# JK Rowling reveals Hogwarts secret



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 21, 2007)

News story

And here I would have guessed Neville, though I don't find JK's response particularly surprising having read book 7.

What is surprising is the level of fan curiosity that would prompt asking the question "Did so-and-so ever find true love?" in the first place.  My response as the author would have been something like the SNL skit of William Shatner at the Star Trek convention.

Apparently, I make a poor fanboy.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2007)

I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality has anything to do with the story.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 21, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality has anything to do with the story.




My thoughts exactly, which is why this new item produced such a "WTF?" response from me.  But apparently there is some portion of the fan base to whom this matters.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 21, 2007)

It's not really relevant to anything.  Apparently the director of Movie 6 wanted to mention one of Dumbledore's old flames, but Ms. Rowling stepped in and was like "Nuh uh."

I understand why folks are making a deal out of it, but it really isn't.


----------



## Squire James (Oct 21, 2007)

I imagine Dumbledore's sexual orientation was not terribly important in the Harry Potter series because he was (apparently) chaste at that stage of his life.  Of course, J.K. Rowling declaring that Dumbledore was chaste would draw a LOT less comment than declaring that he is gay.  To be fair, associating Dumbledore with openly-gay actor who played Gandalf is pretty natural I guess.

In a way, I'm kinda glad Rowling never went out of her way to mention Dumbledore's orientation in the books... that's definitely in the "don't need to know" category.


----------



## megamania (Oct 21, 2007)

....and why is this important again....?



This was possibly said just to get fans talking again.   Crazy.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Oct 21, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> ....and why is this important again....?




It's important for the obvious reason: it presents children with a gay character in the most popular series in children's literature who is portrayed positively and who is held out as a role model of wisdom and kindness; not as a lecher or an aberration.

Does a kid need to know and hear that a character they read about and liked was gay? Will that help them form more positive and less prejudiced views later in life?

Yes, I think it can only help.

J.K. Rowling does not need the money; she really doesn't care about that anymore. She was making her point as a writer and a humanitarian who has had  - and who will have for decades - a great influence over the minds of children the world over.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 21, 2007)

It all makes sense...  the cursed ring was an allusion to the HIV virus and Snape euthanized Dumpledore rather then to see Dumpledore wither away.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 21, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> What is surprising is the level of fan curiosity that would prompt asking the question "Did so-and-so ever find true love?" in the first place.




You have no idea of the depth of fan curiosity.  I have astounding amounts of curiosity about those missing however-many years, _just _ for starts.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 21, 2007)

So many jokes, but so many ways to get banned from here. So I better not.


----------



## horacethegrey (Oct 21, 2007)

Eh? This news just provoked a certified "What the Hell?" response from me. Was Miss Rowling wanting to make a point here?

Then again, I'd have to give kudos to her that she never revealed it until now. It's seems many fiction writers nowadays just write gay people in their stories just cause they have a proverbial axe to grind (*cough*Judd Winick*cough*). Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.


----------



## megamania (Oct 21, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Eh? This news just provoked a certified "What the Hell?" response from me. Was Miss Rowling wanting to make a point here?
> 
> Then again, I'd have to give kudos to her that she never revealed it until now. It's seems many fiction writers nowadays just write gay people in their stories just cause they have a proverbial axe to grind (*cough*Judd Winick*cough*). Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.





I guess that is my thoughts on the subject.   Today there is to much use of being gay to bring attention (money/fame) to something.  If it was done for the right reasons then fine but if only to bring new attention to the book series then no.


----------



## DM_Matt (Oct 21, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It's important for the obvious reason: it presents children with a gay character in the most popular series in children's literature who is portrayed positively and who is held out as a role model of wisdom and kindness; not as a lecher or an aberration.
> 
> Does a kid need to know and hear that a character they read about and liked was gay? Will that help them form more positive and less prejudiced views later in life?
> 
> ...




This only works though if he is somehow meaningfully gay within the work.  For the author to declare a character gay after the fact, if such a judgement is entirely exogenous to what happens in the book, probably doesn't work the same way.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 21, 2007)

megamania said:
			
		

> If it was done for the right reasons then fine but if only to bring new attention to the book series then no.



Doesn't Rowling literally have more money than the Queen?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 21, 2007)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> This only works though if he is somehow meaningfully gay within the work.




I rather agree.  If you can read the work, and never realize it, then he isn't an exemplar of what gay people can be.  Stuffing it off in the apocrypha of an author's theatrical appearance after the whole thing is over and done with doesn't have the same impact.

Mind you, I think she was wise to not make it overt - if he were openly gay in the book, it would have muddled the other messages something fierce, and probably earned here rather more negative backlash from the public.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 21, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I rather agree.  If you can read the work, and never realize it, then he isn't an exemplar of what gay people can be.  Stuffing it off in the apocrypha of an author's theatrical appearance after the whole thing is over and done with doesn't have the same impact.




That is unless she intends to revisit the series later on in the form of a prequel book, THEN it would make an impact.


However, I think she might have also mentioned it to get more notoriety.. thus cementing her futher into the realm of media-whoredom..  Think about it, except for the movies, the series is over which means that her 15 minutes has finally ended (until she produces her next big hit).  She releases the statement that Dumpledore is gay allowing her to get major press with every news outlet in the western world all the while making herself a champion of gay rights (due to the upstanding nature of Dumpledore's character).

THEN when this current generation of children grow up, those who decide to become literary academics will revisit her books and will pull out all the non-existent clues and write more thesises and academic papers about the series including those about the subject of Dumpledore's sexuality.  Thus, ensuring that her books will be placed on a higher pedestal as it becomes part of academic/educational cannon insuring that her book will earn even more money as the years progress until, that is, the story becomes public domain.

Such a brilliantly evil plan...  I sware, if I had the money, I'd buy her press agent cause she has no doubt the best pr person on the panet.


----------



## Merkuri (Oct 22, 2007)

Some of the posters in this thread sound like they think Rowling made a big deal out of it.  She didn't. She probably wouldn't have even brought it up if it wasn't for the question of a child during a Q-and-A session.  It's not like she made a press release.

I think it's the media that is making a big deal out of this.  If Rowling wanted to make a big deal out of it she would've written it into the books.  The fact that you can't tell Dumbledoor's sexuality from reading the book is a sign that she didn't think it was relevant to the story, but I applaud her for having that part of his character in mind the whole time.  It's another sign that her characters are not just flat embodiments of good or evil, as they seemed in the first book.  They're real, living, breathing people, who happen to only exist in a book.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 22, 2007)

horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.



That is unprovable one way or the other if Rowling ever made a writing desision based on Albus's preferences. But I'm going to bet  *Family Guy* will find a way to use this for humor in a Herbert skit.


----------



## Shalimar (Oct 22, 2007)

It comes off to me like she has the characters a lot more fleshed out than what she had room to put into the books.  She left out his sexual preference since it wasn't germane to the story, but when she was directly asked about it she gave the information asked for.  She didn't make it a big deal.  I don't know what the sexual orientation of most of my teachers were it didn't have any relevance to what they were teaching.  That doesn't mean they didn't have a sexual orientation though.


