Dumbledore = cheeky monkey

Hrothgar is an example of a person i would never want to meet.

also, just to echo many of what you guys have said, dumbledore being gay makes so much sense i cant believe it never crossed my mind. there are probably tons of little things like that about characters that we don't know--as Hip said, JK had to flesh out anything and everything before writing--we just don't always get to see it all.
 
GreenPikachu said:
also, just to echo many of what you guys have said, dumbledore being gay makes so much sense i cant believe it never crossed my mind.
Click to expand...

I even considered that possibility while reading about his relationship with Grindelwald, but I was all like "no Dumbledore can't be gay Rowling would had revealed that before if he was" but now, I see it really doesn't change the fact Dumbledore is my favorite character (along with Tonks).

And Hrothgar's reaction to Dumbledore being gay and Rowling communist (even if she actually isn't) is as ridiculous than Christian extremists saying the series is evil because of witchcraft and such.
 
Yeah, when I heard about this I was pretty shocked, but it doesn't change anything at all for me. In fact, it makes the Grindelwald stuff suddenly make more sense.

Hrothgar, has a gay person raped you up the arse or something? I don't see what is so bad about gays... I don't want this to go into a debate about homosexuality, but please stop with this "homosexuality is immoral" stuff. Because frankly, no one cares whether a character in a book is gay or not. The fact that you have this attitude as a father... Ugh, they are going to have a controlled childhood.

So apparently now there is something wrong with questioning authority. The same authority that goes to war for power and wealth? Do you even know what you're talking about? ._.
 
Okay, anyway...

Current count of awesome gay wizards in popular fantasy:
* Gandalf (technically just the actor, but...)
* Dumbledore

That actually covers most of the awesome wizards in popular fantasy, when you think about it...Any I'm missing? They should be pretty awesome to be put on this list.
 
Yeah, it kinda makes sense he had a relationship with that one guy (I forgot his name). Doesn't really change anything.

TC, please don't be so prejudice. Children growing up only able to see one perspective is never good. It's always best to choose what you think is right... Blah blah...
 
i dont see any problem with dumbeldore being gay oh and Hrothgar,there is absolutely nothing wrong with being gay
 
...except it's not that weird, or even that much of a twist when you think about it. It perfectly explains why Dumbledore would stall and stall and stall in going to confront Grindelwald until the last possible moment he could have done it.
 
lol i went to the public library to get the lovely 3rd book just to read it again but fist i go to smogon check congregesion of the masses wich is the first thing i click on when i get here and i find this ...this is really amazing i thought dumbledore was weird and mysterius but not gay seriusly now more people are going to bash this book but im still a fan of the series so...i will still read it however the last book was kind of a dissapointment
 
Bioshock said:
J.K. Rowling is not communist and if she is then so what? Here are some things you need to know

1. Communism is based of the fact that everyone in society is equal.

2. Communist does not = evil person

3. Communism was actually a good idea but the people who implemented it were not ready to accept the whole equality thing and pretty much fucked it up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "the right people haven't been in charge" argument.

So,

The Germans failed (Nazi: Nationalist-Socialists), resulting in mass murder.

The Russians failed, resulting in mass murder.

The Chinese failed, resulting in mass murder.

The Vietnamese failed, resulting in mass murder.

African nations failed, resulting in mass murder.

Who, pray tell, needs to be in charge for communism to "work."

The only thing communism is effective at is spreading poverty, suffering, and mass murder. See: Everywhere communism has ever been implemented.

As to this whole thing?

This is some AP shmuck who didn't have any news to report, so he made stuff up. If they really wanted to say something this outrageous, they should have given us a video quote straight from the horse's mouth, not an AP voiceover.

"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."
Click to expand...

This is a difficult quote to believe coming from anyone over the age of 16. If it is genuine, than J.K. Rowling has jumped the shark.

Moreover, "Dumbledore is gay" does not answer the question "does Dumbledore ever find true love." This is a difficult fluff piece to buy.

Maybe it's all true... it still doesn't point to Rowling as a commie. After all, it is Capitalism which turned her from a poor unknown author to a multi-millionaire.

And Dumbledore is gay? 1: Not surprising 2: Who cares?
 
