any more. If anything, I now relate to him less.

_________________

I didn't say that my reaction wasn't subjective. Different people relate to different characters.

You obviously view being gay as a "flaw". Do you disagree that a character with flaws is a character that is more human? Dumbledore is no 2-dimensional character, that's for sure.

You know, I honestly don't care much about it.

But it DOES amuse me for some reason.

(cue bad "wand" jokes)

_________________

I don't think there was much of a need in revealing this. I'm not going to say it was done for attention, but it definately doesn't add that much to the character. I'm thinking that this might of been something out of some (hypothetical) character profile she may have written for him that she just decided to throw out there now (although that is assuming alot). Still, such a minor detail adds very little to the character.

_________________

Being gay isn't a flaw.

Of course, revealing useless facts that makes a character a sterotype is a flaw.

_________________

How does Dumbledore being gay make him a stereotype?

Not being gay itself, his "eccentricies" seem a little...well, you get my picture.

_________________

Noid has a pizza-jumping point there. All of a sudden, Dumpledore's little eccentricities are suddenly explained.

_________________

I thoughe eccentricies was the word.

Huh, nevermind.

_________________

I know lots of eccentric people who aren't gay. I know lots of gay people who aren't eccentric. Dumbledore never struck me as a stereotypical gay man, or a stereotypical anything as far as personality is concerned (although his appearance does pay homage to Merlin, the father of all wizard clichés). Does the fact that he's gay really make him a stereotype in your mind?

The fact that he's gay DOESN'T make him a sterotype. Before I thought he was a sterotype for senile old men. Now I'm not so sure.

I know that most gay people aren't eccentric, but like I said, sterotype. Are most Mexicans lazy border jumpers that love Taco Bell? Or are most black people running to the KFC that's three miles away just so they can get a little?

_________________

I just don't think that Dumbles fits the gay stereotype at all. It's the wrong kind of eccentric. I don't think the "senile old man" stereotype fits him either. Once again, he's just eccentric (but very much in his right mind).

The fact is, it was useless to say it. Nobody specifically asked if he was gay or not, so, what was the point of revealing it? She could have had it in mind while writing the book, but there was no indication of his homosexuality in any of the books, and I am a Harry Potter fan. I would know. And there was no point in revealing it after the series was over. So she had to have some ulterior motive, and I just think it was to stir up trouble and get people talking about her and her books again.

Like we are. Right now.

_________________

It doesn't matter if you are a Harry Potter fan: it has to do with understanding homosexuality. Dumbledore being gay makes perfect sense.

And yes, Rowling likes it when we talk about her characters. It's not an ulterior motive, and it's not a crime.

I still don't see how such a statement was useless. Just imagine what a gift Rowling gave to her gay readers. Just because it's useless to you doesn't mean that it's useless information. It certainly wasn't useless to me.

As a person who is completely apathetic towards Rowling and her books who has only read the Epilogue of book 7 just to bother his friends, this is what I have to say: bad form, Rowling, bad form.

Yes, generating debate about your books is nice, but you have effectively alienated a portion of your readers, and have caused a lot of speculation and curiosity that is out of place in the series, quite frankly. Sometimes outing a character won't do anything, as the fanbase could have strongly suspected (to the effect of saying that Donut on rvb, as they explicitly haven't, but we all know) and wouldn't be bothered by it, but fact of the matter is that for a character of whom it doesn't matter, it's simply just annoying, and reeks of "Look at me! Look at me!"

Bad form Rowling, I thought you wouldn't have done something like this so soon.

_________________

I find it interesting that there's more discussion about this FICTIONAL CHARACTER than there is about real people. We've got a discussion about GLBT and privacy issues in another thread, but no one seems to care to post there.

IT'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER! THE STORY IS OVER! NO ONE CARES ANYMORE!

_________________

No it doesn't. Not in the context I said it in, nor in any other way.

The series is over. If she wants to be famous, she can make something new. She has the talent, she can do it.

It shouldn't matter to them at all. Dumbledore being gay makes the book better? That's the same as the people who think that Dumbledore being gay ruins the book for them. I really don't care that he's gay, it's the fact that Rowling HAD to do this that pisses me off. Because she knows that if she calls someone gay, she'll get tons of attention.

_________________

It was never about getting more attention, or making the books better. It was about revealing another aspect of her character. People keep asking "Why did she do that?", but I want to ask the question "Why not?". It's her character. People act like she doesn't have the right to reveal information about her own character, and that it's wrong of her to do so.

So what if he is a fictional character? So what if the series is over? Saying that "nobody cares anymore" is both ridiculous and childish. Lots of people care. If people didn't care, there wouldn't be such a controversy.

Many people are going to care about Harry Potter for a long time. It's called a fandom.

There's a huge controversy because of the "gay" part of it. So many people love to make a big deal about being gay. Including gays - flamboyancy is something that pisses me off extremely badly. Gays, I don't mind, but people who run around and pronounce their homosexuality in a loud way to get attention (!!!!) are horrible attention whores.

If the series is over, and the statement doesn't affect the story at all, then it doesn't matter. At all. She has the right to do it, but it doesn't make it a good thing to do. I have the right to call everyone here a humongous retard, but that doesn't make it a good thing to do. People use the "I have the right" backup all the time, and, well, it's a bad backup. Just because you have the right to be a moron doesn't mean you have to express it.

EDIT: and GIANT facepalm at your avatar. It seems like you're just exited that Dumbledore is gay because you are. Just what I'm seeing.

