Close Topic Options

From the BBC website, although I suspect there are simply tons of artiicles about this on the net.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm

I've seen comments for and against this. The critics say what a shame she didn't make it clearer that he was gay from the outset. The supporters say 'hooray' for a major childrens' author even admittiing that homosexuality exists.

What do you all think?

And can we include the HP books as gay now or is that stretching the point?

Grrrrrr! I have been managing not to comment on this as it appears in various Forums.

I get profoundly irritated with this tedious woman who had a good idea and got swept along with it.

As for suddenly announcing a character is gay, after the books are written, this is frankly dishonest, when there was no indication of it before.

It's like discovering a letter from Jane Austen saying, "Oh, and by the way, Darcy was a Muslim of Pakistani origin; I just forgot to mention it."

Bandwagons and leaping on come to mind.

Grrrrrrr!

Must admit to having to say: Who's Dumbledore??

Sorry - never read the stuff, nor seen the films

Just call me a luddite, eh!



A
xxx

LOL - is there anyone who doesn't know who Dumbledore is? Must admit I've never read the books either although I have seen the first 4 films and quite enjoyed them as a jolly jape.

Ansley, because I haven't read them I can't comment properly - is there absolutely no indication of D's nature in the books, at all? I got the impression from the interviews and so on that it was there if you read between the lines, but that was only my impression and I could easily be wrong.

Love the comment about Darcy. Perhaps he really was Pakistani.

I only read one and a half before gratefully leaving the volume on a train, so I'm no expert. But your question supposes there's a depth and literary merit in these things which certainly escaped me.

And as for indications of his nature, it depends if you think being an wise, elderly bachelor who is kind to people is an instant suggestion of gayness.

Grrrrr, now you've made me waste my valuable brain cells on this rubbish...

Where's Erastes? She's the expert.

(Oh, and as for Darcy, I can feel the bunnies nibbling... Didn't Bollywood do something of the sort, with an Indian Darcy? Of course, in that case, they were all Indian, which wouldn't have the same impact.)

I rather think they did do a Bollywood version recently, yes. Bride and Prejudice? Is that the one?

Valuable? Your brain? Ahem. I must have missed something, m'dear.

I'll have you know I've had several flattering offers for my brain from Broadmoor and the Black Museum.

But in the end you gave it to the zombies.

The commentary I've seen elsewhere suggests that she didn't announce it, as such -- she was doing a Q&A session, someone asked her straight out (ahem), and she answered them. of course, that makes a less interesting story for the newspapers than "Rowling announces Dumbledore Gay!!!!!"

Hmm, yeah.

Will admit happily to having read the entire HP series, mostly because I ended up reading it/recommending it to kids in school and couldn't do that without checking it out. It has a lot of flaws, but it has got a lot of kids reading long novels without illustrations so on balance I reckon it's a'good thing'. In the last volume (you've either read it by now or you don't care about spoilers) it is screamingly obvious that Dumbledore had an intense m/m relationship which affected his whole life and the entire plot of the series. There is no mention of sex, but hey, this is a book for kids and there is no mention of heterosexual sex either. I don't suppose the publishers would have gone along with it. I reckon the questioner was trying to draw her out on this, or had knowledge of her alleged note to the film makers that they couldn't include a reference to a woman in D's past.
Liz

Oh, that's really interesting, Liz. You're the first person I've seen refer to something that's *actually in the book* that makes it obvious D. is gay. With or without the sex, which I agree would have been pretty inappropriate in a childrens' book.

Most people are simply sayiing that she introduced this whole thing as an afterthought....

Well, I must be completely thick. Yes, I did notice in the last book about the whole intense m/m relationship but it did not occur to me at all that D was gay. I mean I still think it's stretching it a bit. Maybe it's me but it doesn't occur to me that two men can't be close without there being a sexual element to it -- I guess I'm thinking of heroic times throughout history and maybe in war where you have to rely on each other -- and I thought that D had a lot of other reasons to seek this relationship. He was having a rotten time of it and this friend represented freedom to me, a life 'other' than what he's living. Okay, I know it's a kids book and she was being subtle but I never paid any attention to it. LOL.

Actually, I quite like the books, although I think the movies are better. Saying that, movie 5 disappointing and book 7 a let-down for me.

I adore the movies! Though I haven't seen the latest one - we're waiting to get the DVD because we have a DVD projector and big screen - which beats chattering kids, rustling popcorn, long queues for the loo and getting your car nicked, any day!

I didn't like the epilogue - but she had to wrap it up and it was an ending for her target audience - a kind of 'and they all lived happily ever after' - even though some of them didn't. Also, it neatly brought the story full circle which was clever. The thing I really got upset about was her attitude to death - animals, it appears (and she confirmed this in an interview) are symbols of childish things that can be left behind... And people, or minor characters at any rate, can be treated as mere plot devices. I'm not sure that's a message I want to give to kids. Maybe it's a good job I've retired...

The really clever thing about the ending was that it leaves the story wide open for a sequel, with the next generation, even though she swears she will never return to it!

I see what you mean about the Boys' Own Heroic Friendship thing but I thought there was more to it than that and besides, I recently went to the Leicester Slash Study Day and heard Sheenagh Pugh on the subject of m/m friendship in some books so I suppose I was alert to the possibilities.

Liz

Although I've not read any of the books I have enjoyed most of the films very much - they're extremely well done and great *entertainment* which is exactly what you want in a movie!

I wasn't so keen on the (hmm, lost count) fourth? fifth? The one with the contest Harry went in for. I thought there were some major plot holes in that one and some of the characters were so stereotyped it hurt. The Russian gymnasts, the french girls etc. Yuk.

Animals are 'childish things' that can be left behind. Okay, symbols of, but er... no, absolutely not. Seeing her in a whole other light now.

And Fiona, you mean number 4, Goblet of Fire, which was actually my favourite of the books.

Hate the books, hate the films, hate her.

And what you've just said about animals confirms my grumpy prejudice...

LOL. Everyone is entitled to feel however they feel but I have to admit I think that's a terrible example for children.