Dumbledore Is Gay...

[RoboFlonne]

I saw most of the movies...

and I Had no idea. Lol... Really couldn't tell. I can usually spot someone who is.

Although if you can hide it very very well.... he is head wizard after all!

[klet]

It doesn't matter what the writer was trying to get across when they were writing whatever. All that matters is what you get out of the book.

Totally wrong, in my opinion.

It is of paramount importance to examine why a writer writes. It gives the reader a deeper understanding of the book itself.

Which only means that you subscribe to a different form of literary criticism than DT. If I weren't so braindead at the moment, I could probably even identify it.

Look at the author for The Picture of Dorian Gray (very famous by the way), he wrote about his main character being gay and the public was outraged, YET he still DID IT. I think he even went to jail but not sure.

Yep, Oscar Wilde went to jail for public indecency, or some such charge. Contrary to popular belief, however, it was not due to his novel. It was because he was having an open and public affair with the son of Lord Douglas (Wilde was married, btw, and his wife knew nothing of the affair until he was arrested; broke her heart, poor thing). Basically, he messed around with the wrong guy. The funny thing is, once he got out of prison, he started getting really annoyed with Alfred Douglas (the lover) because he was a needy, immature, spoiled brat.


Back on topic, though, I feel that if Rowling wanted to make this at all important to the story, she should have made it clear within the story. There were plenty of places within the seventh book that she could have revealed it and made a much bigger impact. Revealing it out of the story really makes it feel cheap to me.

Actually, my roommate saw the article before me (she's a huge HP fan, and reads HarryxDraco fics) and she kind of laughed and said that Rowling only did it to make up for The Epilogue. I have to admit, it was kind of a stupid tag on, and didn't answer the more pressing questions about some of the characters that I had.

[Cloud]

Where did they go?

[Startyde]

The girl should have been gay...

/end opinion.

[blueheaven]

I will admit that I am more of a traditionalist when it comes to analyzing literature. I'm not trying to slight DT. I just think she happens to be wrong on that particular point.

There were plenty of places within the seventh book that she could have revealed it and made a much bigger impact. Revealing it out of the story really makes it feel cheap to me.

But then that begs the question: Was it important enough to the character to actually include that information in the book? Dumbledore is an elderly school headmaster and a side character to boot! His love interests were NEVER mentioned in the book (which tells me that it just wasn't important enough to the story to include). Plus, he was dead by the time to seventh book came around. I think he had more important things to tell Harry than who he had the hots for in his youth. Tell me, exactly when would it have even been appropriate to the story to include this bit of information? In Dorian Gray, it was a plot point essential to the story. And Wilde did not write young adult literature. Here, it would have simply been out of place. It would have seemed cheap to me to include his sexuality in the book where it had no place. I also think it would have caused WAY more buzz than it does now. I think people should be somewhat cynical, but this is getting ridiculous.

ST: Couldn't agree more. I wouldn't mind a good Hermione/Luna story.

[duotrouble]

No worries. I don't take it as a slight. Although, I do completely disagree with you. But that completely validates my point. I don't need the author to spoon feed me. If they're any good, their message will come through without that. I completely disagree with

It is of paramount importance to examine why a writer writes.

I don't need that. Does that mean he's wrong? No. Does that mean I'm wrong? No. I was taught to analyze literature one way while he was simply taught another method. Don't worry, klet. I'm sure you'll come up with the term if one of us other literary people don't first.

It didn't matter if J.K. Rowling was speaking at a televised event or not. She knows what she says (currently) is newsworthy. And lo and behold, she made the headlines.

[blueheaven]

Fair enough.

Traditionalists (Edwardians) tend to look at all aspects of literature, including the historical context and motives behind the writing.

Members of the new criticism movement believe that the written word is what matters most, and that the motives behind the writing are (for the most part) irrelevant compared to the reader's interpretation.

Simply two ways of examining the same book.

[BleedingOrange]

That's pretty funny. I never would've expected that. lol.

[klet]

There were plenty of places within the seventh book that she could have revealed it and made a much bigger impact. Revealing it out of the story really makes it feel cheap to me.

But then that begs the question: Was it important enough to the character to actually include that information in the book?

No. Which is why I said "if Rowling felt it was important to the story." She obviously didn't, which is why she did not include it. I honestly thought it would have made it past the censors, merely because at this point in her career, the publishers know that her work is going to sell regardless. Hey, she felt it neccesary to include hints about Dumbledore's brothers and goats, though whether that was in a sexual context or not is up for debate. If there was a place for that, there was probably a place for more "Dumbledore is gay!" hints. I saw the friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but I never saw anything else.

I do think though, that if it was not important enough to put in the story, it doesn't exist. Authors can't be there, holding your hand as you read. Yes, you can read about their lives and use that information to pick the story apart (and I admit that I'm a hypocrite and do enjoy dabbling in this form of criticism; just not on papers, or I'd fail my lit classes ) but in the end, some people are only going to read the story and nothing else--especially when you write popular fiction. So, I feel that it is authors' responsibility to include everything that they want the audience to know about the world. It's difficult, of course, to balance having everything and the bare minimum, but that's what makes an excellent writer.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't care if Dumbledore is gay or not, since Rowling did not feel it important enough to his character or the story to include it. You are welcome, of course, to believe otherwise.

[Not Sir Phobos]

I think Snape is gay. Any word on that?

[Ms. Poe]

I think Snape is gay. Any word on that?

Not if you've read the last book...

[Carla]

Did Harry Potter die???

Anyone want to tell me???

[blueheaven]

I don't disagree with any of that, klet. I just don't think she said it to simply increase sales. I think it was always how she saw the character, but she never had a way of putting it in the books without it seeming forced.

Did Harry Potter die???

Yes...and no

[Cloud]

OK Let's talk about you.

[Caroline]

i thought this announcment was hilarious. is there anything in the book that suggests he's gay? does it really matter? i'm a non-reader that plans to read the books... eventually...