[selowitch]

Rowling revealed to a group of kids that a much-loved character in the Harry Potter series is gay.

I can see it now. Republicans in the U.S. Congress will introduce a measure called the Defense of Literary Marriage Act, forbidding fictional characters from entering into same-sex unions.

[Mithras]

Awesome, Sam

[Cold Warrior]

And Dems will throw coming-out parties at San Fransisco elementary schools and let all the extremist gay paraders attend wearing their banana hammocks and decorating the school libraries with strap-ons and male clowns wearing lingerie.

[James L]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

extremist gay paraders

[Chuckit]

Ha! Does anybody know if this chick is married? I don't care if she's 20 years older than me — I'm proposing.

(Then again, Dumbledore was always kind of swishy, so it's not that shocking.)

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Ha! Does anybody know if this chick is married? I don't care if she's 20 years older than me — I'm proposing.

You're in luck, Chuck. She's divorced, and apparently fair game. She's pretty good-looking, if you ask me, and obviously bright and successful. But it also looks like she's a single parent who enjoys her independence. Good luck. If it works out, invite me to the wedding, willya?

So as soon as the GOP passes its Defense of Literary Marriage Act (I'm calling it Craig-Vitter -- catchy, huh?), I imagine they will hold mass book burnings to make sure that millions of children as spared the "perverted," values-warping experience of reading a book where a major character is reputed to be attracted to the "wrong" gender.

[ghporter]

Ms. Rowling has stated that one of her aims is to get people to challenge authority and the status quo. I like that. She says (in the newspaper article I read on this this morning) that she expects this to be one more reason for extremist Christian groups to boycot her books.

Oh, and she's been married (her second time) since 2001 to Neil Murray. Lucky guy.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Oh, and she's been married (her second time) since 2001 to Neil Murray. Lucky guy.

Yeah, I think you're right -- she's married for the second time to an anesthesiologist. My bad. Sorry, Chuck.

[shifuimam]

That is f!cking retarded. Who gives a shït who he has sex with? Does Dumbledore's sexuality have anything to do with his character throughout all seven books?

No. Unless he was off trying to stick it Snape or Lupin or Harry's dad or something, he could be fricking asexual for all the reader cares, since it has nothing to do with the plot or the character development.

This was a pretty stupid PR move. Unless who a character is attracted to or sleeping with is part of the story (Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, Ron's jealousy of Krum at the winter ball in the fourth book), their sexuality makes. No. Difference.

Rowling apparently is now getting her kicks from trying her hardest to shock her readers. Perhaps next she'll announce that McGonagall was a pre-op transvesite with breasts and a big 10" penis.

[Nodnarb]

Weird. Never really thought about it, but I guess it makes sense. I just thought of him as the old genius who was too busy for women. Well, looking back, I guess if that doesn't equal gay, I don't know what does!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

T
Rowling apparently is now getting her kicks from trying her hardest to shock her readers. Perhaps next she'll announce that McGonagall was a pre-op transvesite with breasts and a big 10" penis.

And if you don't agree with it, why you're an insensitive backward no gooder!

This is all PR and attention whoring. I HOPE no one gives her the PR she is expecting from it and just ignores the obvious attempts.

[Nodnarb]

You're right it doesn't have much to do with the story, but be fair. It's not as if she woke up and went to a press release and said "DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!!!! SUCK ON THAT!"

She was asked a question about his relationships or something, and she answered it honestly. I see nothing wrong with that.

She is now able to speak freely about the books because there are no more secrets. For the past 10 years, everything with Harry Potter has been a secret, but now she has no reason to hide anything.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That is f!cking retarded. Who gives a shït who he has sex with? Does Dumbledore's sexuality have anything to do with his character throughout all seven books?

No. Unless he was off trying to stick it Snape or Lupin or Harry's dad or something, he could be fricking asexual for all the reader cares, since it has nothing to do with the plot or the character development.

This was a pretty stupid PR move. Unless who a character is attracted to or sleeping with is part of the story (Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, Ron's jealousy of Krum at the winter ball in the fourth book), their sexuality makes. No. Difference.

Rowling apparently is now getting her kicks from trying her hardest to shock her readers. Perhaps next she'll announce that McGonagall was a pre-op transvesite with breasts and a big 10" penis.

