Niko Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) another one for my post count and - like Kenneth Grahame - if god wrote today he would possibly admit that some of the characters in his own book are not as heterosexual as some would want to believe... Edited October 24, 2007 by Niko Quote
MoGrubb Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 Does this mean that Richard Harris is gay? Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 No, at the moment, he's not even mildly amused... Quote
Chuck Nessa Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 No, at the moment, he's not even mildly amused... Haven't you heard MacArthur Park? Quote
Free For All Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Haven't you heard MacArthur Park? I still don't get the lyrics to that. At all. However, it did give the big bands something to play until Chameleon and Birdland came around. And I'll never have the recipe again. Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............... Quote
papsrus Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 ... Who cares what Dumbledore was sexually? It doesn't have to be homosexual. Fill in the blank-fetishist, voyeur, sadist, masochist, beastiality, etc., you name it, who cares?!? I know nothing about this character, nor do I care what his sexual orientation might be, but I trust you don't mean to equate homosexuality with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism and beasteality, etc. ?? Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 25, 2007 Report Posted October 25, 2007 Well, not all at the same time. There is a limit, you know... Quote
papsrus Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 Well, not all at the same time. There is a limit, you know... ... Yeah, I suppose so, now that you mention it. Quote
mikelz777 Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 (edited) ... Who cares what Dumbledore was sexually? It doesn't have to be homosexual. Fill in the blank-fetishist, voyeur, sadist, masochist, beastiality, etc., you name it, who cares?!? I know nothing about this character, nor do I care what his sexual orientation might be, but I trust you don't mean to equate homosexuality with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism and beasteality, etc. ?? Baiting the Christian? No, I don't equate them. All I am saying is that Dumbledore's sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on the story. (Yes, I have read all of the books.) Everyone is getting themselves into such a twist because homosexuality is such a hot button topic. Rowling is introducing the world to Dumbledore as a homosexual when it is not evident in the book nor is it even remotely necessary that he be a homosexual for the telling of the story. It wouldn't have mattered whether she introduced him as a homosexual, a fetishist, a voyeur, etc., etc. because they would all be equally unnecessary as one of Dumbledore's characteristics and none of them would have any bearing on the story. (I'm curious as to what the reaction would have been if she were to have saddled him with any sexual label other than homosexuality. ) For example, an important characteristic for Harry is that he be brave, even in the face of doubt and fear. If he did not possess this characteristic, the story line would not advance and would fail. It's a necessary part of the story that he be brave. An important characteristic of Ron and Hermione is that they be loyal friends because the story could not advance without it. It is necessary for the story that they be loyal. The story line with Dumbledore is that he became best friends with this other character. They both were very gifted and talented and eventually one chose to use his talents for good and the other for evil. They were very close friends after which they were totally seperated amidst family tragedy and until the time Dumbledore eventually attacked and defeated the other character for his evil misdeeds. Dumbledore apparently held back and hesitated on taking action over a period 5 years worth of misdeeds before ultimately acting against his best friend. It is such a small part of the story and never did I ever get the impression of any kind of sexual relationship (or desire for one) when reading that small portion of the book. While I would have to concede that him having a homosexual attraction to the other character is ONE possible explanation for Dumbledore's behavior in relation to that character (though it is not apparent in the book), the story would not collapse, stop moving or not make sense if he were anything other than a homosexual. It was not a necessary factor in the story as there were any number of other explanations that would serve as the basis for Dumbledore's (in)actions and behavior. That Rowling would introduce this little tidbit after the fact when it is not apparent in the book is incredibly disingenuous and reeks of some kind of agenda. (See Big Al's post #11) Edited October 26, 2007 by mikelz777 Quote
Tom Storer Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 Mike, Rowling invented this character. In her mind, he was gay, and that was part of his motivations. The fact that she imagined him this way was not, as you say, crucial to the telling of the story. AND THAT'S WHY SHE DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE STORY. The fact that she talks about it now does not change the story. So what's the big deal? You say "Everyone is getting themselves into such a twist because homosexuality is such a hot button topic." But not everyone is getting themselves into a twist. You are, for some reason. It doesn't bother me at all. You complained earlier that her talking about this was "sexualizing" the story. But the story is already "sexualized"--it's about human beings, who are sexual. The burgeoning sexuality of Harry and co. is a strong theme. If it had been revealed that, in Rowling's imagining of the character's backstory, Dumbledore had had an affair with a woman at some point, thus unambiguously revealing his heterosexuality, no one would have lifted an eyebrow. I suspect that discomfort with sexuality--not homophobia, just discomfort with the evocation of sexual desires beyond what is typically referenced in mainstream "vanilla" literature--is at the root of the controversy this seems to have provoked here. I think Rowling, rather than being disingenuous, was being honest. And as I said earlier, her agenda was apparently to plead for tolerance and the questioning of authority. That's a great agenda. More people should have that agenda. Quote
papsrus Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 ... Who cares what Dumbledore was sexually? It doesn't have to be homosexual. Fill in the blank-fetishist, voyeur, sadist, masochist, beastiality, etc., you name it, who cares?!? I know nothing about this character, nor do I care what his sexual orientation might be, but I trust you don't mean to equate homosexuality with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism and beasteality, etc. ?? Baiting the Christian? No, I don't equate them. All I am saying is that Dumbledore's sexuality has no bearing whatsoever on the story. I didn't think you were, but it could have been read like that. Frankly, it doesn't seem like something that should matter one way or the other. But, I haven't followed the story in any detail, so .... Quote
Tom Storer Posted October 26, 2007 Report Posted October 26, 2007 ... Who cares what Dumbledore was sexually? It doesn't have to be homosexual. Fill in the blank-fetishist, voyeur, sadist, masochist, beastiality, etc., you name it, who cares?!? I know nothing about this character, nor do I care what his sexual orientation might be, but I trust you don't mean to equate homosexuality with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism and beasteality, etc. ?? Hey, if it's consensual, what's the problem with fetishism, voyeurism, sadism or masochism? (Bestiality is different since animals can't really give their consent.) In any case I would "equate" homosexuality and heterosexuality with all those things and more besides. It's all desire, and who chooses that? Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 (Bestiality is different since animals can't really give their consent.) Oh, come on; that sheep was asking for it... Quote
7/4 Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 (Bestiality is different since animals can't really give their consent.) Oh, come on; that sheep was asking for it... I find they just don't complain. Quote
rostasi Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 I find they just don't complain.Yeah, what a bunch of sheep! Quote
skeith Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 I'm happy the ol' bugger has any sexual inclination left at all! He's not gay. It is pretty obvious from the look on his face that someone left his cake out in the rain! Quote
BFrank Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 Bill Maher had a hilarious take on this last night in his New Rules segment. It's not posted yet, but should be on the site soon. New Rules Quote
Niko Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 a google search for dumbledore gay gives 5.6 million hits (for comparison "Bill Clinton" 9.8 million, "Miles Davis" 2.7, "Louis Armstrong" 2.4, gay dumbledore is a bigger cultural phenomenon by now than Miles Davis and Louis Armstrong together) Quote
Jazzmoose Posted October 27, 2007 Report Posted October 27, 2007 That's not a fair comparison. Here we are talking about it on this site, but you rarely see jazz discussion on the Dumbledore is Gay forums... Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.