Shocking revelation?

[Majimaune]

SO who actually cares?

 

[Mithridelle]

Not me really, but I think that my leaving this thread would be wise as I seem to offend someone at every corner I turn.

 

[Cayal]

my understanding is that she revealed dumbledores homosexual status in response to a fan asking her whether dumbledore ever found true love.

im guessing she never revealed it in the books cause it bore no direct relation to the plot and would have appeared like she was including it just to say hey look ive got a gay character and cause more controversy about the books. from what ive heard she kept it secret until now cause she didnt want more controversy round her books whilst writing them

of course i could be wrong and shes just trying to gather more attention for her books now the their all writen and published and not so much an obssesion for the public

I am more inclined to think that she never revealed it because it would hurt sales and fans would drop off (probably because of parents).

Homosexuality is not all that accepted in todays society. Tolerated yes. Accepted not always.
Harry Potter is predominately a children's book and some of the conservative, blame-everyone-but-myself-for-my-child-for-being-a -psycho parents out there do not want there kids exposed to the homosexual 'lifestyle'.
It may, in their mind, glorify or influence (how I don't know) their child to become as their hero.

And as some have alluded too on this thread the whole what goes on behind closed doors thing would no doubt have an impact.

Just my 2c

 

[Toraspanda]

My problem here is with Rowling, not with Dumbledore. In my view, a book, or a series, should stand on its own merits, without further explanations and glosses by the writer. By explicitly revealing such a vital fact about one of her main characters after the close of the series, she has lost my respect. If Dumbledore's sexual nature was an issue, but not revealed in the book, then she simply hasn't done her job as a writer. Every writer has back-story for her/his characters; it's what gives life and reality to them. But that's what it should remain - back-story, not spelled out later, in press-conferences and tv interviews.

"Implicit" or not,Dumbledore's homosexuality is not made an issue in the books - he comes across as a celibate, who has given his life to ideas and ideals. This would make his sexual nature largely irrelevant to the Harry Potter stories , and I can see no justification for her not shutting up about it after the fact!

I am inclined to think that, if Rowling did not let this out as a publicity ploy, she must be incredibly naive. For every sensitive, discerning, evolved reader, there will be a hundred who will either be shocked - or, perhaps as bad, jump on the bandwagon and claim Dumbledore as a Gay Idol. How can she not have expected a huge fuss over this revelation? She's a writer, for heaven's sake: surely she has a better idea of human nature than to be surprised and annoyed at the reactions this news has provoked!

By dragging in this irrelevance, and exposing the character of Dumbledore to misunderstanding and misrepresentation (did she really think the bigots and idiots wouldn't equate homosexuality with paedophile tendencies? ); by constantly revealing tidbits of back-story to avid and undiscerning fans, Rowling risks turning what was something new and original into some kind of trashy Hollywood Soap.

 

[Cayal]

Did anyone think Dumbledore was a homosexual after reading about him and Grindelwald?

 

[Toraspanda]

Did anyone think Dumbledore was a homosexual after reading about him and Grindelwald?

Not me. I just thought it was a case of an idealised adolescent emotional/intellectual attraction. Rowling said recently that it was implicit, and I suppose she would know - it just didn't strike me to wonder about it while reading the books.

 

[Nesacat]

No it didn't. I thought as Toraspanda did and given the setting of the book, that's pretty natural.

If you're going to read all kinds of meanings into everything that is written you'll never get through books and probably go crazy in the process.

If it's something crucial to the nature of a character then for goodness sake go ahead and say it in the books, not months later and only because someone happened to ask.

 

[Connavar]

Its so pointless for the most hyped author in the world to be this desperate for attention.

Its not like the fans will suddenly forget HP, im sure her publisher wont even give people chance to forget with guides and everything else HP coming.

Im not fan of HP or JK but i respected her for creating a series that has made many kids and young people to read more. My two sisters are not passioned about any book except HP books. Now this stupid move make her look smaller in my eyes.

