Harry Potter universe is part of the international gay conspiracy

[BigBlack]

The charge of "attention whore" always had more than a subtle whiff of sexism about it to me.

Yes, I know that in theory, you can call a man or a woman in an attention whore.

In practice, it tends to amount to "aggravation that a woman is talking".

J.K. Rowling went on a publicity tour to promote her book.  Shockingly, so does Steven King, so does Christopher Hitchens, so does anyone else with a potentially popular book that they'd like to make some cash off of.  And yet, the "attention whore" label gets very disproportionately aimed at the women.

Frankly, I'm glad she snuck this in the backdoor with a beloved character after the books were done.  In general, I'm against indoctrinating kids into politics, but when it's a matter of basic humanity -- the fundamental stuff, like "people of other sexual orientations and races and genders are every bit as deserving of human dignity as you are" -- I'm all in favor of getting it into their heads while they're young, and doing an end-run around what their mouth-breather parents want to teach them if necessary.  If she'd explicitly put it in the books, some fundy parents probably wouldn't have bought them for her kids, the books would have been mired in controversy from the get-go, etc.  This way, some fundy kid grows to like Dumbledore through the books, later on down the line he finds out that Dumbledore is gay, and maybe, just maybe, a little bit more tolerance gets injected into the world.

[Damn Dirty Ape]

If she'd explicitly put it in the books, some fundy parents probably wouldn't have bought them for her kids...

The fundies were already up in arms about the books because of the magic aspect.  Around my hometown, leaflets were being left on doors warning parents about Harry Potter being apparently a Selling Your Soul To Satan For Dummies.  And there was a case down in Georgia IIRC about a mother taking a school district to court in order to ban the books from the school library.  All because of depictions of magic.  Dumbledore being gay is just a little squirt of gasoline on an already raging fire.

[Righ]

The charge of "attention whore" always had more than a subtle whiff of sexism about it to me.

Which is ironic, given that you're not a woman, but you are an attention whore.

[Abagadro]

I wonder if Michael Gambon will mince him up in the rest of the films.

[lamaros]

One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft,  had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience erupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonished fans, Rowling added. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."

It would have been very hard to say "Yes he did. But he liked to keep that aspect of his life private." Or even "Yes" and then reveal more in response to future questions. But to come out with "Actually he's gay" is all about the attention.

"Oh, and by the way I always considered that Peeves was sexually assaulted as an infant, that a couple of the students grew up and decided to change their gender, and that Teacher X, the old maid, had a large collection of magic 'broomsticks'.

Not trying to get a headline you know. Just giving you the information you all asked for."

[Abagadro]

But to come out with "Actually he's gay" is all about the attention.

Or, as the author that is how she envisioned him and simply responded honestly. Not everything has to have some ulterior motive.  From what I have read it is rather obvious from the subtext of the 7th book that this is the case anyways which is what fueled the speculation/question.

[Triforcer]

Frankly, I'm glad she snuck this in the backdoor with a beloved character after the books were done.

 

Seriously, this does explain a lot in the seventh book.  The whole "Dumbledore supported magical dictatorship with his friend" thing rang odd to me.  If he had a crush/relationship with Grindelwald, it makes more sense.  We've all said stupid things in the expectation of sex.

That's all to say this revelation makes sense in terms of what we already know.  Its not like she said Flitwick ran a midget BDSM dungeon or something.

[Roac]

Seriously, this does explain a lot in the seventh book.  The whole "Dumbledore supported magical dictatorship with his friend" thing rang odd to me.  If he had a crush/relationship with Grindelwald, it makes more sense.  We've all said stupid things in the expectation of sex.

That's all to say this revelation makes sense in terms of what we already know. 

Honestly?  It probably would have been the best bit of plot about the 7th book.  Dealing with, y'know, emotional issues.  She was already comming down on the weaknesses of his character, and could easily have tied this in.  Could've cast this against Harry's choices in dealing with Ginny.  Could've cast the potential/actual isolation that Dumbledore might've gone through (her wizard world does not sound socially progressive) against what Harry went/was going through in his wizard vs muggle family conflict.  Could've used Dumbledore's bad choices in handling all these issues against how Harry should probably frame or reframe his views. 