----------



## Banshee16 (Oct 22, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Doesn't Rowling literally have more money than the Queen?




Somehow, I doubt it.  

Banshee


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 22, 2007)

Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Somehow, I doubt it.




Rowling beats her by a fair margin. _Forbes _ reports Queen Elizabeth's personal fortune is $818 million in 2004 (most of this sum is due to a nest egg put aside for her by her father), while Rowling's earnings topped $1 billion that same year.


----------



## doubleplusgood (Oct 22, 2007)

Prediction:  The hottest Halloween costume this season will be gay Dumbledore.


----------



## GSHamster (Oct 22, 2007)

Well, it actually adds a bit more dimension to the backstory in Book 7, between Dumbledore and the German wizard who went evil (I forgot his name).


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 22, 2007)

Merkuri said:
			
		

> Some of the posters in this thread sound like they think Rowling made a big deal out of it.  She didn't. She probably wouldn't have even brought it up if it wasn't for the question of a child during a Q-and-A session.  It's not like she made a press release.




Even in that context I don't understand why she answered that way though. The question wasn't 'is dumbledore gay', the question was whether dumbledore found 'true love'. The answer to that might have been yes, no or maybe without even bringing up the sexuality question.

It isn't an apparent issue in any of the books, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any aspect of the stories, it seems to me to be an irrelevance which she has introduced for shock value at this point, for reasons unknown.

Strange.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 22, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Rowling beats her by a fair margin. _Forbes _ reports Queen Elizabeth's personal fortune is $818 million in 2004 (most of this sum is due to a nest egg put aside for her by her father), while Rowling's earnings topped $1 billion that same year.




Yup.  I think the royal family still have the most land in the world, but Rowling beats them in overall worth.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 22, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Even in that context I don't understand why she answered that way though. The question wasn't 'is dumbledore gay', the question was whether dumbledore found 'true love'. The answer to that might have been yes, no or maybe without even bringing up the sexuality question.
> 
> It isn't an apparent issue in any of the books, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any aspect of the stories, it seems to me to be an irrelevance which she has introduced for shock value at this point, for reasons unknown.
> 
> Strange.



 I agree.  

If I were the author (oh, I wish) my answer to questions like that would be, "I've written the books but, now that you have read them, those things left unwritten are up to you to decide in your own imagination."  Which of course would be wholly unsatisfying to the people asking the questions.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 22, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> It comes off to me like she has the characters a lot more fleshed out than what she had room to put into the books.  She left out his sexual preference since it wasn't germane to the story, but when she was directly asked about it she gave the information asked for.  She didn't make it a big deal.  I don't know what the sexual orientation of most of my teachers were it didn't have any relevance to what they were teaching.  That doesn't mean they didn't have a sexual orientation though.




Partly true, but like the other "post book" stuff she's said, it doesn't speak to her consistency about her characters. Not that saying Dumbledore was not gay or anything, but next week in an interview, he might not be. Except for what is in the book, it's hard to judge whether this was something she always "knew" or something she thought of, then discarded because it added nothing to the story, or what it might have been.

I mean, the gay headmaster of the school taking his young male prodigy off on trips all alone...

Anyway, it doesn't really matter, most of Hogwarts was decidedly asexual. Kissing was shocking behavior after all.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 22, 2007)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> It's important for the obvious reason: it presents children with a gay character in the most popular series in children's literature who is portrayed positively and who is held out as a role model of wisdom and kindness; not as a lecher or an aberration.




I'm both a parent and a teacher of children. Never once did the alleged obviousness of this supposedly important reason ever enter my mind. YMM obviously V, but this much ado about nothing strikes me as little more than pandering.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Oct 22, 2007)

Ironically, the slash fics shall run free!


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Oct 22, 2007)

Shalimar said:
			
		

> It comes off to me like she has the characters a lot more fleshed out than what she had room to put into the books.  She left out his sexual preference since it wasn't germane to the story, but when she was directly asked about it she gave the information asked for.  She didn't make it a big deal.  I don't know what the sexual orientation of most of my teachers were it didn't have any relevance to what they were teaching.  That doesn't mean they didn't have a sexual orientation though.




Totally; apparently, there's a lot more to Dean Thomas than made it into the books, just for starters.

Brad


----------



## Remus Lupin (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm not bothered by it at all, but it occurs to me that all the fundamentalist fervor against the books will ratchet up again on this news. Not that it takes too much to get that going.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 23, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I mean, the gay headmaster of the school taking his young male prodigy off on trips all alone...



Figured someone would say this at some point. Because, you know, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand-in-hand and all.   

You might not have meant it like that, I'll grant, but it is often implied. If a presumed-hetero headmaster had gone off on a trip with Hermione, some might have suggested potential impropriety, but most would have thought "he's an old grandfatherly, trustworthy, ethical man, get your mind out of the gutter." The same doesn't apply when it comes to homosexuality, unfortunately. Very disappointing, when it does come up.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 23, 2007)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Figured someone would say this at some point. Because, you know, homosexuality and pedophilia go hand-in-hand and all.
> 
> You might not have meant it like that, I'll grant, but it is often implied. If a presumed-hetero headmaster had gone off on a trip with Hermione, some might have suggested potential impropriety, but most would have thought "he's an old grandfatherly, trustworthy, ethical man, get your mind out of the gutter." The same doesn't apply when it comes to homosexuality, unfortunately. Very disappointing, when it does come up.




Actually, it IS the same as if Hermoine had gone off with him, the same issues would be raised.

Any anger you have with your mad smiley is due to the assumptions you make. 

My statement was simply that had the matter remained in the book, the issue would have been raised, and so it may have been left out to avoid the issue.

And, seriously, if someone said Dumbledore was "trustworthy, ethical man", I'd know they hadn't read the same books as I did. I should think Homosexuals should be protesting such a horrible person being labeled "gay" at all.


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 23, 2007)

> If a presumed-hetero headmaster had gone off on a trip with Hermione, some might have suggested potential impropriety, but most would have thought "he's an old grandfatherly, trustworthy, ethical man, get your mind out of the gutter."



I say most folks think the first regardless of orientation of the man. Same reason why most folks chose babysitters of the female gender regardless of the child's gender. Men do not get trusted around the gender they are, or might be, attracted to.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 23, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Actually, it IS the same as if Hermoine had gone off with him, the same issues would be raised.
> 
> Any anger you have with your mad smiley is due to the assumptions you make.



Like I said, I'm not saying that you personally meant it that way, but there is a huge prejudice that exists, and it's frustrating (though I was going for more of a "disgust" smiley, which unfortunately doesn't exist). I see it all the time when folks come out of the closet.


----------



## Mark (Oct 23, 2007)

DM_Matt said:
			
		

> This only works though if he is somehow meaningfully gay within the work.






			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I rather agree.  If you can read the work, and never realize it, then he isn't an exemplar of what gay people can be.





