Ridikulus!
I just want to say that never, not for one second, did I wonder about the intimaticies of Albus Dumbledore. He has existed in my life as a headmaster of a school. As a fictional character. I never wondered, never cared, never thought to even ask, about his personal sexual preferences.
And that is why this, to me, feels like a made up controversy. And, it's also done one thing that I don't think is so hot. Now two men can not be good friends ... they have to be gay.
To my mind, there was no inference, no innuendo, nothing sexual about any of the conversations that Dumbledore related between him and Grindlewald. And yet, in a conference / discussion at Carnegie Hall, JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was gay, and thus the world has gone off that he had a relationship with Grindlewald, the wizard whom he bested which earned him the all powerful wand.
And this is why I think what she's done in the aftermath of book 7 is narcissistic. The garbage about Ron, Harry and Hermoine being Aurors and working at the ministry. The further stories that she relates via tele-cast to fans in 30 countries. It's poppy-cock.
Just because I say Yuri and Lara (Dr. Zhivago) end up together 5 years later ... well that means nothing. If it didn't happen in the course of the novel and the pages than it didn't happen.
If her book did not relate those facts on its own ... well than she messed up. It's cowardly to say that Dumbledore is gay now, trying to be a boost for gay rights, and not actually putting that into the novel. Just saying that doesn't do anything for any cause. The book is here forever, the talking points in the aftermath of the release are a flash in the pan. In 50 years will Dumbledore's sexuality be discussed? Not unless she writes it down somewhere. And since it wasn't an important enough detail for her to include it in the novel ... one has to wonder why it's important now. Does she also care to relate the sexuality of Neville? He's married but hey, that doesn't have to mean anything. What about Percy? Sirius? He was never married ... what's up with that? He was really good friends and oddly attached to James ... and since we've said that Dumbledore and Grindlewald weren't just good friends ... does that mean Sirius was homosexual as well?
And this is where I really get upset ... since Harry Potter is introduced to children, are we going to include the sexuality of the teachers to them at 11? Why is this relevant? Harry Potter was about bravery and friendship and fairly platonic relationships. Why, after the fact, are we introducing sex?
Please quit talking JKR. Please? If you want to keep telling the story of Harry and his friends ... write another book. No one would blame you. But talking about things that you say happen outside the context of the story ... it's just sort of dishonest.
And that is why this, to me, feels like a made up controversy. And, it's also done one thing that I don't think is so hot. Now two men can not be good friends ... they have to be gay.
To my mind, there was no inference, no innuendo, nothing sexual about any of the conversations that Dumbledore related between him and Grindlewald. And yet, in a conference / discussion at Carnegie Hall, JK Rowling said that Dumbledore was gay, and thus the world has gone off that he had a relationship with Grindlewald, the wizard whom he bested which earned him the all powerful wand.
And this is why I think what she's done in the aftermath of book 7 is narcissistic. The garbage about Ron, Harry and Hermoine being Aurors and working at the ministry. The further stories that she relates via tele-cast to fans in 30 countries. It's poppy-cock.
Just because I say Yuri and Lara (Dr. Zhivago) end up together 5 years later ... well that means nothing. If it didn't happen in the course of the novel and the pages than it didn't happen.
If her book did not relate those facts on its own ... well than she messed up. It's cowardly to say that Dumbledore is gay now, trying to be a boost for gay rights, and not actually putting that into the novel. Just saying that doesn't do anything for any cause. The book is here forever, the talking points in the aftermath of the release are a flash in the pan. In 50 years will Dumbledore's sexuality be discussed? Not unless she writes it down somewhere. And since it wasn't an important enough detail for her to include it in the novel ... one has to wonder why it's important now. Does she also care to relate the sexuality of Neville? He's married but hey, that doesn't have to mean anything. What about Percy? Sirius? He was never married ... what's up with that? He was really good friends and oddly attached to James ... and since we've said that Dumbledore and Grindlewald weren't just good friends ... does that mean Sirius was homosexual as well?
And this is where I really get upset ... since Harry Potter is introduced to children, are we going to include the sexuality of the teachers to them at 11? Why is this relevant? Harry Potter was about bravery and friendship and fairly platonic relationships. Why, after the fact, are we introducing sex?
Please quit talking JKR. Please? If you want to keep telling the story of Harry and his friends ... write another book. No one would blame you. But talking about things that you say happen outside the context of the story ... it's just sort of dishonest.
Comments
Because before she told us that we had a Dumbledore--Mr. "Love-Is-The-Answer-To-Everything"--who had never been in love. And a Dumbledore--who hadn't ever hesitated to fight Voldemort with all his might and main--who waited for four or five years to go after Grindelwald while Grindelwald killed and imprisoned people. None of that made any sense to me.
I think if she had just outright stated it in the book it would have made it seem like she was pushing some sort of agenda. But mentioning it afterwards--in the way she's filling in lots of other details--was very nice for me.
Love your new look!