In other words, it could've been used for... y'know, actual story, plot, etc instead of a stupid, cheap comment. 

[Morat20]

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?

In terms of writing, there's a lot to characters that never make the story. Most writers -- especially writers who spend a lot of time (multiple books or many years) working with the same set of characters, endow them with a wide variety of experiences, backstory, impulses, and drives that don't ever make the story.

It's so they can have consistent reactions to scenes and other characters. It's a rare author who does that all up front, of course, and I sincerly doubt Rowlings was oine of them. Like most, she probably worked backwards -- have a character of such and such a type, and slowly sort of flesh him/her out over time with a backstory and beliefs that fit how he talks and acts.

So yeah, most authors carry around a ton of misc. garbage about their characters. And most rather casually answer questions about it (especially if they're done with the character), without thinking much of it. And I'd said a good percentage would love to go rewrite older books with that character, to make him or her more consistent with how the author eventually came to see the character.

[Morat20]

It would have been very hard to say "Yes he did. But he liked to keep that aspect of his life private." Or even "Yes" and then reveal more in response to future questions. But to come out with "Actually he's gay" is all about the attention.

It appeared to be a direct response to a question.

Everything else is speculation about motives, and I have to admit claiming "She did it for the attention" isn't really a good argument since she doesn't NEED attention. She has the best-selling series of the last few decades, 6 blockbuster movies, and basically owns an entire generation.

I tend to lean more towards the "She simply answered the question" coupled with a bit of "And everyone speculating about 'attention whoring' or whatnot is just a fucking idiot."

[WindupAtheist]

I think now that she's filthy rich, she should just go whole-hog.  Announce that Ron gives Hermione golden showers every night, that Snape was walking around for all seven books with a buttplug up his ass, and that Harry was born a girl.  It would be lols.

[DraconianOne]

In terms of writing, there's a lot to characters that never make the story. Most writers -- especially writers who spend a lot of time (multiple books or many years) working with the same set of characters, endow them with a wide variety of experiences, backstory, impulses, and drives that don't ever make the story.

It's so they can have consistent reactions to scenes and other characters. It's a rare author who does that all up front, of course, and I sincerly doubt Rowlings was oine of them. Like most, she probably worked backwards -- have a character of such and such a type, and slowly sort of flesh him/her out over time with a backstory and beliefs that fit how he talks and acts.

So yeah, most authors carry around a ton of misc. garbage about their characters. And most rather casually answer questions about it (especially if they're done with the character), without thinking much of it. And I'd said a good percentage would love to go rewrite older books with that character, to make him or her more consistent with how the author eventually came to see the character.

Neil Gaiman has this to say about this very topic.

[Morat20]

Neil Gaiman has this to say about this very topic.

I swear I'm going to figure out that goddamn forgotten god before I die.

[UD_Delt]

I think now that she's filthy rich, she should just go whole-hog.  Announce that Ron gives Hermione golden showers every night, that Snape was walking around for all seven books with a buttplug up his ass, and that Harry was born a girl.  It would be lols.

And don't forget that Fred and George had a gay, incestuous relationship.

[Arrrgh]

Is there a video of this somewhere? We could see if it looked like an innocent question and answer session reply vs  calculated attention whoring.

I realize someone will claim the person asking the question is a plant and that Rowlings could have just used her billions on acting classes, but I'd still like to see it.

[Roac]

I realize someone will claim the person asking the question is a plant and that Rowlings could have just used her billions on acting classes, but I'd still like to see it.

Who's claiming that?

[Arrrgh]

The hypothetical future conspiracy theorist!

[eldaec]

The comments in the blog that Gaiman links to are hilarious...

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/dumbledore_is_gay.php

...not in a good way.