A little of an extreme reaction, but I agree. Unless it had actually to do with the story line, what purpose does this serve, other than to further agitate, and probably coalesce, a bunch of homophobes, at a time when the gay community is making slow but sure progress to achieve what it deserves?

[starman]

I didn't read all the books, but is there even a hint about this in any of them? I mean, what's the point of this other than a ridiculous PR move?

[selowitch]

If feel bad for shufuimam and conservatives like her who are so threatened by the slightest whiff of anything gay that they feel compelled to rail against it whenever it is discussed.

[Nodnarb]

I truly do not think that Rowling thought of her comment as disatorous for the gay community, at least not before she said it. I really think she was just speaking her mind about a character she's known for over 10 years. I don't think it's some huge plot to rowl up all the Christians into burning her books (although that will probably happen anyways )

[starman]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

If feel bad for shufuimam and conservatives like her who are so threatened by the slightest whiff of anything gay that they feel compelled to rail against it whenever it is discussed.

I think you completely misunderstood what shifuimam said. I suggest you re-read it.

[Art Vandelay]

CNN.com has more of the story. I see nothing wrong with it and it does give you more of a backstory of the character. His sexuality is unimportant. However, knowing that he ended up having to fight and defeat his love does add to the character. This explains why he was so hesitant to take on Grindelwald.

She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds "true love."

"Dumbledore is gay," the author responded to gasps and applause.

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."

Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."

[Kevin]

Yeah as I didn't get that from shif's post either.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That is f!cking retarded. Who gives a shït who he has sex with?

Maybe…the person who asked Rowling the question? I mean, really, you could object just as strongly to Rowling's revelation about the characters' future career paths, since they don't really affect what happened in the books. But people are just curious to know more about the characters.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Maybe…the person who asked Rowlilng the question?

The person didn't ask if he was gay.

[Kevin]

BTW

Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland. She once said, "I believe in God, not magic." Early on she felt that if readers knew of her Christian beliefs, they would be able to "guess what is coming in the books."[73] Rowling has stated that she struggles with her own beliefs. In an interview with the Today Show in July 2007, she said, "...until we reached Book Seven, views of what happens after death and so on...would give away a lot of what was coming. So … yes, my belief and my struggling with religious belief and so on I think is quite apparent in this book."[74]



She kinda looks like Ann Coulter.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by starman 

The person didn't ask if he was gay.

No, the person asked if Dumbledore ever fell in love. You can't really answer the question without revealing his sexuality. I mean, what, was she supposed to refuse to give a straight answer just so as not to offend a bunch of bigots?

[Nodnarb]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

CNN.com has more of the story. I see nothing wrong with it and it does give you more of a backstory of the character. His sexuality is unimportant. However, knowing that he ended up having to fight and defeat his love does add to the character. This explains why he was so hesitant to take on Grindelwald.

Exactly! that quote you provided says a lot more... if you've actually read the novels (i'm not saying you in particular, just anyone) then you know that dumbledore and gridelwald experimented with dark arts as kids and the whole stuff with "the greater good" that casts a shadow on dumbledore's greatness... It makes so much more sense with that actually, because "love blinds us" and dumbledore went along with grindelwald for that reason, which actually does have bearing on the story.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

She kinda looks like Ann Coulter.

I can see it. She looks like Ann Coulter would look if Ann Coulter looked like a woman.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, the person asked if Dumbledore ever fell in love. What, was she supposed to refuse to give a straight answer just so as not to offend a bunch of bigots?

A few things here, and I'm not speaking on MY beliefs.

The books are printed through Scholastic. I'm wondering how happy THEY are about this.

This could conceivably turn certain people in certain parts of the country against the books.

I just think it's a bad PR move. If she wanted to explicitly say he was gay, she should have done it in the books. I think this is a poor way of saying what she wanted after the books were published, like "ha! I got away with it".

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, the person asked if Dumbledore ever fell in love.

If you were gay, and someone asked you that question, could you answer without saying "Oh and I am gay toO!!"?

Sure you could. As your sexual preference has nothing to do with being in love.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can see it. She looks like Ann Coulter would look if Ann Coulter looked like a woman.