 

[Majimaune]

Not me really, but I think that my leaving this thread would be wise as I seem to offend someone at every corner I turn.

I think that might be right for me too.

The only reason this stuff was brought out was because of the movie cause the directer wanted to put something in about a girl Dumby liked and Rowling said he was gay. I mean big deal! I don't f*ck*ng care!

 

[Koopa]

Well homosexual isn't entirely natural is it? In a primitive sort of natural way, sex is mainly how humanity reproduces. You can't make babies from two men.

Before you start with your angry barrage, let me just say I have nothing against homosexuality, and I also think its a non-issue here. I just can't see how it fits in to nature's plan of survival and reproduction. Maybe then, its a human thing, like art. Nothing wrong with art either!

Well studies have shown that 30 -40 % of all people have gay tendencies, and this is not only an occurence with humans, but is true for all animals. Wich bassicaly means that homosexuality is indeed a natural thing. Its true that humans cant reproduce themselves with being of the same sex, but since when has that been our only motivation?

Also while i too could not care less about Dumbledore's sexuality, i can not help but think that there are some hints that he is gay albeit very small ones.

That said i do not believe that complete tolerance will ever be possible.
Each and every one of us judges others by his own standards, therefore some prejudices are unavoidable. We just cant let them reign over us.
For instance being not gay myself, having sex with another man gives me the creeps, even though i can understand that some prefer it, and that i can live with that, have no problems with that. Or the simple fact that most people will easier make friends with those of the same skincolour, and that especially when you have not often come into contact with other skincolours, you will be more cautious/suspicious of that person. Even though you know that the colour of ones skin does not determine wether one is a good person or not. In time, or when you live in a multicultural environment where you often meet with those with different skincolours, that feeling of anxiety lessens. This is proven.

 

[murphy]

Well studies have shown that 30 -40 % of all people have gay tendencies, and this is not only an occurence with humans, but is true for all animals. Wich bassicaly means that homosexuality is indeed a natural thing. Its true that humans cant reproduce themselves with being of the same sex, but since when has that been our only motivation?

Also while i too could not care less about Dumbledore's sexuality, i can not help but think that there are some hints that he is gay albeit very small ones.

That said i do not believe that complete tolerance will ever be possible.
Each and every one of us judges others by his own standards, therefore some prejudices are unavoidable. We just cant let them reign over us.
For instance being not gay myself, having sex with another man gives me the creeps, even though i can understand that some prefer it, and that i can live with that, have no problems with that. Or the simple fact that most people will easier make friends with those of the same skincolour, and that especially when you have not often come into contact with other skincolours, you will be more cautious/suspicious of that person. Even though you know that the colour of ones skin does not determine wether one is a good person or not. In time, or when you live in a multicultural environment where you often meet with those with different skincolours, that feeling of anxiety lessens. This is proven.

Well stated.

 

[Cayal]

Well studies have shown that 30 -40 % of all people have gay tendencies, and this is not only an occurence with humans, but is true for all animals. Wich bassicaly means that homosexuality is indeed a natural thing.

How is that natural when it is barely a third of all living things?

And what is defined as a homosexual tendency? Thinking a man is attractive (or woman)? or experimenting in same sex relations?

 

[Commonmind]

What is defined as a "homosexual" tendency is too subjective for any "studies" to have labeled 30-40% of the entire population as having had them.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

I agree. "Tendencies" are not enough to define homosexuality, which, in its proper sense, is sexuality between people of the same sex. And occasional homosexual behaviour is not considered "homosexuality".

Psychologists agree on the fact that homosexual fantasies, or--and especially--unconscious attraction to a person of the same sex, are commonplace in the heterosexual population.

Freud said that friendship is a form of sexual love that is sublimated.

Sublimation=use of sexual energy (libido) to another end: in this case, friendship, but also artistic creation, scientific research....

 

[Koopa]

okay, first i dont know the scientific lingo, i do know that those tests had the reguired qualification of validity,.... and so forth (if i recal there where 3 or 4 qualifications a test needed to draw true results from or so.)