[Ironwood]

Dear God.

[Ironwood]

Seriously, What The Fuck ?

I don't wanna get into it, since it'll head straight to Politics or SWG, but

One could view it something like blindness, or lameness, or mental retardation- an inborn condition that is not a moral fault on the part of the people who possess it

There's a guy that needs shot.

[HaemishM]

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.

Welcome to Amerika, 2007.

[Krakrok]

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

[Riggswolfe]

I think this quote from the Gaiman article sums it up best.

All that tells us is that Ross Douthat doesn't write fiction.

This referring to the other blog where the guy said she revealed it to get attention. He's right. I'm not published but even in my stories I usually know tons of stuff I don't add into the story proper. And she doesn't need attention.

[DraconianOne]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

I've always had my suspicions about Siegfried and Roy.  And David Copperfield.


Don't even get me started on David Blaine!

[Riggswolfe]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

I've always had my suspicions about Siegfried and Roy.  And David Copperfield.


Don't even get me started on David Blaine!

I know this was probably meant to have green text, but short of catching Siegfried and Roy actually having sex I don't think I could be anymore positive about them.

[Yegolev]

Sarchasm.  You entered it.

If you watch Fairly Oddparents, occasionally when visiting the Fairy World you can notice they are passing the intersection of Sigfried and Roy.

[BigBlack]

In terms of writing, there's a lot to characters that never make the story. Most writers -- especially writers who spend a lot of time (multiple books or many years) working with the same set of characters, endow them with a wide variety of experiences, backstory, impulses, and drives that don't ever make the story.

QFT.

I've recently gotten hooked on reading a LiveJournal group called "little details", wherein run-of-the-mill amateur writers seek help looking for detailed information about obscure topics in order to fully flesh out their characters and give them depth and authenticity.  These are people with books they'll probably never finish, who will probably never have their writing substantially appreciated.  And yet they've fleshed their 'worlds' out to an almost absurd level of detail.  To think a writer as spotlighted as J.K. Rowling wouldn't have her worlds equally filled out in her mind is silly.

Besides, there's a big aftermarket for these sort of tidbits.  Harry Potter fans don't just enjoy the books, they enjoy the world the books portray -- hence all the fan fiction and whatnot.  They love to get any additional drops of information J.K. Rowling is willing to let out.  She's giving the fans what they want.  It's the rough equivalent of all those "official" Starfleet technical pubs that have been released for people to geek out over.  Of course, Star Trek is a series that appeals primarily to men, and those were packed with the sort of tech details that appeal primarily to men, so nobody accused the owners of the license of 'attention whoring' when they did it.

[Righ]

Which Starfleet technical publications did you have in mind? It wouldn't make sense for one to claim Roddenberry that he was attention whoring, since he wasn't the author of any of them to the best of my knowledge. Most of the Star Trek authors have been called attention whores at one point or another. There isn't an online copy of The Authoritative Guide To Insults Applied To Sci-Fi Writers By Fans for me to cite, but you can take it from me that they were.

[Margalis]

Someone asked her a question and she answered it. The only reason it could be considered "attention whoring" is that people in this country are overly concerned with teh ghay.

[Paelos]

I get the feeling she'd rather have people leave her the hell alone rather than stirring up a frenzy.

[lamaros]

If you have information and someone asks you a question you are never, in no way ever, attention whoring if you choose to answer said question. No matter the nature of the question, it is impossible to attention whore in a response to a direct question.

I'm glad we've cleared this up. Thank you all kindly for the time you have generously donated to this issue.

[Ironwood]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

Gandalf isn't gay.

[DraconianOne]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

Gandalf isn't gay.

What?  Are you kidding?  He's so gay!

[Morat20]

So the Potter wizard is gay, as is Gandalf. How many more men of magic are gay, and is it a needed lifestyle in order to wield massive magic power?

Gandalf isn't gay.

Dude, he's totally fucking gay. But that's okay -- Sam will kill him if he tries anything.