_________________

It's a rotating avatar. I included the Dumbledore pic in the shuffle to show my support of Rowling's decision.

Rowling did not hurt anybody by outing her character. Those who were upset brought that upon themselves. The statement matters because it was directed towards fans who cared about the character.

Do you know why gays act proud and like "attention whores"? It's retaliation against being put down. It's defiance against those who have tried to make them feel ashamed of themselves. Not only did they decide to not be ashamed, but they decided to be proud of who they are. The mentality of "I'll only tolerate you if you act the way I want you to" pisses me off badly.

Of course, this isn't relevant for the current discussion, because Rowling didn't say what she said to generate controversy and attention. She probably new that controversy and attention would follow her statement, but that was not her motivation. She simply wanted to finally get something off of her chest about a character that she wanted to do for a long time.

Okay, fine.

Ugh. People who are angry at the statement think that it is stupid that she did that. That's all.

Do you know what mature people do if someone tries to put them down? They brush it off. Flamboyant morons who prance around wearing pink bracelets and rainbow shirts and tight pants and eye shadow and whatever are doing it for attention. They're not being rebellious, and if they are, they are wrong in doing so. Because being rebellious about morons who think gay people are horrible is immature. And..I never said that. I said that attention whoring is stupid. You're acting like it's wrong for people to not like someone for acting stupid or annoying them, or whatever.

You're stating it like you know exactly what she was doing, which is false. I have said that it is probable that she did this, or that it was my opinion that she did this. So stop stating your opinions as fact, and we can get along a little bit better, okay?

_________________

I have to say, I wasn't surprised at all by Rowling revealing this. Dumple always reminded me of daVinci to an extent, and wasn't he gay or something?

_________________

If you read my comments in THAT OTHER THREAD I mentioned, you might note that I object to the way they expect US to act in certain ways as well. Some GLBT group wanted a student expelled from UGA because of some stupid comments he made ON AN ANONYMOUS EVALUATION. My thought is, if you wish to promote tolerance, then you must likewise show tolerance toward others. But I would love to hear your thoughts on THAT topic, rather than dragging this discussion of a FICTIONAL CHARACTER through the mud.

Duece: there has been much speculation about that, particularly based on a somewhat ambiguous statement written by one of his pupils (something about his passionate affection, which could be entirely filial for all we know). But nothing concrete.

_________________

The mentality of "I don't like what she said and therefore her saying what she said was a stupid decision" is, in my opinion, immature.



Try being put down every day of your life. Try being put down every hour of your life. The resentment builds up.



First of all, this is gross stereotyping. Second of all, regarding the small portion of gays who do dress like this, they do it because they like to. The enjoy being themselves. They don't do it to grab attention, they do it because they don't care what other people think.



Wait... how is rebelling against a moron "immature"? If anything, it's the smart thing to do. I certainly wouldn't stand for being oppressed by a moron.



Disliking people who annoy you is okay. Thinking that a group of people should conform to the standards established by a separate group of people is not okay.



Of course what I say is my opinion. My thoughts are my opinions. This is a debate thread, thus I state what I believe to be true as a thesis. I am arguing a case.



Very true! That is a very interesting way to look at it. Dumbledore and da Vinci do have quite a few things in common.



I certainly don't believe that gays should be intolerant of straight people. When did I ever give that impression? One of the major themes of the HP series is tolerance of other people.

Also, the fact that this discussion is about a fictional character does not make this discussion any less legitimate.

Who's doing this?
Just curious.

I don't know anyone who's doing this.
I see a lot of "I think the decision was pointless so I say it's pointless", but I don't know of anyone that's saying it's dumb because they don't like it.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

It seems to me, Kween, you want us to care more about this than we really see it worth caring about. You've made your point, and several of us have disagreed with your point. If you'll note, in my own post, I linked you to a real life issue we could discuss if you like, one involving real people, not fictional characters. I'd be interested in your opinion on that topic.

_________________

Rusty stated that "people who are angry at the statement think that it is stupid." That sounds like an "it's dumb because I don't like it" mentality to me.

Not to pick on Rusty, of course.



When I made this thread, I thought that opinions would be more varied. It seems to me that I'm arguing one side of the case single-handedly against many people. I know that I've made my point, but it feels like I need to keep on reiterating it to different people.

My name is Kartoon Kween. I'm a character person. I'm more interested in fictional characters and their effects on real people than anything else.

Was he saying he felt that way?
If so, fair enough.

Carry on.

I'm just playing referee. Until I get married in December, I have no reason to care about Harry Potter at all.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Actually, I do think it's stupid. But I don't know why I should not think something is stupid if I think it is. Now, I don't think other people are stupid for not thinking it's stupid, and I'm not saying that it is, in fact, stupid. I'm saying that I think it's stupid.



Basically, this.



Um, they were, yes. But not so much anymore. And sometimes it's very mature to just ignore stupid people and move on with your life.




This is just from my experience. And if they didn't care what people think, why do they go out of their way to express their homosexuality? I don't run around telling everyone I'm straight. And wearing "I LOVE WOMEN" shirts or whatever.



Rebelling is immature unless there is a purpose other than personal gain. Rebelling because someone hurt your feelings is stupid, because you're getting nothing accomplished.



That's not what I said.



Your attitude just seems really "I'm right, you're wrong, be quiet". Again, this is just what I'm seeing in this thread.

_________________