Harry Potter universe is part of the international gay conspiracy

[Triforcer]

Its not just wacky allegations from nuts anymore- J.K. Rowling herself has weighed in.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

[eldaec]

"Oh, my god, the fan fiction".

lulz.

[HaemishM]

"Oh, my god, the fan fiction".

Feel the burn of Internet fan fiction, bitch.

Why even bother going there? She's not going to write other books with the characters, and I'm quite sure this will drive half the parents of the book's fans completely round the bend.

[Calantus]

Yeah Dumbledore being gay is beyond retarded. If he was gay in the books that's fine, but you can't just tack it on after the books are finished.

[murdoc]

She kinda wussed out by outting him AFTER the books had all been released.

[Roac]

Why even bother going there?

Money/attention whore.

[Mrbloodworth]

Yeah Dumbledore being gay is beyond retarded. If he was gay in the books that's fine, but you can't just tack it on after the books are finished.

Yeah, even if "He is" i see no need to even bring it up, its adds nothing to the story's, or his character..

[Samwise]

She wasn't the one who brought it up.  People were asking her questions about each of the characters' backstories as she envisioned them, and she answered them truthfully.  She didn't mention it explicitly in the books because discussing Dumbledore's sexuality wouldn't add anything to the story.  That doesn't mean that she imagined Dumbledore as a eunuch the whole time, though.

Did any of you who are decrying this as a shameless publicity grab actually read the article?

 

[Mrbloodworth]

She wasn't the one who brought it up.  People were asking her questions about each of the characters' backstories as she envisioned them, and she answered them truthfully.  She didn't mention it explicitly in the books because discussing Dumbledore's sexuality wouldn't add anything to the story.  That doesn't mean that she imagined Dumbledore as a eunuch the whole time, though.

Did any of you who are decrying this as a shameless publicity grab actually read the article?

 

I did, after..... 

[Roac]

Did any of you who are decrying this as a shameless publicity grab actually read the article?

Yes.

Having written something this well known, and revealing something that is as socially shocking as this, makes it a publicity grab.  It may also be an honest answer to the question; the two are not mutually exclusive.

[Abagadro]

Like she needs to "grab publicity."   

[Roac]

Like she needs to "grab publicity."   

I didn't say "need" had anything to do with it. 

[Samwise]

Having written something this well known, and revealing something that is as socially shocking as this, makes it a publicity grab.  It may also be an honest answer to the question; the two are not mutually exclusive.

So if she wanted to avoid "grabbing publicity", she should have lied?

Or are you saying that she originally conceived of Dumbledore as gay for the sole purpose of having an opportunity to be "socially shocking" somewhere down the line?

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're criticizing her for.  I mean, there are lots of things to criticize her for, but I don't think this is one of them.

[WayAbvPar]

Wake me up when Hermione is outed as bi and has a copious gallery of pics on the 'net.

[Nevermore]

I'm sure 4chan could accommodate you.

[Roac]

I'm trying to figure out what exactly you're criticizing her for.  I mean, there are lots of things to criticize her for, but I don't think this is one of them.

I wasn't being critical.  I was answering Haemish's question as to what her likely motivation was.  She was at a media event whose purpose was to promote sales of her book, whereupon she says something I am certain she was aware would be fairly controversial.  The "whorish" bit would be that she's doing this while still trying to drum up sales, and just after the peak of her popularity when she has plenty to gain if it works out well for her. 

[Samwise]

I agree that the media event itself was a publicity thing (which is pretty much the whole point of a promotional tour, and Rowling's far from the only author to do one), but to say that outting Dumbledore was an attention grab means you have to believe that she either:

A) Invented Dumbledore's gayness on the spot.
B) Had a plant in the audience who was instructed to ask that question.

 

[Roac]

to say that outting Dumbledore was an attention grab means you have to believe that she either:

Neither.  It means that to throw something like that out means she's going to be attention whoring.  Doesn't matter if it's an honest answer or not because of the effect it'll have.  If she'd wanted to avoid that sort of grab she could've skirted the question, or just dropped it in the books and have offloaded it up front. 

