The latest from Hogwart's.... - Page 7

Gemini Cricket · 10-29-2007, 02:36 PM

I'm wondering if this is more a matter of people reading into what she said.
She said she saw him as gay. Well, great. Nothing wrong with that.
She doesn't need to prove it nor does she need to justify her comment. She's the author. It is what it is.

That's how I look at it. I'm laughing at all the brouhaha. In the end, does it really matter? No.

Gn2Dlnd · 10-29-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I'm laughing at all the brouhaha.

A brouhaha ha-ha?

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2007, 02:47 PM

Actually, now that the Rita Skeeter smeer attempt is brought to my attention, I retract what I said about Rowling's not bringing Dumbledore's orientation into the series. She did. Through nasty inuendo.

Certainly others could have interpreted that smeer differently, but I recall interpreting it as an allegation that Albus was a queer perve.

Frankly, since Rowling put that out there ... I think it was kinda beholden on her to set the record straight (heheh) that Dumbledore being gay does not mean he's a perve out to engorgio his male students.

I'm not gonna boycott her Universal Theme Park land or anything, but the Skeeter thing leaves me leaning towards my opion that she should have outted him.

Chernabog · 10-29-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gn2Dlnd

A brouhaha ha-ha?

Yes guys, he does do stuff like this at home too. *bonks the Cheeto on the head*

wendybeth · 10-29-2007, 03:59 PM

I think it's really much ado about nothing. Besides addressing the 'snogging' that adolescents do, the author does not really go into the sexual orientation of any of the adults, excepting the married and soon to be married ones. It's a detail, nothing more, and the day that details such as one's sexuality are just that- not some huge, earth-shattering scandalous revelation- that means we have all gone beyond mere tolerance* to acceptance and inclusion. It is only relevant in that Grindlewold's betrayal was absolutely devastating to Dumbledore, and his later actions were a reflection of his anguish. I think we lose sight that this is a series written for adolescents and we adults just got to go along for the ride.

*'Tolerance' annoys the **** out of me- it implies that something is unpleasant but must be tolerated.

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2007, 04:12 PM

Sorry, wendy ... but I think in a series targeted at tweens and young adults (nevermind that it long, long ago became clear that the audiences was all ages, all nationalities, all people of entire frelling earth) ... it would have been more responsible for Rowling, with no obligation mind you, to counteract one character's stated intention to smear Dumblefore with allegations of gay pervdom, to declare that his being gay does not mean he's a pedophile. This would be the proper thing to do for an audience of tweens and teens.

Furthermore, and this is solely my artistic opinion, the episode with Grindlewald would have been made far richer if it were made clear just why Dumbledore had such an uncharacteristic lapse of moral judgment.

Really no big deal one way or the other. But I'm beginning to understand why this has caused a brohaha (and not a haha brohaha either). In legal parlance, she opened the door. She put that nasty gay perve smear into the dialogue of a character, and it appeared in a published Harry Potter book. All this stuff about her not having to bring every character's backstory into the books is now moot, imo. She brought it in.

She just did not take the opportunity to best serve her considerably large youngster audience by countering the loathed gossip character's smear with an enlightened portrait of one of the most revered wise men in literature.

lashbear · 10-29-2007, 04:46 PM

I thought of a lovely T-shirt to wear to the next Gaydays...

Front Of T-shirt:

Rear (Of the T-shirt, silly):

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2007, 05:02 PM

Please come to next Gay Day.

That shirt will go so nicely with my Gepettophile one!

wendybeth · 10-29-2007, 08:12 PM

I would have thought Dumbledore's actions his entire life would have negated any nasty smear attempts. Harry's accused of lots of things throughout the series, and he mostly just ignores the negatives and lets events unfold to prove his character. JK has a complete bio on all of the characters in her books, but she only put in the aspects and background pertinent to the storyline. At the end, it was explained why Dumbledore became the man he was and his tragic love story was part of that. Again, she is filling in details post- publication, which I really have no problem with. Her books, her prerogative. Kind of like when she goes on the Today show and tells what happened to all the characters after the story ends.

innerSpaceman · 10-29-2007, 09:45 PM

well, a missed opportunity, in my view. Even in this day and age, "gay" is not as innocuous a back-ground trait as chess champion.

