How am I supposed to read the books the same way ever again? I mean, did she just throw it in there for kicks?
If you look back far enough, you’ll remember that Rosie Odanell (sp?) aka fat-lesbian-bitch talked nonstop about how awesome the first book was when it first came out. You wanna bet that he was made into a gay man as kind of a repayment? Conspiracy, I tell you, conspiracy!
Not that I actually read the books, mind you, I just like making fun of 'ol fatass herself.
If that ruins a book for you, then you have other much more important issues to deal with.
Yes, Dumbledore is gay. Move along now children.
I also feel like she just tossed that in there for kicks. Whats the purpose? In the appearence where she released this little tidbit she also mentioned that her books were an effort to promote tolerance. Tolerance? Since when? Puh-leeze, maybe after the conservative right lambasted the books for promoting witchcraft but I highly doubt thats how this whole thing started.
There would be a much stronger case for that if there were other openly gay characters in the books but to my knowledge there are none.
Makes sense. Dumbledore always seemed too decent to be straight
It would have been more powerful if he had actually come out in one of the books.
Just because he’s gay doesn’t mean he’s constantly thinking about gay sex. I mean, straight guys aren’t constantly thinking about straight sex.
Just most of the time.
Listen to Eden!
I love how the article says, in hindsight, it’s clear why Dumbledore was so nice to Harry. Because, whereas normally such affection is reserved for “father-son” or other blood relationships, Dumbledore’s homosexuality allows him to care <i>just that much more.</i>
Let’s not leap to any conclusions about Dumbledore being a caring, sympathetic person, who tries to help a boy with unusual challenges and vulnerabilities. Best to stick to an objective explanation, like pent-up pederastic desire.
i thought he was just a nice guy
Who cares if he wants to screw guys and not gals?
I agree with Sorcerer…it’s not really the fact that he’s gay that’s the problem - it’s more the fact that it doesn’t really follow all that well that’s the problem. Personally, I always thought of Dumbledore as asexual.
Ageist! Just because he is in his 90s doesn’t mean he doesn’t want sex!
Anyways, the way I look at this is that J.K is just sharing her inspiration for her character with us. If you’ve ever written something you know that you do not include every single inspiration that you have about a character or event into the finale copy.
To be honest I am glad she did not put it in a book. Given how many people have difficulties with homosexuality, homosexual main character and ect. it would have over shadowed what the book was really about: an angsty teenager. I don’t really think people are ready for a mainstream title with an openly gay character in a book not being about being gay or how hard it is to be gay or falling in love with a guy only to marry a women; which is pretty much what all of the mainstream gay titles out there encompass.
Why do I think that this is so? Well look at your responses to Dumbledore being gay as an example: “Ohh it doesn’t fit, ohh no one else is gay, ohh liberal bullshit and tolerance blaaaaah blah blah, ohhh Dumbledore must have been a pedophile why else would he have any relationship with a student at his schoooool”. I can just imagine if there was an announcement that Locke (FF6) was gay from SE you would have the same response as I am seeing here! (This is not an accusation of intolerance, merely an observation of the social relation to invisible minorities in the media and assumed heterosexuality.)
You know … I think Eden maketh a pretty awesome point there.
I still think Xwing’s comment was the most awesome :]
Originally Posted by Eden99
I can just imagine if there was an announcement that Locke (FF6) was gay from SE you would have the same response as I am seeing here!
But wasn’t that the real reason for Celes’s suicide attempt?
If anything, I’d say it was more his necrophilia.
Ew, uh, seeing as how I never beat FF6 and just stopped at the Floating Island, I might have to beat it now just to see what your talking about.
If you can’t put it in the book, what’s the point of stating it now? I don’t see anything in the books which point in either direction that hint at Dumbledore’s sexuality, which is another reason why I dislike this announcement.
There’s also the point, that, you know, the more this kind of thing happens, the easier it is for people to say that that kind of behavior is okay. There, I said it. If I limited it just to the books though, I still think that it doesn’t make the narrative any richer or complex by placing an strange quirk on one of the characters after the journey is over.
The explanation and “hints” of his homosexuality are ridiculous - Xwing’s comments put in perspective nicely. Oh, yeah, see, Grindelwald staying and trying to help Dumbledore when they are younger was because of pent up sexual desire, not because they were friends or anything like that. He loved hanging out “with lads his own age”, which is such a good identifier, right? It just smatters of implausibility and even worse, of trying to shove a message down a story that isn’t true to a character…or, you know…morally right.
Perhaps you are right Mullenkamp, if it happens more often I won’t have to listen to people talk about being gay as a kind of anomalous ‘behavior’ or ‘strange quirk’; but then again as I said, if the book or film isn’t about the character being gay, then all of the Mullenkamps out there can refer to it as just a strange quirk- a mere err of personality that plagues an otherwise well thought out character.
Oh, and Locke isn’t gay- I was merely making an example; but thank you for adding to my point with your well placed “ew”.