Again, all I did was answer Haemish's question.  Seems to me she was seeking attention by letting it out now.  No big conspiracy; she just saw an attention to grab at the spotlight and took it.  Not sure what else you might think it is.  You're welcome to introduce your own thoughts instead of repeatedly trying to turn this back on me.

[Tebonas]

But maybe she is European and we don't give that much shit about people being gay. The article sounded like she was somewhat surprised about the intense reaction.

[Samwise]

My own thought is that someone asked her the question "Did Dumbledore ever have a lover?" and she answered truthfully: "yes, as I imagined it he and Grindlewald were lovers as well as friends."  It wasn't introduced in the books because Dumbledore kept his private life to himself and therefore none of the protagonists would have known about it (they only found out in the last book that he even had siblings).  

Rowling could not possibly have "skirted" that question without lying or outright refusing to answer.  If she simply said "yes", the obvious followup would be "is it a character we know?", so trying to be coy would have just been dumb and made an even bigger deal out of it.  Refusing to answer would only make sense if she thought it was a horribly shameful secret, which obviously she didn't.  From the quotes in the article, it sounds like she didn't think it was a big deal (which really, it isn't), and she was surprised at the giant reaction she got.

Frankly, the reason I find this "OMG ATTENTION WHORE" thing annoying is that it stems from a mindset that says Dumbledore being gay IS inherently a horribly shameful thing that Rowling had no business even conceiving in the first place, especially in a book that was FOR TEH CHILDREN. Whether you have that mindset yourself or are reacting on behalf of the legions of people who do and will now proceed to go burn some books or whatever (it's a bit late for a boycott), it's distasteful.  Is it that inconceivable that a character in a book could just happen to be gay without it being part of some evil gay/communist/publicity agenda?

(Edit: Also, what Tebonas said.  Americans are just batshit loco about TEH GAYS.)

[Roac]

Frankly, the reason I find this "OMG ATTENTION WHORE" thing annoying is that it stems from a mindset that says Dumbledore being gay IS inherently a horribly shameful thing that Rowling had no business even conceiving in the first place, especially in a book that was FOR TEH CHILDREN.

Considering the ultra-conservative bunch didn't like her books anyway, the "gay is horrible" angle doesn't mean much.  Nobody cares about Ian McKellen being gay-Gandalf because it's no secret.  It's the telling of a secret - the outing - that's the stunt.  Tebonas is right that there's a scandelous element about being gay, but she'd have hit front page if she'd said that Dumbledore had been having a relationship with McGonagall.

Whether you have that mindset yourself or are reacting on behalf of the legions of people who do and will now proceed to go burn some books or whatever (it's a bit late for a boycott), it's distasteful.

You're quite welcome to be done assuming what my mindset is.  For someone who has gone on several posts gearing up against assuming what others think, you are doing more than enough of your own share.

[Tebonas]

I am not comfortable taking credit for something I never said or even implied. Especially because I abhor the fact that this can be a scandalous element for some people.

"He is gay" shouldn't be all that different from "He has a thing for redheads".

[Samwise]

there's a scandelous element about being gay

Your words.  The thing that makes being gay "scandalous" is the mindset that it's shameful and perverse.  Again, I am NOT saying that this is your personal view, but that's where the "scandalousness" that you're talking about comes from.  Saying so matter-of-factly that being gay is "scandalous" is giving that mindset a level of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

If you think a fictional character being gay is worth making a big stink about, even if you yourself are not a homophobe, you are part of the problem.

[HaemishM]

Frankly, the reason I find this "OMG ATTENTION WHORE" thing annoying is that it stems from a mindset that says Dumbledore being gay IS inherently a horribly shameful thing that Rowling had no business even conceiving in the first place, especially in a book that was FOR TEH CHILDREN. Whether you have that mindset yourself or are reacting on behalf of the legions of people who do and will now proceed to go burn some books or whatever (it's a bit late for a boycott), it's distasteful.  Is it that inconceivable that a character in a book could just happen to be gay without it being part of some evil gay/communist/publicity agenda?

