Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Dumbledore!

I'm sure that we all have an opinion about this. Should Rowling have outed her character in the way that she did? Should she have directly mentioned it in the books? Was this a victory for tolerance, or a blow? Should she have kept this tidbit of information a secret? Was this nothing more than a sincere answer to a question asked by a fan, or a sly ploy for more publicity? How does this affect the "Harry Potter" series's status as a "children's book"?

I'm personally glad that Rowling outed her character in the way that she did. I think that if she directly referenced homosexuality in her books, some parents wouldn't want their children to read them anymore. I think that by telling telling the world that her beloved character was gay after everyone read the books, she was more effective at winning a victory for tolerance.

This is called "OH CRAP I'M OUT OF BOOKS I NEED A WAY TO GET MORE ATTENTION!"

_________________
Sincerely,

Vitruvian Zeno

Nah. She has enough attention. Just because her books are over hyped doesn't mean that Rowling's an attention whore.

I didn't know whether to chuckle lightly or groan audibly so I just sighed and moved on with my life.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

You know what this is going to do for the "HARRY POTTER IS EVIL AND WILL DESTROY YOUR KIDS!!1!!ONEONE!!11!!!" people, right?

When will the ACLU press for hate crime charges against Snape for killing him?

Also, when will the gay community boycott Rowling for being a hatemonger? I mean, she killed the gay character!!!

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

This sounds like an Attention Whore move to me.

Next thing you know, it turns out that Ron is a furry and Hermione's cat is actually an amorphic dog, and thats why Ron married her.

Also, ten bucks says HUGO becomes a free radical.


HUGO >:(

_________________

OH I GET IT

lol, inverse.

_________________

OH! Um.. actually no, that's not what I was talking about. I just thought the quote was ridiculous. But for your excellent work at Freudian interpretation, you receive this year's Sigmund award. All expenses paid trip to Vienna included.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Wow, GAY PEOPLE CAN BE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO BE!

Except, ya know, be straight.

_________________

Anybody can be anything they wanna be, except for a wizard headmaster!

Jeez.

ITS ALL UNSPARTAN!

_________________

It wasn't mentioned AT ALL in the books and it didn't affect the plot in any way, so... what's the point? I call attention grabbing.

_________________

Even though it wasn't directly stated in the books, it was heavily implied. Much of the books was from Harry's point of view. Harry's a bit thick when it comes to human relationships, so of course he never had any idea that ole Dumbles was gay.

It may not effect the plot, but it does add a dimension to one of her main characters. Being more of a character person than a plot person myself, learning something new about him made my day.

Rowling has developed her characters so thoroughly that there is loads of information about them that did not make it into the books. I think that this particular tidbit of information serves better as an afterthought, anyway.

And what an afterthought it was...

Aaaamen. Stupid. Dumbledore's sexuality was not a part of the books at all and then she comes out with this after book 7 is out? Dumb.

And honestly, it bothers me. Dumbledore is one of my favorite characters of all time and the fact that he's gay kinda ruins that.

(Feel free to call me a bigot.)

I think I'll just ignore the announcement and move on.



Feel free to provide some supporting evidence for this statement.

_________________

I bet you $20 that if you inserted certain sexual phrases at certain points in all of the books, it would make for a very interesting read.

_________________

I don't have my book with me (I'm in my college dorm right now), so I can't provide quotes at this moment. However, I can tell you what I remember.

I remember Rita Skeeter referring to Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship as "unnatural". I also remember reading about how Dumbledore was so heavily drawn to Grindelwald. If you ask me, Dumbledore being gay makes perfect sense.

I know that it's amazing what foreshadowing you can find when you reread a book. People were saying that the whole Harry/Ginny romance was sudden and wasn't built up to, but after rereading some of the earlier books, I found that their were plenty of clues. That's just Rowling's style: she foreshadows things in a very subtle way, and then BAM! She reveals something that catches us off guard.

EDIT:: Here's an article on the subject that you might find interesting:

Seven Clues that Dumbledore is Gay

Yeah, but now I can't help but thinking there are two San Fransisco's now.

_________________

First Gandalf, now Dumpledore. Who next, Obi Wan?

If it mattered at all to the story, why not bring it up in the story? And if not, then why bring it up now?

_________________

I doubt it was a publicity stunt. She has no particular incentive to get publicity right now, and she doesn't strike me as the type who would get publicity for publicity's sake. I'd think that she said Dumbledore was gay because, well, he was. I doubt she just made it up on the spur of the moment.



But why should it ruin it? It's not like it even matters. It doesn't make the Dumbledore you know any different.



Wait, what's this about Gandalf?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Ian McKellen.

_________________

Oh. Well, actors and characters are two different things

_________________
404 sig not found

Dude, it wasn't Obi-Wan that was gay. It was Qui-Gon and Darth Maul.

_________________

I don't know why, but I'm cracking up right now.

_________________

No, just two Castros.

_________________

I hate to be a cranky ol' mod, but I'm just gonna ask that this thread not be taken too lightly, mmkay? The "headmaster" thing was already out of line, COLA's comments are largely irrelevant, and so forth. So far I've let it slide, but I'm not gonna let the thread continue down that road. So, please, stick to the topic and I don't mean by making crude jokes, all right?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

The anti-Potter people were already 100% certain the series was evil, and you can't really improve on that. This will certainly fan the flames of their hatred, but it won't make any essential difference. They're inconsequential and I expect Rowling knows that.

I expect the LGBT community's overall reaction will be happiness that Rowling included a gay character, but some disappointment that she waited until the series was over to out him. Others, however, will say she played it smart, waiting until the character became an intractable part of pop culture before springing this news. You already know and love the character, now you find this out...how do you react?

It's more than a little analogous to the process people go through when a friend or family member comes out to them. Suddenly your affection for this person gets weighed against your opinion of their sexuality. If you've never had a person you have strong feelings for come out to you -- and it can happen to anyone and at almost any time -- then this Dumbledore business is giving you a little preview of the experience.

As for Dumbledore being "the" gay character, who's to say Rowling won't out someone else later on?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

You know, I can understand Rowling’s reasoning. There are some little bits of random character trivia that you might not find a good opportunity to provide in the book itself, but that are valid fact anyway. Anyone who writes books probably has a whole compendium of knowledge about each and every character- that doesn’t mean it’ll make it into the book.

It was only a matter of time before someone asked about Dumbledore’s love life, so why not tell the truth she had established in her mind?

And personally? I think that’s kinda cool.

I feel like the only Harry Potter fan on the internet who doesn't care about this. So Dumbledore's gay. So what? It does make his relationship with Grindelwald more interesting, though.

_________________
"Explain to me how drowning them would not ruin their date."

Since when? I never hated the books or anything, but I never thought of them as "Christian" either. At least not in the same way as LWW. Certainly there are some common themes of death, resurrection, self-sacrifice, and redemption, but that in itself doesn't make it "Christian." What I'm wondering, though, is how this statement squares with the fundies who claimed the books were satanic.


This makes perfect sense to me. He's a fictional character of a fictional place. Heck, wizards aren't even real (as far as we know)! So what difference does it make either way?

_________________

Yeah, the fanatical Christian audience never liked Harry Potter anyway, so I dunno what that fundie's on about with the biblical Christians saying it was Christian.

_________________