To the contrary, he is an exemplar of what a gay person can be as an instructor, mentor, and wizard.  That he happens to be gay only means that he is not an exemplar of what a heterosexual person can be as an instructor, mentor, and wizard.  He need not be overtly gay to give evidence of his excellence in his profession or care of his charges. Would a heterosexual person need to be overtly heterosexual to prove his worth as a heterosexual in his profession?  I think not.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 23, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> To the contrary, he is an exemplar of what a gay person can be as an instructor, mentor, and wizard.  That he happens to be gay only means that he is not an exemplar of what a heterosexual person can be as an instructor, mentor, and wizard.  He need not be overtly gay to give evidence of his excellence in his profession or care of his charges. Would a heterosexual person need to be overtly heterosexual to prove his worth as a heterosexual in his profession?  I think not.



Still it has no place in a children's book. Those types of adult issues should be left for adults to discuss with their children. Not for an author to sneak into her books.  I can't imagine that she'll make another children's book after this and its really difficult for parents to tell theri children why.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 23, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Still it has no place in a children's book. Those types of adult issues should be left for adults to discuss with their children. Not for an author to sneak into her books.  I can't imagine that she'll make another children's book after this and its really difficult for parents to tell theri children why.




Someone asked her a question at an event and she answered.  I wouldn't exactly call that sneaking into the book.

Granted, I would need to reread the books but, with the possible exception of his letter(s) to Grindewald, I can't think of any expressions of Dumbledore's sexuality, overt or otherwise.

I am disappointed that she brought it up, but for different reasons.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 23, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Still it has no place in a children's book. Those types of adult issues should be left for adults to discuss with their children. Not for an author to sneak into her books.  I can't imagine that she'll make another children's book after this and its really difficult for parents to tell theri children why.




Well, it's not explicitly (or even implicitly) in the book, now is it? Still, it's _best _ placed in a young adult book.


----------



## Merkuri (Oct 23, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Still, it's _best _ placed in a young adult book.




It _was _ in a young adult book.  The only books that might even have had a hint of his sexuality were the last two, and they were written for 16-17 year old's.  The books are aimed for Harry's own age group.  They get more mature as Harry grows up.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 23, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> To the contrary, he is an exemplar of what a gay person can be as an instructor, mentor, and wizard.




I disagree.  As it stands in the text, he is an exemplar of what a _person_ can be, without reference to sexuality.  That's kind of my point - reading the text, there is no allusion to his sexuality, so that isn't part of the character displayed to us.  Rowling could just as plausibly said he was hetero, or just not interested in sex and romance.

If the only way to know about it is to step outside the text, then he can't be an exemplar of the type.


----------



## Atavar (Oct 23, 2007)

Remus Lupin said:
			
		

> I'm not bothered by it at all, but it occurs to me that all the fundamentalist fervor against the books will ratchet up again on this news. Not that it takes too much to get that going.




Please be careful about the "no religion and politics" rules here....

Later,

Atavar


----------



## Mark (Oct 24, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Rowling could just as plausibly said he was hetero, or just not interested in sex and romance.





And *that* is actually the point.


----------



## Mark (Oct 24, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> (. . .) and its really difficult for parents to tell theri children why.




They can add it to "the talk."


----------



## Holy Bovine (Oct 25, 2007)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> That is unprovable one way or the other if Rowling ever made a writing desision based on Albus's preferences. But I'm going to bet  *Family Guy* will find a way to use this for humor in a Herbert skit.




That would be a change.  Humor in a Herbet skit that is....


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 25, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> And *that* is actually the point.




But why say that he is hetero if he isn't. Why not say he is what she developed him to be (in her notes or mind or whatever)

I dont think Dumbledore was a gay role model or such as he for all intents to the story pretty asexual.

But writers all the time have more depth in the story than is what is given in the text. People ask writers about characters beyond the stated text all the time, she just answered it based on how she developed the character.

I do believe though (gut feeling no proof, could easily be wrong) that she probably wanted to drop a bombshell (well more a small firecracker) and had been waiting to do so.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 25, 2007)

apoptosis said:
			
		

> But why say that he is hetero if he isn't. Why not say he is what she developed him to be (in her notes or mind or whatever)
> 
> I dont think Dumbledore was a gay role model or such as he for all intents to the story pretty asexual.
> 
> ...



 This all points to evidence of Rowlings the thief hack writer.  If you wantedthisto be a "bombshell" yet none of your fans even saw a hint that it existed then you are a poor writer or you've proved your critics right that your books are mostly publicity and this is a deseprate attempt at it.


----------



## Obrysii (Oct 25, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> This all points to evidence of Rowlings the thief hack writer.




In her defense, she did manage to write 4200 pages of fiction in a fairly short period of time, and she did manage to make them enjoyable enough for readers of all age to read.

I'd say she most certainly is not a hack. I've always figured that those that accuse her of such are merely jealous of her. It's not easy to go from being a nobody to being among the richest authors in history. And it's not easy to produce seven books, totally 4,200 pages (if going by hard cover), in as short of time as she did. Sure, she's no Tolkien, but to call her a hack is rather wrong.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 25, 2007)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> In her defense, she did manage to write 4200 pages of fiction in a fairly short period of time....




McDonald's manages to crank out lots of hamburgers in a fairly short period of time as well. That don't make Big Macs haute cuisine.


----------



## apoptosis (Oct 25, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> This all points to evidence of Rowlings the thief hack writer.  If you wanted thisto be a "bombshell" yet none of your fans even saw a hint that it existed then you are a poor writer or you've proved your critics right that your books are mostly publicity and this is a desperate attempt at it.




While i think her writing is probably pretty good for a young audience, I would definitely say I don't consider her writing to be great by any stretch of the imagination.

My guess is that she didn't want to portray Dumbledore as gay in any way, as that would have cause too many issues and it was just something she came up with behind the scenes.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Oct 25, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I disagree.  As it stands in the text, he is an exemplar of what a _person_ can be, without reference to sexuality.  That's kind of my point - reading the text, there is no allusion to his sexuality, so that isn't part of the character displayed to us.




Dumbledore's great romantic relationship was with Grindelwald, which certainly _was_ depicted as an uncommonly close, intense and intimate friendship. 

Slughorn is also offered up as a close friend in the past; who also exhibits rather stereotypical gay socialite tendencies.

In any event, if you are saying that Dumbledore is depicted as what a an examplar of a person can be without explicit reference to their sexuality, than you have made as strong a case as one can make for JK Rowling.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 25, 2007)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> It's not easy to go from being a nobody to being among the richest authors in history.




It's easly if you write a decent book, get a good review and a good pr person then have scholastic books put your book on the front cover of  that catalog they send out to every elementary and middle school in the English speaking world.


----------



## TracerBullet42 (Oct 25, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> It's easly if you write a decent book, get a good review and a good pr person then have scholastic books put your book on the front cover of  that catalog they send out to every elementary and middle school in the English speaking world.



Come on, now...easy?  I believe we're abusing the word easy.