Such a thing is UNPOSSIBLE in America. Everything has a hidden agenda, don't you know? After all, the Happy Feet penguins were closest commie hippies trying to indoctrinate kids with the message of global warming, and SpongeBob Squarepants is advancing the homosexual agenda by appearing in a video teaching children sexual tolerance.

People will, I'm sure, get apopleptic about it. Me, I just want her to STFU and go away.

[Roac]

The thing that makes being gay "scandalous" is the mindset that it's shameful and perverse.  Again, I am NOT saying that this is your personal view, but that's where the "scandalousness" that you're talking about comes from.  Saying so matter-of-factly that being gay is "scandalous" is giving that mindset a level of credibility that it doesn't deserve.

Being gay isn't the scandal, it's outing.  Telling secrets is scandelous, which is why there is always trash celeb news, or the like.  It all fits in the same category despite almost none of it having anything to do with homosexuality. 

If you think a fictional character being gay is worth making a big stink about, even if you yourself are not a homophobe, you are part of the problem.

This wasn't some deep, personal issue that she'd been struggling with.  She hasn't had to deal with real issues of homophobia or whatever else and finally went public to try and deal with whatever her personal demons might have been.  She let loose with a big secret about one of her main characters during a publicity event that was sure to attract attention.  Hell, if she'd wanted to make an actual issue of this she had seven books within which to do so.  But no, instead she lets out with it after the majority of sales have rolled in, and as attention on her is in decline.  Bump, back in the spotlight.

[Mrbloodworth]

I don't care if he was gay.

The thing i don't get, is why you make a fictional character gay, and then it never comes up in any of the books, hell, its not even hinted at. So why, in any regard, is it important for the author to make that character gay?

I don't get, at all, what is the reason this bit of character attribute, its never used.

Its an unused Variable that only gets used in a public conference/book signing?

[Samwise]

This wasn't some deep, personal issue that she'd been struggling with.  She hasn't had to deal with real issues of homophobia or whatever else and finally went public to try and deal with whatever her personal demons might have been.  She let loose with a big secret about one of her main characters during a publicity event that was sure to attract attention.  Hell, if she'd wanted to make an actual issue of this she had seven books within which to do so.  But no, instead she lets out with it after the majority of sales have rolled in, and as attention on her is in decline.  Bump, back in the spotlight.

Here's the thing: it's not a "real issue" or a "big secret" or a "actual issue" or anything.  It's not even an "outing".  It's TRIVIA.  It's something that just didn't happen to get mentioned in the books and that someone asked her about.  It's like if she had "revealed" that Ron is left handed.

I don't get, at all, what is the reason this bit of character attribute, its never used.

Because authors of fiction usually flesh their characters out in LOTS of detail, but unless they're incredibly longwinded wankers, they don't put all of that on the page.  Just because Dumbledore doesn't have any romantic entanglements during the course of the books doesn't mean Rowling imagined him as having been a eunuch his entire life.

[Mrbloodworth]

Here's the thing: it's not a "real issue" or a "big secret" or a "actual issue" or anything.  It's not even an "outing".  It's TRIVIA.  It's something that just didn't happen to get mentioned in the books and that someone asked her about.  It's like if she had "revealed" that Ron is left handed.

I don't get, at all, what is the reason this bit of character attribute, its never used.

Because authors of fiction usually flesh their characters out in LOTS of detail, but unless they're incredibly longwinded wankers, they don't put all of that on the page.  Just because Dumbledore doesn't have any romantic entanglements during the course of the books doesn't mean Rowling imagined him as having been a eunuch his entire life.

I guess i can understand that.Lots of things get cut, after design, and before production.