It sort of irritates me that Rowling would say something like this when there really wasn't any reference to it in any of the books. For all intents and purposes, she led readers to consider Dumbledore to be an asexual character... and now she proclaims him gay? Irresponsible I say... but also irrelevant.
 
Good argument, and I agree. Communism is effective at spreading povert, and causing mass murder. However, I still think that that is because it hasn't been implemented correctly. The reason that it has failed in all those situations is because HUMANS are not ready to accept being equal to each other. Human nature (especially in todays society) is geared towards trying to outdo the others around you, trying to be better than someone. Humans can't accept communism because it goes entirely against human nature. So if you put it this way, nobody is right to implement communism, but the idea is still a pretty good one.


Also, I do think that Rowling did it partly for publicity, but it still explains the Grindelwald thing. But if the movie director had never tried to make a reference to Dumbledore's romantic past then the word never would have gotten out. Still, it doesn't change my love of the books, but it does make me question J.K. Rowling.
 
Deck Knight said:
Moreover, "Dumbledore is gay" does not answer the question "does Dumbledore ever find true love." This is a difficult fluff piece to buy.
Click to expand...

Except that was what was needed to know before going on to answer the question about Dumbledore's love experiences.

I found this kind of amusing. Don't really care, though.
 
Surgo said:
...except it's not that weird, or even that much of a twist when you think about it. It perfectly explains why Dumbledore would stall and stall and stall in going to confront Grindelwald until the last possible moment he could have done it.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're right. Well, the twist- I wasn't referring to the book. Just like...knowledge or fact wise. Like...it totally changes what you thought you knew about Albus. Other than that, you're right.

Aeolus said:
It sort of irritates me that Rowling would say something like this when there really wasn't any reference to it in any of the books. For all intents and purposes, she led readers to consider Dumbledore to be an asexual character... and now she proclaims him gay? Irresponsible I say... but also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what makes it weird for me. But, apparently she already planned for him to be gay, seeing as she had to tell the director that there was no "Miss" Dumbledore.

Bioshock said:
Also, I do think that Rowling did it partly for publicity, but it still explains the Grindelwald thing. But if the movie director had never tried to make a reference to Dumbledore's romantic past then the word never would have gotten out. Still, it doesn't change my love of the books, but it does make me question J.K. Rowling.
Click to expand...

I agree with the "partly publicity" part.
 
Deck Knight said:
Yeah, "the right people haven't been in charge" argument.

So,

The Germans failed (Nazi: Nationalist-Socialists), resulting in mass murder.

The Russians failed, resulting in mass murder.

The Chinese failed, resulting in mass murder.

The Vietnamese failed, resulting in mass murder.

African nations failed, resulting in mass murder.

Who, pray tell, needs to be in charge for communism to "work."

The only thing communism is effective at is spreading poverty, suffering, and mass murder. See: Everywhere communism has ever been implemented.
Click to expand...

Those are not examples of communism, they are examples of socialism. Communism is the abolition of a centralized government, socialism is the transitional phase. Also, its ironic that you cite Nazi Germany as an example of communism. Hitler hated communism. That's why he hated Stalin so much.

I do agree with you though; who cares? Except for some fundies who wouldn't be reading the books anyways, nobody really cares.
 
Well Hrothgar says his only concern in this thread is "how it will affect your take on the potter series":

Well i DON'T like HP still,i don't care about Dumbledore's sexuality.

Damn it is even smart from the author to try to be different from other writers and make one of her most important characters homosexual (when most characters on novels, or kid books are not).

Being able to question authority and the reality we have in front of us is one of the best things about being humans,it makes us different from other beings, don't take your kids from that.
 
If you want to have your 8th grade civics discussion of communism on Smogon, do it [thread=30854]here[/thread] instead.
 
Aeolus said:
It sort of irritates me that Rowling would say something like this when there really wasn't any reference to it in any of the books. For all intents and purposes, she led readers to consider Dumbledore to be an asexual character... and now she proclaims him gay? Irresponsible I say... but also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the exact same thing I was saying to this girl friend of mine. I completely agree with you.
 
you can't really call this a publicity stunt, considering no matter where she goes or what she does the rest of her life, people will worship her for harry potter. she doesn't need a publicity stunt.

and, Aeolus, characters go much deeper than what is in the books. We never actually get to know the full character sketches that authors produce before even writing. JK had probably figured Dumbledore was going to be gay 20 years ago. And, you can't deny that it makes sense. Not to mention, a lot of characters were "asexual" if all you are looking for is some kind of love interest to define one's sexuality.

also, i lol'd hard when I saw Nazism as an example of Communism. They are polar opposites on the political spectrum. Go read a book or something.
 