Sure, it's not great literature, but it's also not awful.

Sometimes stuff lies somewhere in the middle, you know?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 26, 2007)

> Originally Posted by DonTadow
> (. . .) and its really difficult for parents to tell theri children why.







			
				Mark said:
			
		

> They can add it to "the talk."




Which, truthfully, will be yet another thing foisted upon the school system to teach the students rather than the parents doing it.... :\


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 26, 2007)

Obrysii said:
			
		

> In her defense, she did manage to write 4200 pages of fiction in a fairly short period of time, and she did manage to make them enjoyable enough for readers of all age to read.
> 
> I'd say she most certainly is not a hack. I've always figured that those that accuse her of such are merely jealous of her. It's not easy to go from being a nobody to being among the richest authors in history. And it's not easy to produce seven books, totally 4,200 pages (if going by hard cover), in as short of time as she did. Sure, she's no Tolkien, but to call her a hack is rather wrong.



Being around the writing business for a while, I"m betting that she has used a ghost writer for more than half of the material.  You'd be surprised whose really written your favorites


----------



## Rykion (Oct 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Being around the writing business for a while, I"m betting that she has used a ghost writer for more than half of the material.  You'd be surprised whose really written your favorites



Wow you've gone from calling Rowling a "thief hack writer" to saying she doesn't write her own books.  I think we get that you don't like her.  You are making a very serious allegation here.  If your only proof is "being around the writing business," you probably shouldn't be making it.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 26, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Wow you've gone from calling Rowling a "thief hack writer" to saying she doesn't write her own books.  I think we get that you don't like her.  You are making a very serious allegation here.  If your only proof is "being around the writing business," you probably shouldn't be making it.




It's not uncommon, really. That said, I read books 1-5 when 6 came out. There was a noticeable change around book 3 or 4. Either she took some instruction, or gained a "handler" or ghost writer. Don't think of it as someone writing the book, think of it as an editor editing the book extensively.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Oct 26, 2007)

To be fair, there were plenty of signifiers in the final book.  (The whole deal where Dumbledore's brother explained about Grindelwald? Fairly _reeked_ of UST, IMO.)

And I think it's awesome that such a high-profile person as JK Rowling made such an open declaration about the sexuality of her characters, and made it a non-issue. (I always enjoy hearing people's thoughts on their creations, anyway, and this was just an added bonus.)

Indeed, if she HAD put it in the books, it would have felt forced, since Dumbledore's sexuality doesn't especially figure into Harry's story.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 26, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Wow you've gone from calling Rowling a "thief hack writer" to saying she doesn't write her own books.  I think we get that you don't like her.  You are making a very serious allegation here.  If your only proof is "being around the writing business," you probably shouldn't be making it.



There's a reason why ghost writing is amore lucrative market than actual writing. You sign contracts to remain anonomous. But I know for a fact that a good portion of her later books were derived from notes and ghost writers.  I met one at a writers convention in Jamaica.

Even better info is that this ghost writer used to be a teen fiction writer


----------



## Rykion (Oct 26, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It's not uncommon, really. That said, I read books 1-5 when 6 came out. There was a noticeable change around book 3 or 4. Either she took some instruction, or gained a "handler" or ghost writer. Don't think of it as someone writing the book, think of it as an editor editing the book extensively.



It's not unusual for a first time author to change in quality over a series of books.  Even experienced authors can vary greatly in quality in a series of books.  Any good author is likely to run their ideas in front of someone they trust, and get suggestions.  Many hire people to help them in that regard.  That is a far cry from hiring someone to write more than half the material as Don Tadow suggested.  That is a serious allegation against someone whose claim to fame is being an author.


----------



## king_ghidorah (Oct 26, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Even in that context I don't understand why she answered that way though. The question wasn't 'is dumbledore gay', the question was whether dumbledore found 'true love'. The answer to that might have been yes, no or maybe without even bringing up the sexuality question.
> 
> It isn't an apparent issue in any of the books, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with any aspect of the stories, it seems to me to be an irrelevance which she has introduced for shock value at this point, for reasons unknown.
> 
> Strange.




If she answered "yes", then the next point would be to explain why he was alone. Since the pieces were in the published stories, her answer makes sense. Avoiding the explanation would be he nonsensical answer.

The only reason for her to have avoided giving a true answer was a sense that it is categorically wrong to discuss any relationships but heterosexual ones. If one actually believes that homosexual relationships are valid and positive human relationships, there is no reason to edit this from discussion.

I don't see the controversy here. Her comments actually illuminate the actions of characters and of the plot. How is this irrelevant or inflammatory except for certain social prejudices?


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 26, 2007)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> I don't see the controversy here. Her comments actually illuminate the actions of characters and of the plot. How is this irrelevant or inflammatory except for certain social prejudices?



For myself, the problem is the same as the "what happened to Harry and the others after the book". Whether you think it's all her or half ghost written, the ideas she provides that aren't actually "canon" in the material tend to be more random, less cohesive. Perhaps she wanted Dumbledore gay, then changed her mind, then back again, who knows. There's no way to judge whether it's "more depth" for the characters, or just a random thought.


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 26, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> There's a reason why ghost writing is amore lucrative market than actual writing. You sign contracts to remain anonomous. But I know for a fact that a good portion of her later books were derived from notes and ghost writers.  I met one at a writers convention in Jamaica.
> 
> Even better info is that this ghost writer used to be a teen fiction writer




I am sorry while this may be true that ghost writers helped her I find it highly suspicious that someone who was being paid to be a ghost writer would open their mouths like this and risked being sued. Did thus writer show you their contract? Because anyone can say I helped ghost write so and so's book.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 26, 2007)

king_ghidorah said:
			
		

> If she answered "yes", then the next point would be to explain why he was alone. Since the pieces were in the published stories, her answer makes sense. Avoiding the explanation would be he nonsensical answer.




No, the issue is still irrelevant.

And his friendship with Grindlewald? I don't see how anyone reads sexuality into that. It didn't seem anything other than a close friendship. People can have close friendships without any sexual subtext.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 27, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> No, the issue is still irrelevant.
> 
> And his friendship with Grindlewald? I don't see how anyone reads sexuality into that. It didn't seem anything other than a close friendship. People can have close friendships without any sexual subtext.




It changes what (to me) was a power trip/ thrill ride, into something that was apparently "love blinders".


----------



## Steel_Wind (Oct 27, 2007)

JK Rowling's latest comments on the subject are here:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/Books/article/269817



> Rowling, here for the International Festival of Authors, was asked why she chose to announce last week that Dumbledore was gay – and that he had a mad, ill-fated, boyhood passion for his fellow wizard Gellert Grindelwald – instead of making it explicit in her series of Harry Potter novels.
> 
> "Because I really think that's self-evident," the 42-year-old British author replied. According to Rowling, the subsequent conflict between the two wizards laid the foundation for the final showdown of the series. "The plot is what it is and (Dumbledore) did have, as I say, this rather tragic infatuation," said Rowling.
> 
> ...