[Vinadil]

Meh, I don't know... I have read stories before where one or more of the protagonists were homosexual... but Sex really had no place in ANY of the stories that I read (and last count I think I read all seven).  There was hardly any romantic friction at all outside of some small youth-aimed stuff.  Perhaps it makes me homophobic, but what I really feel is like I spend thousands of pages learning about a world and a main character and you just turned it all upside down and said "No, all of the ways that you read my book were wrong... so you need to think THIS way."  If it was not important enough for her to discuss while Forming the character then she could simply have said, "That was not really a big factor in my mind."

It does not have to be some big conspiracy... but in the end it leaves a bad taste in my mouth just because she screwed with my story (and yes, it is Mine because most of it happens in my mind when I read.)

[Roac]

It's like if she had "revealed" that Ron is left handed.

Yes, that's why that bit of info led the news articles.

You know better than this.  It's the same reason you shit on a troll; it's not because whatever the troll says should cause a stir, it's that it will and the troll damn well knows it. 

[Samwise]

It's the same reason you shit on a troll; it's not because whatever the troll says should cause a stir, it's that it will and the troll damn well knows it. 

Thing is, I'm not all that sure she knew what a big stir it would cause.  She seemed genuinely surprised.  Like Tebonas said, I think it's because Europeans aren't as weird about homosexuality as most Americans are.  I don't think we get to criticize her for our weirdness.

And again, even if she did know it would cause a stir and wanted to avoid it, what was she supposed to do?  Lie about it, or keep it a deep dark secret and make an even bigger deal out of it?

A troll says things for the sole purpose of causing a stink.  I can't see any way to argue that Rowling said what she did for the sole purpose of causing a stink.  I can't even see that she even realized that she WOULD cause a stink, much less that she planned to cause one.

[murdoc]

This thread is gay.

[Roac]

Thing is, I'm not all that sure she knew what a big stir it would cause.  She seemed genuinely surprised.  Like Tebonas said, I think it's because Europeans aren't as weird about homosexuality as most Americans are. 

Made headlines in BBC, Guardian, etc., so the Brits are fussing over it as well.  They may be less fixated on homosexual issues, but UK tabloids LOVE shit like this, and UK is almost understood to prefix the word tabloid.  Maybe she genuinely didn't think anyone would care, but that would seem incredibly naive, Brit or not. 

[Rasix]

The thing i don't get, is why you make a fictional character gay, and then it never comes up in any of the books, hell, its not even hinted at. So why, in any regard, is it important for the author to make that character gay?

I don't get, at all, what is the reason this bit of character attribute, its never used.

Because it at no point ever became relevant in the entire series?  People are gay.  Lee Jordan is black.  Ron is a ginger. 

"Harry, you need to find the horcruxes and destroy them.  It it imperative that you accomplish this.  By the way, I have sex with men."

[Calantus]

I don't care if he was gay.

The thing i don't get, is why you make a fictional character gay, and then it never comes up in any of the books, hell, its not even hinted at. So why, in any regard, is it important for the author to make that character gay?

I don't get, at all, what is the reason this bit of character attribute, its never used.

Its an unused Variable that only gets used in a public conference/book signing?

This is exactly my feeling. It is over. The books are done. What you get in the books; that is Dumbledore. That people even asked if Dumbledore ever had a lover... give me a fucking break. Nobody needs to know this shit. Dumbledore being gay probably has less relevance than Ron being lefthanded because at least that a visualisation aid to know that. He didn't interact with anyone in any way that would make him being gay an interesting twist or an "ah so that's why" revelation, it's just a completely irrelevant fact similar to "did Dumbledore ever own a pet as a child?"

I don't have a problem with him being gay, or her saying he's gay in the way she did. I have a problem with this being seen as a relevant fact in any way, shape, or form. There are, as we speak, people discussing this very "fact" in loud voices or caps. People are discussing the fact that a fictional character was revealed to be gay outside of the books he appears in because they somehow feel that the life of a fictional character is relevant beyond the scope of the fiction they appear in. This is wrong and disturbing.