The Official Harry Potter Book Discussion

[ManOfWesternesse]

It is a bit idealistic of me to see it that way. And your probably right about her being fully aware of the affects. But I like to see it as this: Educated people are more accepting and idealistic then most. These groundbreaking individuals like JRK set the bar... so in the future maybe it will be a non-issue.

I agree - I think JKR was aware of the reaction her announcement would get, but I don't believe that's why she chose to divulge the information.

As I said before, she's got this book of character notes she's been writing and using from day one, and I'd be willing to bet she's known DD was gay from the get go.

It shouldn't cause an uproar - but the people who are offended by the thought of DD being gay, have bigger problems going on for them than critiscism of popular fiction

I don't think anyone here is talking about an uproar because DD is gay, or at least that was my impression, nor are they offended that he is.

For me it is about why JKR announced it the way she did.
- Why did she not do it in the Book (if, as you say, she knew it from the get go)?
- Was it valid of her at all to announce it after-the-fact like that, with the 7 books safely published?
- Did she know the effect/debate/etc... she would cause by doing so?
- Indeed, should she revise the Books & put it in?

Personally, I'm not much bothered. I love the story as it is written, I've re-read it all a few times and I expect to re-read it all a great many more. And Dumbledore will still be 'Dumbledore' each time I do.

... but there's no harm in a bit of healthy debate in the meantime?

[Darkthoughts]

I don't think anyone here is talking about an uproar because DD is gay, or at least that was my impression, nor are they offended that he is.

I'm not talking about anyone here either, I'm talking about the Fundamentalist Christians in America, the same ones who've banned her books because of the whole witchcraft thing. I'm pretty sure that's who JKR meant when she commented on the possible reaction too

For me it is about why JKR announced it the way she did.
- Why did she not do it in the Book (if, as you say, she knew it from the get go)?
- Was it valid of her at all to announce it after-the-fact like that, with the 7 books safely published?
- Did she know the effect/debate/etc... she would cause by doing so?
- Indeed, should she revise the Books & put it in?

Well, it's pretty irrelevant to the story one way or the other, so I don't think it'd be necessary to revise. She only outed DD because she was specifically asked by an audience member if DD had ever married.

I think it was alot more innocently divulged than people seem to think. And that's sort of the point I was trying to make above. It shouldn't matter that DD is gay, it shouldn't be cause for discussion in a way (even though I love discussing HP ) but really, the discussion is arising (not just here but on HP forums) not because DD has had relationships, but because he's had homosexual relationships - and who should care solely on that basis?

[ManOfWesternesse]

OK Dark - I see what you mean.
I would not be overly aware of these Fundamentalists you speak of, but I get the gist of it.
Yes, you are right in saying that it's largely irrelevant to the story told in the 7 books.

[Darkthoughts]

I'm in England Brian, so I'm not over familiar with them myself. But I did used to mod at a Harry Potter forum, and we'd get a bit of abuse off the Fundies every now and then.

[Letti]

Anyway... I have another question!
Is Dumbledore gay at all? I mean it's not written in the book. Has the writer have power over their books even if they are finished?
For my part I don't think so.
If I say I felt Dumbledore gay in the books is not different from JKR saying the same. Everything that's not written is just a thought a guess or a feeling.

Does it make any sense?
If it's not written down it's just a sentence - like anyone's. HP's world exists in the books and nowhere else.

[ManOfWesternesse]

It's a good question Letti.
I'm tempted to use the old "If it's not in the Book - it's not cannon" argument.... but honestly I think that the Author 'owns' the work in it's entirity, so if (s)he adds to it then yes, it is 'real'.
So in this case ,according to JKR, Dumbledore is gay. Therefore I think I have to accept that he is gay. My only argument or question was about how JKR handled it. The fact that he is gay will not affect the books for me.

[Letti]

Hmmm... when I write and I finish a short story I don't feel that I own it. Or I have power over it. Moreover. When I reread it later I see that I should make some changes but I can't because I feel... it's over me. They did that they wanted to do they said that they wanted to say.
My part is over. The reader can think this or that. See things in it that's not there at all but my part is over.
Do I sound insane?

[ManOfWesternesse]

No Letti - never insane!
*hey, youse guys with the white jackets, get in here quick while i keep her distracted*
ahem....

No, I know what you mean. But that's almost like you're a medium through which the story is told (bit like King and his 'voice of Gan' thing), as opposed to a creator who crafts and refines the story. Of course, even then there would be creators who would contend that the 'final draft' is final and unchangeable!

[Brice]

"Art is never finished, only abandoned."

[TerribleT]

Hmmm... when I write and I finish a short story I don't feel that I own it. Or I have power over it. Moreover. When I reread it later I see that I should make some changes but I can't because I feel... it's over me. They did that they wanted to do they said that they wanted to say.
My part is over. The reader can think this or that. See things in it that's not there at all but my part is over.
Do I sound insane?

That actually makes a lot of sense, and I agree with it.