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 27, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> But I know for a fact that a good portion of her later books were derived from notes and ghost writers.  I met one at a writers convention in Jamaica.




Sort of like people on the internet who claim that Gygax totally ripped them off or that Bioware stole their code to make Famous Game X but they can't get anyone to beleive them.


----------



## Particle_Man (Oct 27, 2007)

So, who is dressing up as Flamer Gay Dumbledore for Halloween?  

Anyhow, I think that Rowling is a good writer, and I think she knew in her head that the character was gay.  Apparently she thought that enough clues were there that attentive writers could pick up on it.  Kinda like how Gene Wolfe writes in a way that repays careful attention from the reader.  And I think overall, it will be good for now for kids to have a role model that is basically: "Dumbledore is a Good Guy (from the books), and Dumbledore is Gay (from the internet), therefore Gay is Good".


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 29, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> And I think overall, it will be good for now for kids to have a role model that is basically: "Dumbledore is a Good Guy (from the books), and Dumbledore is Gay (from the internet), therefore Gay is Good".




Hmm. With that failed attempt at a syllogism, I think kids would be better off spending less time reading Harry Potter books and surfing the Internet and more time studying formal and rhetorical logic.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 29, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Sort of like people on the internet who claim that Gygax totally ripped them off or that Bioware stole their code to make Famous Game X but they can't get anyone to beleive them.



Hey, its not like anyone's making news of this. This is pretty common knowledge among authors.  There's no suckage too it, they get paid a good day's penny for staying in the background. With Rowling though even those not in the know raise an eyebrow or two. How else does an unsuccessful, previously untalented woman get soo good overnight.  What sells more, a bunch of old writers who wrote a lot of fantasy and teen fiction a few decades ago, or some new innovative woman from England.


----------



## jester47 (Oct 29, 2007)

It is interesting how people consider Dumbledore.  For most of the series he is considered the upstanding scholar- which is simply Harry's perception.  



Spoiler



As Harry finds out more about him, it seems that he was an any means necessary sort of guy, even willing to sacrifice harry.  Sure he had a theory that Harry might survive, but all in all his actions behind the scenes in the last book indicate that he was a fairly duplicitous fellow.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 29, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> ...get a good review and a good pr person...



Reviews and PR cannot account for the international phenomenon that the Harry Potter books became. Things just don't work that way. You simply have to accept that those books struck a real chord in an enormous number of readers.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 29, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> With Rowling though even those not in the know raise an eyebrow or two. How else does an unsuccessful, previously untalented woman get soo good overnight.  What sells more, a bunch of old writers who wrote a lot of fantasy and teen fiction a few decades ago, or some new innovative woman from England.




She's not "soo good". She's mediocre at best. Likewise, she's not terribly innovative, but then few writers actually are. The idea of a "magic school" is hardly new. I've got a high threshold for boring writing, but Rowling literally puts me to sleep. The movies are just as bad. Harry Potter is mostly hype, marketing, and making a buck off that age-old tendency of teenagers to be conformists.

A decade after the last book and/or movie, few will be reading Harry Potter anymore. What appeared to be "instant classics" that "redefined a genre" will go the way of Clive Barker and other pop fiction pan-flashes.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 29, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Hey, its not like anyone's making news of this. This is pretty common knowledge among authors.  There's no suckage too it, they get paid a good day's penny for staying in the background. With Rowling though even those not in the know raise an eyebrow or two. How else does an unsuccessful, previously untalented woman get soo good overnight.  What sells more, a bunch of old writers who wrote a lot of fantasy and teen fiction a few decades ago, or some new innovative woman from England.



What?    :\    It's a lot easier to sell books as an established author rather than as an unknown.

Why would a group of authors turn a nobody into the richest woman in England?  Ghost writing makes sense when the credited author is a celebrity, or when a popular author decides they need help.  It makes no sense to ghost write for an untalented unsuccessful person so that they can get all the credit and most of the money.  If an author wants a fresh start he or she creates a pen name.

I find the Harry Potter books enjoyable and creative, but none of them have been particularly well written from a professional standpoint.  I would expect a lot better from a crack team of ghost writers.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 29, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> What?    :\    It's a lot easier to sell books as an established author rather than as an unknown.
> 
> Why would a group of authors turn a nobody into the richest woman in England?  Ghost writing makes sense when the credited author is a celebrity, or when a popular author decides they need help.  It makes no sense to ghost write for an untalented unsuccessful person so that they can get all the credit and most of the money.  If an author wants a fresh start he or she creates a pen name.
> 
> I find the Harry Potter books enjoyable and creative, but none of them have been particularly well written from a professional standpoint.  I would expect a lot better from a crack team of ghost writers.



Its easier to sell fantasy to fantasy lovers, its hard to sell it to those who don't like it unless you put a spin on it. Rowlings is that spin. And its not like she's not writing something in the book, but she's not the final one who puts it together. Notes are taken, things are changed and a couple of ghost writers are usually pulled in.


----------



## Harmon (Oct 30, 2007)

I am really confused by the fact that it matters to anyone, he's a pretend character in a now done series of books.  If JK had it in her mind that her character was gay then so what?  If its that important then place in your mind that whats her name was gay too and that will balance the scales.

Not sure I understand the prejudice against gays anyways?  Why is it important to hate people  because of their sexual orientation.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Reviews and PR cannot account for the international phenomenon that the Harry Potter books became. Things just don't work that way. You simply have to accept that those books struck a real chord in an enormous number of readers.




Actually it does to some extent.  If a book doesn't get good reviews (be it through word of mouth, or in the media, or on the web) then there would be no interest in the product.  Given that there are thousands of books in the average bookstore, PR and reviews do come into play because those are the factors that allow for a book to be placed in a prominent location that everyone would see it.

If it wasn't for the accolades that the books earned or the PR her agents gave her (through their dealings with various publishers and book retailers) no one would have known about her product and the book would have been buried in the fantasy section of the local book store and never been prominently placed in a store.   In essence, the book would have "died" or would have picked up as following similar to that which the average Science Fiction/Fantasy novelist receives. 

Sadly, marketing, PR, accolades, and word of mouth reigns supreme in corporate marketplace and without all of those elements working in unison, no product would ever become a phenomenon.  I'm not saying she's a bad writer, all I'm saying is that things would be extremely different if her series wasn't as aggressively marketed. Hell, she would have mentioned dumpledore was gay and no one would sound an alarm or make a fuss.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Oct 30, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I am really confused by the fact that it matters to anyone, he's a pretend character in a now done series of books.  If JK had it in her mind that her character was gay then so what?
> 
> [Snip]
> 
> Not sure I understand the prejudice against gays anyways?  Why is it important to hate people  because of their sexual orientation.




Those questions could only be answered by alluding to thousands of years of dogma within three of the world's most prominent religions.  It also can not be answered without alluding to many people's inherent dislike of things which are "strange, unusual or different". Nor can it be answered without alluding to those who believe in mankind's "evolutionary prerogative."