But yeah, her peroggative and all that.

10-29-2007, 02:36 PM	#61
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I'm wondering if this is more a matter of people reading into what she said. She said she saw him as gay. Well, great. Nothing wrong with that. She doesn't need to prove it nor does she need to justify her comment. She's the author. It is what it is. That's how I look at it. I'm laughing at all the brouhaha. In the end, does it really matter? No.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 02:47 PM	#63
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Actually, now that the Rita Skeeter smeer attempt is brought to my attention, I retract what I said about Rowling's not bringing Dumbledore's orientation into the series. She did. Through nasty inuendo. Certainly others could have interpreted that smeer differently, but I recall interpreting it as an allegation that Albus was a queer perve. Frankly, since Rowling put that out there ... I think it was kinda beholden on her to set the record straight (heheh) that Dumbledore being gay does not mean he's a perve out to engorgio his male students. I'm not gonna boycott her Universal Theme Park land or anything, but the Skeeter thing leaves me leaning towards my opion that she should have outted him.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 03:59 PM	#65
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I think it's really much ado about nothing. Besides addressing the 'snogging' that adolescents do, the author does not really go into the sexual orientation of any of the adults, excepting the married and soon to be married ones. It's a detail, nothing more, and the day that details such as one's sexuality are just that- not some huge, earth-shattering scandalous revelation- that means we have all gone beyond mere tolerance* to acceptance and inclusion. It is only relevant in that Grindlewold's betrayal was absolutely devastating to Dumbledore, and his later actions were a reflection of his anguish. I think we lose sight that this is a series written for adolescents and we adults just got to go along for the ride. 'Tolerance' annoys the *** out of me- it implies that something is unpleasant but must be tolerated. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 04:12 PM	#66
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Sorry, wendy ... but I think in a series targeted at tweens and young adults (nevermind that it long, long ago became clear that the audiences was all ages, all nationalities, all people of entire frelling earth) ... it would have been more responsible for Rowling, with no obligation mind you, to counteract one character's stated intention to smear Dumblefore with allegations of gay pervdom, to declare that his being gay does not mean he's a pedophile. This would be the proper thing to do for an audience of tweens and teens. Furthermore, and this is solely my artistic opinion, the episode with Grindlewald would have been made far richer if it were made clear just why Dumbledore had such an uncharacteristic lapse of moral judgment. Really no big deal one way or the other. But I'm beginning to understand why this has caused a brohaha (and not a haha brohaha either). In legal parlance, she opened the door. She put that nasty gay perve smear into the dialogue of a character, and it appeared in a published Harry Potter book. All this stuff about her not having to bring every character's backstory into the books is now moot, imo. She brought it in. She just did not take the opportunity to best serve her considerably large youngster audience by countering the loathed gossip character's smear with an enlightened portrait of one of the most revered wise men in literature.
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 04:46 PM	#67
lashbear SwishBuckling Bear Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In Isolation :) Posts: 6,597	New T-shirt for Gayday, boys I thought of a lovely T-shirt to wear to the next Gaydays... Front Of T-shirt: *Rear (Of the T-shirt, silly):* __________________ *I Heart* my Husband - I can't think of anyone I'd rather be in isolation with.**
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 05:02 PM	#68
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Please come to next Gay Day. That shirt will go so nicely with my Gepettophile one!
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 08:12 PM	#69
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I would have thought Dumbledore's actions his entire life would have negated any nasty smear attempts. Harry's accused of lots of things throughout the series, and he mostly just ignores the negatives and lets events unfold to prove his character. JK has a complete bio on all of the characters in her books, but she only put in the aspects and background pertinent to the storyline. At the end, it was explained why Dumbledore became the man he was and his tragic love story was part of that. Again, she is filling in details post- publication, which I really have no problem with. Her books, her prerogative. Kind of like when she goes on the Today show and tells what happened to all the characters after the story ends. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-29-2007, 09:45 PM	#70
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	well, a missed opportunity, in my view. Even in this day and age, "gay" is not as innocuous a back-ground trait as chess champion. But yeah, her peroggative and all that.
	Submit to Quotes