Ah come on, if AK acted like Ann you'd be saying the same things about her.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If you were gay, and someone asked you that question, could you answer without saying "Oh and I am gay toO!!"?

Sure you could.

Yes, if I wanted to give an evasive an unsatisfactory one-word answer. If I actually wanted to answer the question as the person intended it, though, I would have to reveal with whom I was in love.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah come on, if AK acted like Ann you'd be saying the same things about her.

Nah, I'd be saying different nasty things about her. For instance, I think Michelle Malkin is a total nut who is only ever right by coincidence, but I readily admit she's hot.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by starman 

I just think it's a bad PR move. If she wanted to explicitly say he was gay, she should have done it in the books. I think this is a poor way of saying what she wanted after the books were published, like "ha! I got away with it".

Agreed.

If this actually mattered to the plot, as she's claiming it did, she would have fit it in there somehow - those books have such complex, intricate plots throughout the entire series. She didn't miss a single detail. If this mattered, why did she wait until months after the series was complete to announce it to the world?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

That is f!cking retarded. Who gives a shït who he has sex with? Does Dumbledore's sexuality have anything to do with his character throughout all seven books?

No. Unless he was off trying to stick it Snape or Lupin or Harry's dad or something, he could be fricking asexual for all the reader cares, since it has nothing to do with the plot or the character development.

This was a pretty stupid PR move. Unless who a character is attracted to or sleeping with is part of the story (Harry and Ginny, Ron and Hermione, Ron's jealousy of Krum at the winter ball in the fourth book), their sexuality makes. No. Difference.

Rowling apparently is now getting her kicks from trying her hardest to shock her readers. Perhaps next she'll announce that McGonagall was a pre-op transvesite with breasts and a big 10" penis.

I agree with this. Unless she specifically wrote it in its like saying he had size 9 shoes.

Then again, it never made much sense to me why Dumbledore got involved with the dark wizard fellow so this might provide a motive.

[MindFad]

Oh, never mind.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

I agree with this. Unless she specifically wrote it in its like saying he had size 9 shoes.

And in fact people ask — and Rowling answers — this kind of question all the time. Aside from things that would spoil future books, she's always been happy to provide additional details like this. The only reason for anyone to single this one out is pretty obvious. People weren't outraged that Hermione was originally supposed to have a sister but is an only child in canon. They weren't outraged to discover what shape Ron's patronus took. Nobody was furious to hear about Neville's future career. Why? Because nobody has hang-ups about herbology.

[starman]

I wonder.

She did this in Hollywood, Calif.

Would sha have done the same think in Alabama? I'd bet this isn't the first person to ask her the question, but she waits until she's in a place where they wouldn't boot her ass out for saying so.

/laugh

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

Then again, it never made much sense to me why Dumbledore got involved with the dark wizard fellow so this might provide a motive.

See, I pegged it more on the basic fact that every human is ultimately self-serving, and while many people can overcome their selfish desires and be unselfish, selflessness does not come instinctively. In that vein, Dumbledore's experimentation with the Dark Arts was about catering to his self-serving human nature, instead of overcoming that and looking to the good side of magic to help others rather than himself.

[turtle777]

*** JUST IN: Rowling's cat is gay, too --- film at 11 ***

-t

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, if I wanted to give an evasive an unsatisfactory one-word answer. If I actually wanted to answer the question as the person intended it, though, I would have to reveal with whom I was in love.

The facts are she gave unasked for information to "shock" the public and gain PR Chuckit. You are going to elaborate and spinning lengths to defend it. For what reason, I don't know. But ok. Go on with your bad self.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

*** JUST IN: Rowling's cat is gay, too --- film at 11 ***

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The facts are she gave unasked for information to "shock" the public and gain PR Chuckit. You are going to elaborate and spinning lengths to defend it. For what reason, I don't know. But ok. Go on with your bad self.

The facts are you don't know the facts.

More from Dumbledore is gay, 'Harry Potter' author reveals - CNN.com

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

Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore, noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past. And explicit scenes with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction.

Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.

Kind of hard for her to just decide to do this on a whim for PR when people have long suspected it and she has already requested changes to the next movie to keep the characters in line with her original intent.

[starman]

Just because someone doesn't have a close relationship with a woman means he's automatically gay.