In short, to answer your question you have to delving into hundreds of taboo subjects most of which would cause this topic to be locked.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 30, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Why is it important to hate people  because of their sexual orientation.




There's more of that shoddy logic. Who is this thread, other than you, has mentioned anything about hating homosexual persons?



			
				Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Those questions could only be answered by alluding to thousands of years of dogma within three of the world's most prominent religions.




So, IOW, religious folks are haters?

No one in this thread who thinks "outing" Dumbledore was at least a silly thing to do has mentioned anything about hating homosexual persons, yet now we're told their motivation is based on prejudice and hatred which in most cases is rooted in religion.

Relique du Madde is right about one thing: Any effort to explore this train of thought would get the thread locked. In fact, any effort to dissent from the conclusion of Particle_Man's deeply flawed syllogism above would result in the thread being locked. IOW, those who feel free to laud homosexual persons for their orientation are allowed to do so, but the other side which is more critical of the morality of homosexual activity isn't.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. After all, this thread isn't about homosexual activity's morality. It isn't about thoughtless accusations of hatred and prejudice based on "thousands of years of dogma".

This thread is about Dumbledore being "outed" by Rowling, and what her motivations for doing so were, whether such a step is warranted by the texts themselves, and whether Rowling is actually a good writer. For my part, she did it for the publicity/money, the step is unwarranted, and Rowling is only somewhat more talented than the average hack.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Actually it does to some extent.



I didn't say marketing and professional reviews were irrelevant, I said they couldn't account for the Potter phenomenon. 



> Sadly, marketing, PR, accolades, and word of mouth reigns supreme in corporate marketplace and without all of those elements working in unison, no product would ever become a phenomenon.



You've neatly removed 'the consumers actual response to the product' from the equation that determines the products success. Do you see the problem with this?



> I'm not saying she's a bad writer, all I'm saying is that things would be extremely different if her series wasn't as aggressively marketed.



Hell, I'm not saying she's a _good_ writer, I'm saying you're treating marketing as some kind of magic bullet, which it isn't. Or at least that's what my wife who owns a small marketing company tells me.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> For my part, she did it for the publicity/money



Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at this opinion?

1) Since when is outing one of the characters in a series of _children's book_ book been the path to easy riches? It not like the series needed publicity, what with it being an international phenomenon at all...

And it's not like gay-themed entertainment is especially lucrative (I believe it's quite the opposite). Or if you think it is, could you please provide examples.

2) Rowling has more money than the Queen. Did you miss that part of the conversation? While that doesn't _prove_ she isn't after even more filthy lucre, it should give one pause before ascribing a purely financial motive to her actions. Shifts the burden of proof a bit.


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 30, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how did you arrive at this opinion?




The same way you arrived at yours.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> While that doesn't _prove_ she isn't after even more filthy lucre, it should give one pause before ascribing a purely financial motive to her actions. Shifts the burden of proof a bit.




I didn't ascribe a "purely financial motive", now did I? And what burden of proof. I offered my opinion, not an opening argument for a court case. Right? Don't like my opinion? Fine. I'm already over the disappoint of failing to meet your approval.


----------



## Harmon (Oct 30, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> There's more of that shoddy logic. Who is this thread, other than you, has mentioned anything about hating homosexual persons?




Then its not an issue.  Why is this a thread and why are we talking about it?  So many people dislike people just because they are homosexual, and think that its bad for society that a person of influence in people's lives are homosexual.

Again, not sure why this is an issue, why is it important to note that a character in a book, a series that is ended, a character that personal relations never came into view until it was over, why is that important?  

I just don't get it, I guess.  No one has started a thread about Harry being heterosexual.  Have they?  Why should we have one about a character being homosexual?  Makes no sense.


----------



## Mallus (Oct 30, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> The same way you arrived at yours.



Wait, pulled your opinion out of my *ss posterior? Nonsense, I would have noticed!



> I didn't ascribe a "purely financial motive", now did I?



That's true, you also said she did it for the notoriety, which is equally ridiculous.



> And what burden of proof. I offered my opinion, not an opening argument for a court case. Right?



I have no idea why I said 'burden of proof'. I blame that on my pre-coffee crankiness. Or perhaps stupidity.  



> Don't like my opinion?



I just think it's daft, and seeing how this is the Internet, I thought I'd share!


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> She's not "soo good". She's mediocre at best. Likewise, she's not terribly innovative, but then few writers actually are. The idea of a "magic school" is hardly new. I've got a high threshold for boring writing, but Rowling literally puts me to sleep. The movies are just as bad. Harry Potter is mostly hype, marketing, and making a buck off that age-old tendency of teenagers to be conformists.
> 
> A decade after the last book and/or movie, few will be reading Harry Potter anymore. What appeared to be "instant classics" that "redefined a genre" will go the way of Clive Barker and other pop fiction pan-flashes.



Ah, that explains why so many of my close friends love these books.

Marketing.

I mean, how could otherwise rational adults form positive opinions on literature they've read, without marketing?  It can't be because they actually enjoyed the books, nah, it's all marketing.  All those kids who love the books too, just slaves to marketing.

I'm a pretty mediocre writer myself, looks like instead of improving my craft I should just get some good marketers, and I'll be as rich and famous as JK Rowling!

And Clive Barker!  Now there's someone I've read more than a few books of.  I'm glad to know I really didn't enjoy them for what they were, but that I was merely hooked by the marketing.

Next you're going to tell me Stephen King can't write, and my enjoyment of his stories are simply due to yet more marketing.

Okay.


----------



## DonTadow (Oct 30, 2007)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Ah, that explains why so many of my close friends love these books.
> 
> Marketing.
> 
> ...



Hairy Potter is not even the best books in its genre out now let alone the rest of the market. It has yet to win any major awards because the story's have never really been comparative with good fantasy fiction. 

 You and your friends like reading the books because marketing did a good job of getting them to you in the first place.  Now you're a slave of the story. I"ve yet to talk to a person whom reads fantasy fiction on a regular that enjoys the hairy potter story over them.  If its all you know of course you're going to think its gravy.


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> This all points to evidence of Rowlings the thief hack writer.  If you wantedthisto be a "bombshell" yet none of your fans even saw a hint that it existed then you are a poor writer or you've proved your critics right that your books are mostly publicity and this is a deseprate attempt at it.



Riiiigghhhhht . . .

It's so clear that JK Rowling didn't write her own books.  They are so mediocre, someone else must have done it.  The logic astounds.

It's just like Shakespeare!  That hack couldn't write his way out of a wet paper sack, let alone all those plays and sonnets . . . . (if you're not in the know, people like to throw these same sort of accusations at The Bard as well, have for centuries, no proof . . .)

I don't think DonTadow or others who believe the Potter books are ghost-written are jealous as another poster implied.  I think they just like to jump on the old bandwagon of, "Hey, that guy/gal is on top of the world!  Let's mean-spiritedly take him/her down a notch or two!  Proof?  We don't need no stinking proof!"


