I mean, the only reason it's coming up is because people refuse to use their imagination and think of what happened to the characters or fill in the blank. Blah.
Knew it all along did you? Ol' Dumbledore and Harry make quite the Spartan couple, no?
I can honestly say that I am completely bewildered about this response and where it came from. I have never said, nor implied that I believe Dumbledore was gay before this. Why you would think so mystifies me.
Rather, I'm talking about excessive, after-the-fact world building and fan enforced faux development.
Look, he's not gay in the books. The relationship with Grundelwald is the only possible incident I can find that would indicate it other than wishful or other spurious thinking. And there's not really anything there that said they were in love or had a sexual relationship.
Thus, the only reason *at all* that Dumbledore is gay now is because Rawling said so --- many months after the last book was published, let alone written, let alone planned. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned that can hardly count. It's not in the book. it's not hinted at by the book. It's not implied by the book. It simply *not* *there.*
And why did it come out? not so much Rawling's fault but rabid fans who can't be happy imagining the world unstated their own way, but have to appeal to some sort of authority about a fictitious world that will not and cannot exist. Honestly, it's pathetic.
Hating Harry Potter because of this press statement is tantamount to saying that Star Wars: a New Hope sucks because 30 years after it was released someone published a book in which Luke Skywalker's nephew turned to the dark side. In fact, it's worse. because at least that was published in the context of the story, not just revealing a character tidbit that honestly, has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual artistic work in question.
*sigh*
As for Brandon's essay. I can say this, because brandon doesn't get upset. But you're wrong.
in Point two: Inclusion, while it might not reflect on the author's intention, is going to be counted as endorsement. And not jsut by the conservative homophobes you are wroking against. Try this quote from a lesbian I know:
"I nearly had a heart attack. >>;
Then I grabbed my HP book collection and hugged it to death. <33 'Cause it had gayness in it! AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! "
I'll give you a link if you want a reference. Here's a somewhat more intelligently statement quote from the same conversation, also made by a lesbian:
"I think it does make a difference if a character in an infamous book is gay, a pretty big difference, too. Perhaps I'm standing alone on this, but I for one look forward to the day when gay/les/bi/trans topics become a popular thing in the media. Which it's getting there pretty fast, too. I mean, not only do we have shows like Will and Grace and The L word, but nowadays almost every popular shows features a little of the subject in it (Private Practice, Gray's Anatomy, Cover Girl commercials, etc). And at first, my reaction would be that they're kind of exploiting the issue and maybe even making it into some kind of trend. But if that's what it takes for a little change, I'm all for a little exploitation"
Nuff said on that, I guess. but I like to beat dead horses. I chafe at Stacer's comment about representing LDS persons in fiction as well. She has a point, but it ignores some aspects. Take Piers Anthony's character Lee in the Tarot series. Lee almost explicitly represents *all* LDS persons. He is blindly prejudiced and severely misrepresents nearly every doctrine mentioned. You don't believe this is going to color the world's perception of Latter-day Saints? If you don't, what's the point of art anyway? Whether you want it to or not, the art you create represents something of how you see the world, and a fan interpreting it that way is not just the fan's fault.
Point three also really irritated me. I guess it's because of what I read into it though, because you didn't say "don't react at all" you said "don't say it ruined it for you." If a character, *especially* a loved one, one held in a state of honor and esteem, is depicted with behavior you don't approve of, you have to say something. If Dumbledore were actually written gay, instead of the way it is, I would not consider myself a good parent if I let my child read that book, admire Dumbledore, and just be fine that the mentor is gay. I would be compelled to explain to my child that although Dumbledore had many great qualities, his homosexuality was not one of them. Maybe you can make that into good writing, since no one is perfect, but it can't be left ignored. That *does* mean acceptance, blatantly.
So I guess what I mean to say is, I agree with Sprig. It's really a non-issue unless a stupid fan question about something that has no context in the book actually means something to you. But since even brandon's making a big deal about it, I have to say that if she had actually depicted it, I would be much more disgusted.
Here's where I defend my own non-homophobia. I read
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. One of them is gay. And that is a big part of the book. Why? Because the author wanted to say something about Batman and Robin. It was a solid artistic and illustrative way of pointing out that Batman does not have teh gayzors for Robin. It's a paternal relationship, not a sodomistic one. make all the comments you want about pedophilia, it's not the point. By having a gay man who writes comics and gives everyone of his male heroes a teen sidekick realize, in the context of the congressional investigations, that being gay had nothing to do with those decisions, but was instead an expression of his desires for a more solid relationship with his father, he makes the point excellently.
Dumbledore, being gay, however, had nothing to do with the book.
I'm not against the the depiction of homosexuality. I think, however, that like extreme violence, drug use, and other deviant behavior, bandying it about is foolish. Yes, this comes from my religious understanding of it. I don't put haphazard heterosexual deviant behavior in my writing either. If it's there, it needs to be because you have something to say about it. Including it for no other reason than to include it lends it credence. Yeah, it exists. Ignoring it is foolish, though your argument about "it would make your gay children feel bad" is over-the-top and feels weak. but acknowledging it isn't helpful, or artistically accomplished.
