Kevin's Watch

No, really. Rowling confirms it.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

I think this makes a lot of sense.

Must....resist.....making...any....Headmaster.....jokes.........

High Lord Tolkien wrote:Must....resist.....making...any....Headmaster.....jokes.........

Okay, I've now embarrassed myself at work with laughing too loud and too long. Thanks.


No, really....thanks!

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the fact that she didn't make it clear from the beginning of the books.

Esmer wrote:I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the fact that she didn't make it clear from the beginning of the books.

Why not, Es? Not everyone broadcasts their preferences in a blatant manner. And in some circles it is totally passe for sexual preference to even become known within the interactions. Yes? Or am I totally mistaken?

No, you have a point there. That's why I said I'm not sure, really. It just seems it's an issue with some people, and if him being gay wasn't a "big deal", we wouldn't be talking about it, heh. I'm not weighing in here on any side or the other, either, it just seemed like if it was important now it should've been important then. And I'm not saying she should have bashed everyone over the head with it, but I think if you are going to "build a relationship" with a character, as I'm sure we all do, something like that should be part of the equation so to speak. It doesn't change how I feel about a character, but it certainly "colors" them with a different stroke, ya know what I mean?

And for another matter, she should have let Dumbledore speak for himself! If it was important enough for us to know he was gay, it was important enough for him to tell us himself.....

But, I think it was her intent for us to not know his sexual preference at all, but to leave it in the realm of speculation. She slipped a note to the movie director because he was implying something that was not in the books and went totally against her own inner vision (like her insisting Kreacher be left in OotP). And she came out that he was Gay because of the explanation regarding Grindelwald in whether Dumbledore found true love.

Yes, she glossed over that bit of the relationship in what we learn of Dumbledore's past in DH, but really, until she answered this question, did any of us miss knowing this information? It's no different that some of the other things she explained in interviews since the series ended. At least, IMO.

How would you feel if SRD had TC as gay and he raped Triock? or if Linden was gay? Or Bannor?

Paint me cynical but could this simply be Rowling trying to appeal to the 'gay market'. She's nothing if she's not great at marketing her product. And we all know that the gay dollar is huge in times of recession. There's been research.

Esmer wrote:How would you feel if SRD had TC as gay and he raped Triock? or if Linden was gay? Or Bannor?

Heh. I just saw your question regarding that in the TC forum.

Truthfully? I would be fine with it, as long as it didn't effect the story from the way it was written. If the story had been written as per your post in the TC forum, I admit I probably would not have continued with the book back in 1979. But if SRD were to come out and say, "heck yeah, such and such character is gay, but it doesn't come into the story as I am telling it," no problem.

Marvin wrote:Paint me cynical but could this simply be Rowling trying to appeal to the 'gay market'. She's nothing if she's not great at marketing her product. And we all know that the gay dollar is huge in times of recession. There's been research.

Well... isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I mean all her 7 books are now published and Dumblydore was killed off in number 6 sooo what is or was the point of bringing him out of the closet now? The story is ended and thus his preference doesn't have any relevance to the story... now if she were planning an 8 book series and somehow Dumbledore's orientation had an effect upon characters or character or the whole plot... mebbe some ties with Voldermort or something?? I dunno...
Gays already LOVE the series anyway and while there were no "open" characters I'm sure they were favored (to be) within the Gay community.
I mean heck maybe even Snapes was gay. Since he couldn't have Lily he might've found solace *ahem* elsewhere, but still holding the woman in his heart.

The whole issue is irrelevant IMO.

If Dumbledore was gay, then that means Gandalf--oh God! That's why he spent so much time "imprisoned" at Orthanc, the kinky bastard!

Dumbledore being gay has no bearing on the stories. Based on that alone, Ms. Rowling should have left him in the closet.

Dumdledore was gay.
Neville married Hannah Abbott.
Hagrid never married at all.
Ginny was a professional quidditch player.
Harry became head of the Auror Office.
Ron helped George out with the business.
Hermione helped re-write laws governing house elves.
Lucius Malfoy avoided prison.
Dolores Umbridge did not.
Shacklebolt became permanent Minister for Magic.
Luna became a naturalist.
Snape portrait eventually ended up in the Headmaster's office.

All these things went unmentioned in the books--rightfully, imo--but were revealed by Rowling later. And I don't mind a bit.

Zahir wrote:Dumdledore was gay.
Neville married Hannah Abbott.
Hagrid never married at all.
Ginny was a professional quidditch player.
Harry became head of the Auror Office.
Ron helped George out with the business.
Hermione helped re-write laws governing house elves.
Lucius Malfoy avoided prison.
Dolores Umbridge did not.
Shacklebolt became permanent Minister for Magic.
Luna became a naturalist.
Snape portrait eventually ended up in the Headmaster's office.

All these things went unmentioned in the books--rightfully, imo--but were revealed by Rowling later. And I don't mind a bit.

*nod*

Thanks Zahir. These are the things I was referring to when I said Rowling gave details in interviews after the series ended. But I couldn't remember exact details. I put this in the same category as well.

onewyteduck wrote:Dumbledore being gay has no bearing on the stories. Based on that alone, Ms. Rowling should have left him in the closet.

I agree.

dlbpharmd wrote:

onewyteduck wrote:Dumbledore being gay has no bearing on the stories. Based on that alone, Ms. Rowling should have left him in the closet.

I agree.

It seems to me that Rowling would never have made him gay unless she intended to out him all along.

She is certainly sending some kind of message.

The mesage may merely be that gay people should buy her books, though. Maybe not enough of them are. (The LOTR movies certainly were considering the gay audience.)

If this stuff was important then why didn't she include it in the books? I already had my furious tirade about Dolores Umbridge not getting her just desserts. It would have been nice if there was a little something about her going to prison in the book. It would have given me closure, the after the fact interview mention just doesn't make it right to me.

I think she waited until it was "safe" to reveal that, as in "not affecting book sales". Now that Potter is over, this can only serve to attract the "gay crowd", but she is also immune from any "hetero backlash."

btw, did Richard Harris or Sir Michael John Gambon know this? Too late for a quote from Richard, but has Gambon had anything to say about it? He is mentioned as being a strict Catholic.....

"safe" Esmer? Aberforth liked to diddle goats and that was included in the books. Beastiality is more socially acceptable than homosexuality?