----------



## Dire Bare (Oct 30, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Hairy Potter is not even the best books in its genre out now let alone the rest of the market. It has yet to win any major awards because the story's have never really been comparative with good fantasy fiction.
> 
> You and your friends like reading the books because marketing did a good job of getting them to you in the first place.  Now you're a slave of the story. I"ve yet to talk to a person whom reads fantasy fiction on a regular that enjoys the hairy potter story over them.  If its all you know of course you're going to think its gravy.



Ah, you've further explained things for me.

It's the marketing and the fact we've read nothing but Harry Potter that makes us love the books so.

But, wait . . . you don't know anything about me or my friends . . . or the fact we are a fairly literate bunch both inside and outside the fantasy genre.  But I probably liked all those other fantasy books I've been reading since childhood due to marketing or perhaps the influence of some other sinister force . . . I mean, I just can't read something and come to an honest conclusion that I liked the story . . . that would be, wierd . . .


----------



## Mark Chance (Oct 30, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> No one has started a thread about Harry being heterosexual.  Have they?  Why should we have one about a character being homosexual?  Makes no sense.




If you want a thread about Harry's sexuality, go start one. As to the purpose of this thread, it did give you an opportunity to insult a whole host of people by dismissing them as nothing more than a bunch of bigoted haters. That's a thing, if not a good thing.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> Wait, pulled your opinion out of my *ss posterior? Nonsense, I would have noticed!




Nonsense. I have a great many ranks in Sleight of Hand. But it's nice that you noted your opinion's relative worth. 




			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I have no idea why I said 'burden of proof'. I blame that on my pre-coffee crankiness. Or perhaps stupidity.




I think it was Napoleon who quipped, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." 



			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Ah, that explains why so many of my close friends love these books.
> 
> Marketing.




Glad I could help clear things up for you. Now that you know the truth, you can work on being more discriminating in the future.   



			
				Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Next you're going to tell me Stephen King can't write....




You're psychic? Impressive. Please tell me when I'm going to comment about Stephen King's talents as a writer. To really impress me, go ahead and quote me word for word.


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 30, 2007)

Please cool off the sniping at other posters in this thread, or it will be closed.


----------



## Elf Witch (Oct 30, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Hairy Potter is not even the best books in its genre out now let alone the rest of the market. It has yet to win any major awards because the story's have never really been comparative with good fantasy fiction.
> 
> You and your friends like reading the books because marketing did a good job of getting them to you in the first place.  Now you're a slave of the story. I"ve yet to talk to a person whom reads fantasy fiction on a regular that enjoys the hairy potter story over them.  If its all you know of course you're going to think its gravy.




Okay let me get this straight since I and most of the people I know enjoy reading Harry Potter it is because we don't really read any other good fantasy. :\ This past month I have read Ellen Kushner the Privilege of the Sword. Tolkein Fellowship of the Ring, Susan Cooper The Dark is Rising. Please tell me what you consider good fantasy? 

I guess it does not matter that I am almost 50 and so are most of my friends and I have been reading fantasy novels since the 70s because that would blow your statement out of the water.

It was not marketing that attracted me to the Harry Potter books. They had been out for awhile and an employee of my roomate was reading the first book. She had brought it to work with her when I went to pick up my roommate ahe was not ready to go. So I while I waited I bprrowed the book to have something to do. I found myself enjoying the story and I kept enjoying the stories so I kept reading them. I have no problem giving up on a series if it becomes boring or I stop enjoying it I am hardly a slave to to the story.

I get it that you don't like the books and that is your right because everyone's taste is different but I find it rather insulting to my taste as reader to be told that the only reason I like the books is because I have become a slave to the story and that it is because I don't know very much about the fantasy genre.


----------



## Jeysie (Oct 30, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Hairy Potter is not even the best books in its genre out now let alone the rest of the market. It has yet to win any major awards because the story's have never really been comparative with good fantasy fiction.




So winning a Hugo award doesn't count as a "major award"? 

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## Harmon (Oct 31, 2007)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> If you want a thread about Harry's sexuality, go start one. As to the purpose of this thread, it did give you an opportunity to insult a whole host of people by dismissing them as nothing more than a bunch of bigoted haters. That's a thing, if not a good thing.




Actually no, I don't care about anyone's sexuality, I find it really stupid that people have to make such a big deal and take such a really strange approach to talking about homosexual characters while straight characters are ignored.

I never said that anyone was a bigot, I simply think everyone needs to go- "wow, the old man was gay, emm- didn't see it," and move on.  Why is it important?  Why is his sexuality more earth shattering then Harry's?  Why can't the world just accept that he was gay and leave him alone?  Does this place some different spin on the character?  Is he less now then he was in the first book or the last because of his sexuality?  I just don't get it.

I really have no clue as to why anyone would take such an interest in this.  Really I don't.


----------



## Rykion (Oct 31, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> You and your friends like reading the books because marketing did a good job of getting them to you in the first place.  Now you're a slave of the story. I"ve yet to talk to a person whom reads fantasy fiction on a regular that enjoys the hairy potter story over them.  If its all you know of course you're going to think its gravy.



My experience is the opposite.  Every adult I know who is a Harry Potter fan reads quite a bit of fantasy fiction.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Oct 31, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I never said that anyone was a bigot, I simply think everyone needs to go- "wow, the old man was gay, emm- didn't see it," and move on.  Why is it important? <snip>




I'll supply a reason:
Because this is a discussion forum, and the topic came up. Now, folks are sharing their opinions on how important this is, if it is important, why the author did it, etc.





> I really have no clue as to why anyone would take such an interest in this.  Really I don't.



Completely understandable.
So then, why did you enter into the discussion if you've no interest in the discussion taken place?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I didn't say marketing and professional reviews were irrelevant, I said they couldn't account for the Potter phenomenon.




I know a lot of people that read the Harry Potter books. And they didn't read just the first one, they read all of them. Or are going to (since the last one is fairly new and the German version was published only a few weeks ago.)

Several of them don't read regularly, and if they read, they probably wouldn't choose Fantasy books first.

Maybe it is marketing that gets a lot of people to read who usually wouldn't read. But I am n  convinced that this can be the only reason. It might explain why people pick up one book. But all 7? If the books weren't entertaining and well-written, I do not believe that marketing alone can sustain all these readers. 

Personally, I did not want to read the books at first, because of the hype. But my sisters and my parents read it. Then, some day, I was sitting home, alone, and bored. I saw the Harry Potter DVD, and watched them. Enjoyed what I saw, and decided to read the books, despite my initial reservations. And I didn't regret it. There might be books I enjoyed more (I think Terry Prattchett and Douglas Adams suite my preferences better), but they were _not_ bad. I don't read enough (or varied) fantasy to say if what she did was just "mediocre", but I do not thing so.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 31, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> I didn't say marketing and professional reviews were irrelevant, I said they couldn't account for the Potter phenomenon.




I know a lot of people that read the Harry Potter books. And they didn't read just the first one, they read all of them. Or are going to (since the last one is fairly new and the German version was published only a few weeks ago.)

