"Books? You want books?! Ha! We've got books on hairy otters, on onions and on mars! All the fungus you could care for, plus, three triple zillion stars. We've got books on flossing teeth, plus three books on tossing sheep. If we spent our lives just counting books, we'd never get to sleep!" -Leopold the Librarian ("The Great Wishy Woz")
The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.
The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.
-Yahoo News
Discuss.
I saw that as well and went "Holy poo on toast."
Goodness gracious, this is really getting out of hand. There are many young (8-12) kids who'll now be confronted and questioned with this. What next will she conjure up, Harry is really a troll in disguise?
My boss mentioned it at work today, interestingly enough. I thought he was talking about the actor in movies and wasn't terribly shocked. However, this enlightment is...unusual...to say the least.
I think that it's stupid. In no way do the books suggest that. I think that Rowling is simply trying to appear open minded and tolerant. There is no way she could have thought about it in the first six books since Dumbledore's past is not explored at all until the last book. Even in the seventh book there is no reference to it at all.
I think that even if Rowling says it there's nothing in her books to back it up.
I agree, it's rediculous. There is no reason to make such a statement, her idea of his back story plays zero role in the book. Just showing how sick our culture is.
“God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.” Chester W. Nimitz
STRYPER wrote:I was thinking of posting this in Finneman's but didn't think it belonged there. I don't really think it belongs here either
Perhaps the 18+ section... I'll talk it over with my peeps
(those little marshmallows are so helpful sometimes)
All you 18 plussers get to talk about all the fun stuff
Not fair
"Any aspect of your faith which you do not question, is the one which should be questioned most." "I totally approve of toddlers getting married." -Continental Admiral (aka Baragon)
I think that Rowling is actually being a really smart advertiser. She's already appealed to the kids, sold all the books that she needs to, as well as parents will just blow it off by saying it doesn't imply that in the books, while the homosexuals, will donate to her, buy her books, etc. That's what I think personally. That's why I've never read her books. She just appeals to everyone, so she can sell the most books. <_<
Life with God is not immunity from difficulties, but peace in difficulties. ~ C.S. Lewis
It's just... entirely pointless and stupid. It's one thing if something like that figures into a book, but after a series is done, to come out and say, "Oh yeah, by the way, that one dude is gay" is just... ridiculous.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:
I didn't read it in the first place because of occultic magic.
I understand that, I'm just wondering why you have another reason not to read the book now that the author has supposedly "outed" a character. I say supposedly because no where in the book does it even suggest that the character is gay.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:
I didn't read it in the first place because of occultic magic.
I understand that, I'm just wondering why you have another reason not to read the book now that the author has supposedly "outed" a character. I say supposedly because no where in the book does it even suggest that the character is gay.
It doesn't - which is why Rowling's suggestion was so utterly rediculous. As she hasn't actually substantiated that claim in any of the books, her comments really don't change the nature of my opinion towards them. I would be interested in hearing from someone who has changed their opinion based on these recent comments.
jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:
I didn't read it in the first place because of occultic magic.
I understand that, I'm just wondering why you have another reason not to read the book now that the author has supposedly "outed" a character. I say supposedly because no where in the book does it even suggest that the character is gay.
No, I don't read J. K. Rowling because she is willing to sacrifice for more money and books sold.
Peri: Do you mean the TARDIS is malfunctioning again?
The Doctor: Malfunctioning? [pause] Malfunctioning? MALFUNCTIONING!?
STRYPER wrote:I'm moving this topic to Harlequin... but if you guys make it spicy in here we'll have to move it back
*adds cinnamon, cloves, garlic, paprika, red and black pepper, salt, basil, thyme etc*
Oh wait...
I don't really care
I don't read the books anyways, so...
Although I must admit, when I read that on Yahoo i was like "woah...what in the world is this world coming to?" lol.
The only problem i see with that...is it desensitizes ppl even more than we already are to that sort of thing. I understand that she apparently did not even allude to that in her books, but still.
"Any aspect of your faith which you do not question, is the one which should be questioned most." "I totally approve of toddlers getting married." -Continental Admiral (aka Baragon)
STRYPER wrote:I was thinking of posting this in Finneman's but didn't think it belonged there. I don't really think it belongs here either
Perhaps the 18+ section... I'll talk it over with my peeps
(those little marshmallows are so helpful sometimes)
There's an 18+ section of the ToO? Where?
Anyway, I was definitely shocked about Dumbledore. I thought the minute I heard that all she was doing was trying to get publicity. Since she's not making anymore Harry Potter books, I bet she just said that so gay people will buy her books now because there's a "gay" guy in them.