As for saying 1/3 isn't natural... Basically you are seeing that at all times 1/3 ....

rest will be added later, someone else has need of the comp. i'll explain futher.

 

[Cayal]

okay, first i dont know the scientific lingo, i do know that those tests had the reguired qualification of validity,.... and so forth (if i recal there where 3 or 4 qualifications a test needed to draw true results from or so.)

As for saying 1/3 isn't natural... Basically you are seeing that at all times 1/3 ....

rest will be added later, someone else has need of the comp. i'll explain futher.

damn the suspense is killing me

 

[Ursa major]

I won't enter into the arguments about what is natural and what is not (except to say that if it's found in nature, it's "natural"). Neither will I speculate on how many gay whatevers dance on a pinhead - no one is ever likely to know the "correct" answer one way or the other. I would like to comment on two things.

The term "tendency" (in relation to any attribute) is so vague that I find it hard to accept that any study could have it as a definitive finding. (I'm assuming it's not one of theose "studies" beloved of newspaper editors on slow news days, but....)

The phrase "required qualification of validity" is a wondeful phrase: it has all the hallmarks of both total certainty and flagrant dissembling.

(I would also like to add that even non-controversial peer-reviewed studies into run-of-the-mill topics can be wrong.)

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

I agree on every point, Ursa.

 

[The Pelagic Argosy]

I think it's revealing that so many people claim to be open-minded about homosexuality and to find this detail irrelevant. So...where does all the hostility come from?

As far as this detail being irrelevant and outside the scope of the books, yes, it is. However, Rowling has revealed many details about the characters that didn't make the books. During the same speech, for example, she also discussed Neville's love life in response to an audience question. Where are all the shouts of "who cares"? In other interviews, she talked about how Harry and Ron go on to work at the ministry, etc. Who's the new Hogwarts headmaster? Does Harry's son make Gryffindor? What becomes of the house elves? Etc. All of this is "irrelevant." But the fans care. The sheer volume of HP fanfic out there demonstrates that fans care about these characters lives outside the pages. (And, as is human nature, they are interested in their love lives.)

I admit that my initial reaction to the news was also "What the @#$!?!?" But I'll tell you why I'm annoyed with Rowling: she forced me to confront my own homophobia. Why should I find this detail so unsettling if I am as "cool with it" as I believe myself to be? Why is this detail so different?

As for the idea that Rowling is just trying to drum up publicity...yeah, that's what I'd be worried about too while speaking at Carnegie Hall.

 

[j d worthington]

P.A. -- I tend to agree with you on this, to a large degree. My initial reaction was not hostility because of the concept, but because (from the way it was reported in the story I saw) it seemed pointless and gratuitous -- like jumping on the "gay is good" bandwagon (which, it seems to me, is what a lot of the media has done, reminding me of "the lady doth protest too much" sort of thing; i.e., inverted -- and unadmitted -- hatred of that which is praised). However, once I found out it was in response to a reader's question, while I still felt it was a bit of fluff, it made sense. (I'm still not sure it's not jumping on that bandwagon, but it's much, much less likely.) If there are things in the book that seem to support the idea that he's homosexual, then I'd say it was a part of her conception of the character the entire time. If this is a last-minute addition, then it does seem bandwagon-hopping....

Other than that, I feel that the proper response to this whole idea is that, as these are fictional characters, and Rowling created them, whatever she does with them is her business. In my case, it's a "shrug: 'okay'" and move on to something I give a damn about, whereas it seems to me that the sensible thing for a fan of her work is to find it interesting or not, dislike this tendency or not, but with no more of a heat than one would any other point of interest from a favored writer and their work....

I'm just amazed at how much of a tempest in a teapot this has created. Personally, I'd be more interested in meatier topics where a writer's work is concerned -- the subtexts, the ideas being explored, the writer's use of the language, metaphor, etc., and how that use is effective or not in giving the work a richness and complexity to support repeated readings (and rediscoverings) of the work, and so on.... This just seems... such a trivial thing to get all het up about.....