Several of them don't read regularly, and if they read, they probably wouldn't choose Fantasy books first.

Maybe it is marketing that gets a lot of people to read who usually wouldn't read. But I am n  convinced that this can be the only reason. It might explain why people pick up one book. But all 7? If the books weren't entertaining and well-written, I do not believe that marketing alone can sustain all these readers. 

Personally, I did not want to read the books at first, because of the hype. But my sisters and my parents read it. Then, some day, I was sitting home, alone, and bored. I saw the Harry Potter DVD, and watched them. Enjoyed what I saw, and decided to read the books, despite my initial reservations. And I didn't regret it. There might be books I enjoyed more (I think Terry Prattchett and Douglas Adams suite my preferences better), but they were _not_ bad. I don't read enough (or varied) fantasy to say if what she did was just "mediocre", but I do not thing so.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 1, 2007)

Wow, and here I thought that this would be a relatively innocuous thread....

!. I do not believe that Ms. Rowling outed Dumbledore for publicity.
2. They are not my favorite books, but they aren't anything to get up in arms about either. Neither are they terrible books, so let people like 'em.
3. So what? I don't care if he is gay, I don't care if he is straight - I liked the books well enough for what they are, and if they get more kids reading then more power to her.

4. This is just my opinion, feel free to continue arguing.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Harmon (Nov 1, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> I'll supply a reason:
> Because this is a discussion forum, and the topic came up. Now, folks are sharing their opinions on how important this is, if it is important, why the author did it, etc.




She did it because it was her vision of the character.  Writers create their characters like we create a good character to role play.  History, whether written down or in you head is part of that character.  Someone asked her a question that conflicted with what she had created and she answered the question.  Very simple.

My question still stands- why is his sexuality important?  If he was hetro this thread would not be here, plain and simple.



			
				Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Completely understandable.
> So then, why did you enter into the discussion if you've no interest in the discussion taken place?




I entered the discussion because I was curious about one thing- "why is the character's sexuality important?"  Like I have stated a few times now- if he were straight, this discussion would not be taking place.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 1, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I entered the discussion because I was curious about one thing- "why is the character's sexuality important?"  Like I have stated a few times now- if he were straight, this discussion would not be taking place.




Because you're making the discussion about his sexuality. It's all on your end that this discussion wouldn't be here if the detail was something else. The simple fact is, there is an assumed status quo with the books and deviations from that will raise a discussion. When she decreed what the characters were doing after the book ended, we had a similar thread.

Again, the "it's a topic because he's gay" is not the point. "If he were straight..." is where the flaw comes in, and you present the discussion as some gay rights thing. It's not about that, and it'd be the same no matter the detail really and it HAS been in the past. You stating it "a few times" doesn't make it true.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 1, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> Because you're making the discussion about his sexuality. It's all on your end that this discussion wouldn't be here if the detail was something else. The simple fact is, there is an assumed status quo with the books and deviations from that will raise a discussion. When she decreed what the characters were doing after the book ended, we had a similar thread.
> 
> Again, the "it's a topic because he's gay" is not the point. "If he were straight..." is where the flaw comes in, and you present the discussion as some gay rights thing. It's not about that, and it'd be the same no matter the detail really and it HAS been in the past. You stating it "a few times" doesn't make it true.




You are still not getting my point and I can't for the life of me figure out how to make this clearer to you.

Never mentioned gay rights.  This was never about gay rights.  Its about me understanding why this is so important, which I do not.  I appears more and more to me that its about the stigma of a beloved character not being whom everyone thought he was, and that kinda makes me wonder.


----------



## Harmon (Nov 1, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> 4. This is just my opinion, feel free to continue arguing.




Is it arguing?  I thought it was passing information.  My demeanor is calm, kind, and as considerate as I get.  Course some of the posts could be taken in a very mean tone I suppose.

Take care.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 2, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> You are still not getting my point and I can't for the life of me figure out how to make this clearer to you.
> 
> Never mentioned gay rights.  This was never about gay rights.  Its about me understanding why this is so important, which I do not.  I appears more and more to me that its about the stigma of a beloved character not being whom everyone thought he was, and that kinda makes me wonder.




It makes you wonder, because once again you've missed it.
Why is this important? It's not, no one said it was. It is getting discussed on a forum, it is not a major arguement or anything. You're attaching stigma to the issue that none of us see, and wondering why we feel that way?

So, skip over the "why is this important" part and explain why you think we consider this important? We have the same multi-page threads about much more inane subjects than this.

(Unless you're refering to why the NEWS was interested in it, and they've already dropped the subject from what I've seen.)


----------



## Harmon (Nov 2, 2007)

Vocenoctum said:
			
		

> It makes you wonder, because once again you've missed it.
> Why is this important? It's not, no one said it was. It is getting discussed on a forum, it is not a major arguement or anything. You're attaching stigma to the issue that none of us see, and wondering why we feel that way?
> 
> So, skip over the "why is this important" part and explain why you think we consider this important? We have the same multi-page threads about much more inane subjects than this.
> ...




You seem to be getting rather upset over this.  My apologizes if I have had some bit of part in that.

Honestly, I read the thread, the posts here and see people talking about this "outing" as some kind of scam/skeem by writer to bring attention, or money into her character/books life.  To me a character on TV, in gaming, or in a book, whatever that is gay is just another person, their sexuality and such is meaningless to the "hay, look at me!" (which it seems in this thread is the point of the writer outing the character).

And yes, I have missed it, I suppose because no one has explained it where I understand it.  A person being gay does not bring them into any different light with me, by reading this thread and the news, it seems to matter to a great many people and I would like to understand why.

Sorry for the hijack, I really thought this would be simple, but once again, like so often, I was wrong.  

My apologizes.


----------



## Merkuri (Nov 2, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> A person being gay does not bring them into any different light with me, by reading this thread and the news, it seems to matter to a great many people and I would like to understand why.




Honestly, Harmon, I don't think any of us can fully explain it to you without violating the rules of this forum.  The fact is that Dumbledore being gay was likely to cause shock and outrage in the general public, and some people in this thread think the author mentioned his sexuality because she knew it would get this reaction.

I can't find a way to explain why the public was so shocked without getting into topics I feel would be too political for here.  I guess a simple way to say it is that the majority of the Untied States isn't as open minded as me or you.


----------



## Vocenoctum (Nov 2, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> You seem to be getting rather upset over this.  My apologizes if I have had some bit of part in that.



I'm not upset, I've just been rephrasing myself for a few posts to try to find the right combination to get my point across.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 5, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Is it arguing?  I thought it was passing information.  My demeanor is calm, kind, and as considerate as I get.  Course some of the posts could be taken in a very mean tone I suppose.
> 
> Take care.



It certainly reads like arguing to me. Getting warnings from Mods seems to lean in that direction as well.

Or I could have the wrong room and this is Abuse. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Nov 8, 2007)

I have reason to beleive that if Tolkien was alive today, he would confirm that Gandalph was a transgender...


----------