[Brice]

I don't mean to make this religious, but I've really never understood why christians tend to judge gay people. I mean yes, it does suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but it aslo teaches not to judge. If it is/were sinful still god supposedly hates the sin, not the sinner. All this just goes to say I don't see why it's relevant if a person is gay. Moreso if it is just a character in a book or a movie.

[sai blaine]

I don't mean to make this religious, but I've really never understood why christians tend to judge gay people. I mean yes, it does suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but it aslo teaches not to judge. If it is/were sinful still god supposedly hates the sin, not the sinner. All this just goes to say I don't see why it's relevant if a person is gay. Moreso if it is just a character in a book or a movie.

Teach what you preach eh

[Brice]

I don't mean to make this religious, but I've really never understood why christians tend to judge gay people. I mean yes, it does suggest that homosexuality is sinful, but it aslo teaches not to judge. If it is/were sinful still god supposedly hates the sin, not the sinner. All this just goes to say I don't see why it's relevant if a person is gay. Moreso if it is just a character in a book or a movie.

Teach what you preach eh

Sorta! I just don't understand some seeming contradictions. When I did consider myself "religious" I'd have watched any movie or read any book and realized it's no more than a story. It has no relevance...no influence on real life.

[Darkthoughts]

Because you are a rational person with confidence in your own opinions Brice It makes me think that the reason all these religious right wingers oppose everything, is because they're insecure in their beliefs and feel uncomfortably challenged by any opinions that run contrary to theirs.

[TerribleT]

Because you are a rational person with confidence in your own opinions Brice It makes me think that the reason all these religious right wingers oppose everything, is because they're insecure in their beliefs and feel uncomfortably challenged by any opinions that run contrary to theirs.

Why can't it just be that they believe that being gay is wrong, as fanatically as you believe it's ok. I think it's more a matter of the fact that they believe with all of their heart and mind that being gay is wrong, as is stealing, lying and murder. I would think that individuals such as yourselves who are so tolerant, would be more tolerant and seek to understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, rather than belittle them and make fun of them. Getting back to the topic, I think, as this post demonstrates, that JKR sought to draw attention to her stories. It worked, and this is proof positive.

[Darkthoughts]

Stealing, murdering and lying are harmful to other people, it's common sense for these things to be frowned upon. But being gay is not a sin or a crime, it's the way a person is and is harmful to no-one.

The very fact that you could compare it to murder is a huuuuge reason i have no tolerance or respect for such an opinion.

However, you are right that we are getting off topic. If you want to continue discussing this then lets take it to the religious thread, or feel free to pm me

[TerribleT]

I really don't want to discuss it, but I'm kinda tired of listening to you bashing Christians. I know a number of Christian people, and to a person they are much more giving, and caring of their fellow human beings than most of the non-Christians that I know. Most of the non-christians I know don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves, and their own little world. Many Christians actually get out and practice what they preach, and they do a lot of good in the world through their missions and a variety of other ways, and that's VERY true of US christian organizations. I haven't heard any Christians saying that gay people should be killed, however I have heard it from other religions. I, for one, would really appreciate it if you'd stop bashing christians. I don't agree with them a lot of the time, but at least they put their money, time and effort where their mouth is.

[CyberGhostface]

I would think that individuals such as yourselves who are so tolerant, would be more tolerant and seek to understand the viewpoints of those who disagree with you, rather than belittle them and make fun of them.

Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?

[Matt]

Hmmm...way off topic. I would say we take this to the religious thread.

I'm not sure characterizing Darkthoughts as intolerant is the way to go but I do understand the perspective. I also understand that people have strong feelings about this.

Not all Christians are haters and not all gay folks are pervs.

The best thing we can do is not put each other into boxes because its almost always wrong.

I will bump the religious thread with my thoughts on the subject but it basically boils down to the fact that consenting adults (imo) can get naked with any other consenting adult regardless of gender.

Because seriously? What difference does it make where or who is getting poked as long as everyone is age of consent.

[Sai Joshua]

The people who come on TV and blast people on subjects they know nothing about piss me off. I watched a special on the Harry Potter books and it was apparent to me that whoever compiled this data on the books had not read a one of them. You cannot call them Fundamentalist Christians! Fanatical Right Wing troublemakers would be a better description. And to characterize every Christian as someone who looks down their nose at everyone from some great height of righteousness is akin to saying that every gay man is like the guys on "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" and that every lesbian wears their hair cut short and dresses like a man. It's ok for you to beat someone down because of their beliefs, but you are an insensitive, judgemantal jerk if you don't agree with someone's sexual preference. I have never been rude, condescending or violent towards homosexuals, I have 2 in my own family. That doesn't mean I have to think that their lifestyle is good, right or okay.

As for the whole "audience question" thing, I very much believe in the possibility of a planted question. Why not? Doesn't it happen in Hollywood and Washington D.C. all of the time? Not saying that I have proof, just that it is not an impossibility. I like what Letti said earlier, does she own this world now that she has finished her books? I will again bring up my Lucas statement earlier. If someone changed the way you saw a character after you had read all of the material available to you, how would you feel? I still see Dumbledore as a brave man who gave his life for Harry in order for him to suceed in destroying Voldemort, but why this revelation about his sexual preference now?
I am done on this. I hope I have not offended anyone, and if I have, I cry pardon.

