Dumbledore’s A Whoopsie
Posted by Dirty Harry on Saturday, October 20th, 2007
So says J.K. Rowling after the books have been sold. What bravery. But it’s hard to get uptight over it. After all, English and Gay is like Japan and China: you can’t really tell the difference.
Filed in General |
joeon 20 Oct 2007 at 9:29 pm 1After readin that article, I have come to the conclusion that Rowling just killed a lot of characterization for Dumbledore that was developed in book 7. That’s all fine and dandy that DD’s gay, but it was who she mentioned as his interest. I had thought that Dumbledore fell into legue with Grindelwald because of the pain and despair of his situation clouded his judgement. Now she’s going to go with the whole “blinded by love” angle, which just ruins his parralels with Severus Snape, Voldemort, and Harry himself. It just doesn’t fit with the whole “ousted by society and driven into near madness” by the events of his adolescence that Harry and Snape had going on. It was a well intentioned but bad move.
kishkeon 21 Oct 2007 at 4:11 am 2Joe, don’t take it so seriously. He’s just a figment of her imagination.
Dirty Harryon 21 Oct 2007 at 2:17 pm 3It’s her jab at the right-wing — maybe she was getting fewer cocktail party invites.
We’re I gay I’d be upset that she waitied to say anything. Were profits more important than honesty? What’s wrong with being gay? Why keep DD in the closet?
kishkeon 21 Oct 2007 at 2:28 pm 4As far as I’m concerned, anything about a character that’s not in the book, is irrelevant. Like you say, she’s just being a wise-ass after the profits have been safely salted away.
Splashon 24 Oct 2007 at 6:32 pm 5Totally, kishke. She conveniently outed the old boy after she was done with him. I couldn’t resist blogging this one too, like the rest of the universe.
kishkeon 24 Oct 2007 at 6:42 pm 6What annoys me is that this series is supposed to be wholesome, kid-friendly and all that. Which means that the imagined sexual orientation of the imaginary characters is of no relevance (which is of course why it was nowhere mentioned in the book). So why the hell is it so important for her to come out with this stupid thing? Must everything be sexualized?
Nateon 24 Oct 2007 at 8:17 pm 7I agree Kishke.
WHY must everything be sexualized?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.Shipping
kishkeon 24 Oct 2007 at 8:37 pm 8Sick.
Andrea Harrison 24 Oct 2007 at 8:52 pm 9I thought it was her jab at her fans and their idiotic preoccupations with the minutiae of the “lives” of fictional characters. (Note: example chosen completely at random after a five-second search.)
kishkeon 24 Oct 2007 at 9:48 pm 10If it was only a jab at her fans, why would she have instructed the director of the film to remove a reference to a female interest for Dumbo?