Aeolus said:
It sort of irritates me that Rowling would say something like this when there really wasn't any reference to it in any of the books. For all intents and purposes, she led readers to consider Dumbledore to be an asexual character... and now she proclaims him gay? Irresponsible I say... but also irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Agreeing 100%. If you're going to out the character, why do it now, almost 4 months after the final book's release? This just doesn't sit right with me. It feels like she's causing controversy just for the sake of controversy. It would've been a million times more controversial if he was outed IN the books.
 
This is awful because it is just, in my eyes, attention whoring since she has already decided not to write, but still wants everyone to ooh and ahh over the books. I do not care that Dumbledore is gay, but if they were going to make him gay, do it in the books early on, not for a publicity stunt.
 
aragornbird said:
Oh lol, beat me to it.

I was just about to comment on how Gandalf is played by a gay actor and now Dumbledore really is gay. This is awesome! The world needs more gay wizards.
Click to expand...

yeah but then all the hates will go "FANTASY IS GAY ALL THE WIZARDS LIKE TO FUCK MEN ETC ETC"

oh well, it doesn't put a damper on how I read the book. I didn't envision Dumbledore as gay particularly, but it does make sense.
 
This makes no sense in more ways than one.

First of all, there was absolutely NO mention in the books of Dumbledore's homosexuality. In fact, there wasn't even a reference to his sexuality at all. This just seems like Rowling was like, "o btw ppl, dd is a homo sry!" How can this be canon?

Secondly, I am annoyed by Hrothgar's proposal to not let his children read the books now that Dumbeledore is gay. How the hell does that impact the books in any way? As I just stated, the books have no reference to Dumbledore's sexuality choices. Also, how can you say homosexuality is immoral? People can do whatever they want with their lives.

And since when is it wrong to question authority? I do it every day. It helps troubled masses to cope with everyday life. Think of the creation myths of early civilizations. Think of God, Ra, Allah, etc. Nobody would have thought these up if it weren't for them questioning how the world came to be. They questioned the authority of nature. Then look at atheists/agnostics. We (I am atheist) question the authority of the church to force their beliefs upon us. When we question, we learn.

The Harry Potter books are a brilliant example of how the world reacts when someone, even a child, begins to question authority. Sure, it may turn the world upside down in the process, but aren't we better for it in the end?
 
To add something constructive this time...

Lutalo said:
It would've been a million times more controversial if he was outed IN the books.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much exactly why I would agree with her decision to play this the way she did from a tactical standpoint. It's a little less bold the way she did it but it reduces the potential outrage a bit, although I would assume she did it the way she did it to ensure it didn't effect the sales of the last book, which I am willing to bet would have been effected(although maybe not as substantially as my bitterness might lead me to believe).


Anyway I'm not exactly Harry Potter fanboi #1 but this little revelation does make sense in a lot of ways to me. While I'm definitely not nearly as accomplished as Rowling is obviously, having spent some time writing I can definitely attest to the fact that you need to know a lot more about your characters than you'll ever have time to fit into series of books to make them as believable as possible. I'm sure we've all spent a lot more time with people in real life than we spend with these characters by reading the books, why should we expect to know everything there is to know about them by reading the series? I think this is especially true with a character like Dumbledore who Harry doesn't really understand on any level until near the end of the last book, and even then he's really only starting to understand him.

It also makes sense with him not wanting to confront Grindelwald, but I think more than that it makes sense in that he never really gave an adequate explanation to anyone we have access to about WHY he didn't confront Grindelwald, and this would definitely be an acceptable explanation about why he wouldn't have given an explanation.



Additionally, I'm really not sure I buy the publicity stunt thing - I don't believe that all attention is good attention and this is definitely not good attention. I think she would have realized she had a lot more to lose by saying this than she had to gain, which is exactly why she said it once it was mostly to the success of her writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top