Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Rowling drops the gay bomb

<< < (8/23) > >>

Kartoon Kween:
I'm personally glad that Rowling outed ole Dumbles in the way that she did. I think that if she directly referenced homosexuality in her books, some parents wouldn't want their children to read them anymore. I think that by telling telling the world that her beloved character was gay after everyone read the books, she was more effective at winning a victory for tolerance.

This whole thing was better suited as an afterthought.  And what an afterthought it is...

LeeZion:
When I first heard the news about Dumbledore, my immediate response was, "Huh?" Then, two sentences later, when I heard who his true love was, my second reaction was, "Ohhhhhhhhh......"

It's entirely possible he remained celebate after that. This was not just a forbidden love, but one that contributed to the death of his sister. After that, he may have felt he could no longer trust himself with ANYONE.



P.S. It seems Larry Craig was looking for love in all the wrong places.

KvP:

--- Quote from: LeeZion on 20 Oct 2007, 20:39 ---It's entirely possible he remained celebate after that. This was not just a forbidden love, but one that contributed to the death of his sister. After that, he may have felt he could no longer trust himself with ANYONE.

--- End quote ---
But that's the thing though, what good does a beloved character being gay do for tolerance if he's celibate and harmless? It's about as progressive as Will and Grace was. Or that lesbian prosecutor being outed on Law & Order was. Being gay is totally acceptable to the average person if being gay means not having any interest in sex whatsoever.

Ozymandias:
So, only straight characters are allowed to be celibate? Gay characters have to be open and constantly in relationships so they can make a statement and progress some cause?

I've actually assumed he was gay ever since I read book seven. She didn't explicitly say it, but it's there. If Grindelwald had been a woman, everyone would've immediately assumed they had a deeper relationship without it being stated too. She wrote Dumbledore like any other character. How terrible and unprogressive of her!

KvP:
Most people aren't uncomfortable with the idea of straight character with sexuality, if not an active sex life. Oftentimes they expect one. But a lot of people are made uncomfortable by the idea of a sexual gay character, and it's safe to assume that most gay people aren't celibate, and are sexual in some way. Using a celibate character doesn't address anyone's issues with gay sex or even the idea of a homosexual relationship in any way, it avoids all that, and thus you have characters who just happen to be gay, the way you might happen to have, say, run track in high school. It's a fact about you, but it has no real bearing on who you are as a person. That seems to be the case with Dumbledore. He's a noble, good character who happens to be gay. Great, that's fine. What he isn't is a noble, good character who has sex, wants to have sex with other men, or finds other men attractive. And thus even though Dumbledore's a gay character, nobody's forced to confront any prejudices they might have towards gay people in general by empathizing with him, although his fatherly relationship with Harry might help to prevent the common misconception that gay men are somehow sexually interested in male children and teens as a matter of course, which is certainly something worth pursuing.

I don't really have any problem with the character per se, but I find it a little dubious to think that any of this seriously addresses the problem of intolerance. I hope that makes sense.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page