His troubled past could be watching Poltergeist and being scared of clowns.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by starman 

Just because someone doesn't have a close relationship with a woman means he's automatically gay.

Hey, stop being reasonable

Originally Posted by starman 

His troubled past could be watching Poltergeist and being scared of clowns.

Alright, you're back to 'NN level.

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The facts are she gave unasked for information to "shock" the public and gain PR Chuckit.

Are you honestly trying to claim that the person just wanted a yes or no and absolutely did not want Rowling to explain with whom Dumbledore was in love if he had been or why he had never fallen in love if he hadn't? That seems very unlikely to me.

Can you provide any reason for me to agree with your view? (And no, repeating the assertion over and over and insulting me don't count as reasons.)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are you honestly trying to claim that the person just wanted a yes or no and absolutely did not want Rowling to explain with whom Dumbledore was in love if he had been or why he had never fallen in love if he hadn't? That seems very unlikely to me.

You can give an answer that is not yes or no. You can even go into detail about being in love. I don't think who it's with or what they have down their pants really matters. And it shouldn't should it?

Can you provide any reason for me to agree with your view? (And no, repeating the assertion over and over and insulting me don't count as reasons.)

The fact that this garners her more publicity and humans are known to pull these types of stunts, esp in her line of business to garner more sales and attention?

Naw, that never happens.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You can give an answer that is not yes or no. You can even go into detail about being in love. I don't think who it's with or what they have down their pants really matters. And it shouldn't should it?

What they have down their pants isn't particularly important (to me, anyway — some folks seem to care a lot), but I think the who is incredibly important in most people's minds — probably the most significant detail. Leaving out that bit would be evasive and unnatural.

And besides, as I've said, Rowling likes to throw in little details that never came out in the books — even the fact that she accidentally omitted Hermione's sister. Whether or not it was strictly necessary (I think it was, but regardless), it was hardly out of the blue.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The fact that this garners her more publicity and humans are known to pull these types of stunts, esp in her line of business to garner more sales and attention?

We're talking about the most successful author in the world. She's a freakin' billionaire — that's nine zeroes. She doesn't need more attention, and if she wants it, all she has to do is announce she's writing something (it could be a grocery list — doesn't matter) and she'll be on the cover of any magazine she likes. It is more likely that you're insincerely disagreeing with her to get attention than that she is insincerely announcing that Dumbledore's gay to get attention — and I wouldn't be reasonable to assume that, would I?

[turtle777]

Meanwhile, I obtained further information that proves that Dumbledore is gay:
he has pink carpet in ALL of his bathrooms !!!1!1!!oneone

-t

[Shaddim]

I guess Ian McKellen is now going to regret not taking the role when it was offered.

All jokes aside, I can't say that I'm too surprised, although Dumbledore never really showed much in the way of sexuality in the books. It does make sense though, and it explains his closeness to Elphias Doge and Grindelwald. Really adds new levels of emotion to his fight against Grindelwald and explains why Dumbledore kept putting off the confrontation.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The facts are she gave unasked for information to "shock" the public and gain PR Chuckit.

The facts are such that your statement is just speculation on your part, unless you're privy to info the rest of us aren't, which, unless you know her, you're not.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You can give an answer that is not yes or no. You can even go into detail about being in love. I don't think who it's with or what they have down their pants really matters. And it shouldn't should it?

In all fairness, why would she do that? The same question was asked about Neville and she said he married Hannah Abbott, which shocked me a little. I thought he'd end up with "Loony" Lovegood.

Dumbledore being gay doesn't change his character very much, really. Just makes his past motivations a little more clear.

[RAILhead]

People, people, PEOPLE -- you do realize you're all fighting over whether or not an imaginary wizard has got teh ghey, don't you?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Kevin
The facts are she gave unasked for information to "shock" the public and gain PR Chuckit.

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The facts are such that your statement is just speculation on your part, unless you're privy to info the rest of us aren't, which, unless you know her, you're not.

Kevin, you've harped on so many others in other threads about stating speculation as fact, yet you're doing it repeatedly here.

[design219]

Now I know why we never saw him look into the Mirror of Erised.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by design219 

Now I know why we never saw him look into the Mirror of Erised.

Wasn't it revealed that he would have seen his family? No, I don't mean his "family."