[OchrisO]

I will again bring up my Lucas statement earlier. If someone changed the way you saw a character after you had read all of the material available to you, how would you feel?

Lucas does that on a regular basis. I have gotten used to it.

[CyberGhostface]

It's ok for you to beat someone down because of their beliefs, but you are an insensitive, judgemantal jerk if you don't agree with someone's sexual preference.

Again, why should I tolerate intolerance? What if you said "I disagree with that person's ethnicity or religion" instead of "sexual preference"? I'm not gay myself, but I do have a couple of childhood friends that turned out to be. If I said "You're my friend, but I don't agree with your sexual preference and I think its wrong" they'd get pissed off. Moreover, I'd be ruining a ten-year friendship over a difference in sexual orientation.

I have never been rude, condescending or violent towards homosexuals, I have 2 in my own family. That doesn't mean I have to think that their lifestyle is good, right or okay.

"I'm not racist, I have two black friends!"

As for the whole "audience question" thing, I very much believe in the possibility of a planted question. Why not? Doesn't it happen in Hollywood and Washington D.C. all of the time? Not saying that I have proof, just that it is not an impossibility.

Yes, its all part of a massive conspiracy on Rowling's part so that she could out Dumbledore to gain more book sales.

I like what Letti said earlier, does she own this world now that she has finished her books?

Why wouldn't she? She's the writer. I don't get Letti's statement either. I mean, as long as its a world that she created, why wouldn't she not 'own' it? Does Stephen King no longer own the Dark Tower because he finished the series, and whatever he says about Roland thereafter be discredited?

But if that I will again bring up my Lucas statement earlier. If someone changed the way you saw a character after you had read all of the material available to you, how would you feel?

Didn't King do that, for better and for worse, with Flagg in the last book by saying that he wasn't a demon and the personification of evil but a little boy who ran away from home and was raped? Doesn't that, more or less, change the way you read The Stand?

[Darkthoughts]

Ok, I'm going to make one last post in here to defend myself.

I really don't want to discuss it, but I'm kinda tired of listening to you bashing Christians.

Well I'm kinda tired of you not reading my posts properly and consequently making uninformed assumptions about me. I wrote:

I'm not talking about anyone here either, I'm talking about the Fundamentalist Christians in America, the same ones who've banned her books because of the whole witchcraft thing.

I don't have a problem with anyone's religious views, if their views simply enable them to live their lives in an honest and caring manner. I have Christian friends and they are content with their own beliefs, so much so they don't feel the need to push them on me. However, fundamentalist/right wing/evangelical Christians do feel the need to shove their beliefs in people's faces - and I don't feel that is acceptable behaviour.

I know a number of Christian people, and to a person they are much more giving, and caring of their fellow human beings than most of the non-Christians that I know. Most of the non-christians I know don't give a fuck about anybody but themselves, and their own little world.

Don't you feel a little hypocritical having a go at me about making generalisations about Christians (which I didn't anyway), only to make a generalisation yourself about non Christians?

I haven't heard any Christians saying that gay people should be killed,

Then you obviously haven't heard of the Westboro Baptist Church, you can find their delightful site at www.godhatesfags.com - sadly, I'm not joking.

Why should we be tolerant of intolerance?

EXACTLY!

You cannot call them Fundamentalist Christians! Fanatical Right Wing troublemakers would be a better description.

The term covers both, they have become one and the same - even though Fundies started out as Christians who were following 5 basic principles. Then, people like Jerry Falwell came along and became the faces of what most people consider Fundamentalist Christians.

And to characterize every Christian as someone who looks down their nose at everyone from some great height of righteousness

But I did not, please take the time to read my posts carefully before presuming to accuse me of beating anyone on the forum down because of their beliefs. The people I am "beating down" are the Fundies. I used to mod at a HP site and have actually received threats and unbelievable pm's about burning in hell etc etc - I don't think for one minute that you or Terrible T are this kind of fanatic, but I don't tolerate people who are - that, was all I was originally saying

[TerribleT]

In case you made the assumption that I'm a Christian of any stripe, I'm not. Intolerance is intolerance, and it leads to shit like this...

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=82473

You're talking about people like this...

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=82648

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=83074


The people killed in this tragedy are two teenaged sisters, and two mid-twenties missionary workers. I know people who were affected by this. The problem I have with what you say, and the way you say it, is while you may not lump them all together (I have no way of knowing what's in your heart) others do.

The things you say result in posts like this...

Can I spend Beam Bucks on buying an assassination of Santa Claus and Jesus?

and this....

I'd pay for Santa to assassinate Jesus... or Jesus to assassinate Santa, whichever.

and people think it's ok.

I've said in at least one other post that for every group there are bad leaders, and bad members. That doesn't mean the majority of the people associated with that movement are bad. I think Matt said it best when he said that we shouldn't place people in boxes, because they likely won't fit in them.

[Brice]

I'm gonna' have to ask that we move this to the religious thread if it's going to continue please, although I am the one who brought it up. Could we please return to the topic.