(no subject)

[selene_13]

So, every newspaper is picking up the "Dumbledore (here 'Perkamentus') revealed as gay!". Big news, people... *raises eyebrow*

*sigh* It might have been more, you know, progressive, if JKR had mentioned it in the actual book. But, noooo, she'll keep her books nice and clean for kiddy/conservative market (why create a controversy for bigoted people to fall over), then reveals characters' sexual identities after all is said and done and everyone and their dog has spent their money on the book.

Lame.

If she was really okay with it all, then why didn't the text simply tell us that DD had a crush on Grindelwald and was disappointed instead of being just best friends. I bet if Grindelwald had been a Grindelwanda it would've been mentioned. It could've been an easy line to throw to Harry, who could have just reacted normally to such plain news.

And when she was asked if DD had a great love of his life, she could have just randomly said that he had a partner for thirty years but he died of the fibbertigibblets when he was 102 or something instead of making "a statement" about it.

It feels like she's going "oooh, look at how accepting and open-minded I am" now that it's safe since the series is finished and it can't be canon anymore. Just... really lame.

She should have just had a student same-sex couple randomly flit by in text or outed Sirius and Remus or something. ;)

Comments

[darkirony.livejournal.com]

To be fair, she hasn't waited SO long that it can't be included in the next movie(s)... THAT should be interesting.

But, I wish too that if tolerance was the goal, we needed someone(s) to flit through, as you said.

And, yes, frighteningly big news. Guess war, pestilence, and plague were a little slow yesterday.

[selene-13.livejournal.com]

To be fair, she hasn't waited SO long that it can't be included in the next movie(s)... THAT should be interesting.

This is true. Also, several translations of the book haven't come out yet either. However, when there is criticism, it is always the English market/public that is most vocal (or maybe it just seems so because it will be explored most in the news), and also the English publication is the most massively sold (and that wave has crashed by now). She could have mentioned it before the end of the series so it might have had a bearing on the story even if that itself didn't mention it, but she chose not too. I know there's been speculation in fandom about DD/McGonagall, so it's not like it's never come up. She could've used it in one of her website q/a sessions. I still think it's lame she left this tidbit until all was said and done and be suddenly cool about it now.

Since it has no relevancy in the book, I doubt the movie will go into it. But maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised (aka, is Cuaron directing?)?

But, I wish too that if tolerance was the goal, we needed someone(s) to flit through, as you said.

She could have just used Justin. ;) He was fandom's token gay character in lots of fanfic. She inserted enough fandom into the last books anyway. But her statement would only be a statement if she'd had the guts to out someone in text, IMO.

And, yes, frighteningly big news. Guess war, pestilence, and plague were a little slow yesterday.

God forbid the world not noticing things like HP's closeted gay character, Britney's custody battle or J-Lo being preggers or not...

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I bet if Grindelwald had been a Grindelwanda it would've been mentioned.

Darn, I like that; I must use that if I post any more about this furore! A solid romantic link between Dumbledore and Grindelwanda would have made the whole thing more tragic, indeed!

I don't think JKR is aggressively liberal, but certainly there was a decision somewhere that the commercial success of the book and minimisation of damage control outweighed any motivation to be politically correct and include a homosexual Dumbledore. Or the need for same to be in the story for plot/characterisation purposes.

It feels like she's going "oooh, look at how accepting and open-minded I am"

It seems a little bit like that, and I can't help but feel myself that she's been quite disingenuous in feigning 'surprise' at the ovation and acclaim she's received for outing Dumbledore, but I gather that it's mainly her loud sycophant media buddies - Emmerson, Melissa, etc, of the web sites - that are really pushing the 'preaching tolerance' wheelbarrow.

[selene-13.livejournal.com]

I don't think JKR is aggressively liberal

Considering her 1950's epilogue ending (teen marriage/babyfactories is the life to aspire), she is decidedly less liberal than I ever considered her in the past. What I liked about H/Hr is that despite Harry's hero-status as leading character, he had a heroine by his side who is smart and happy to show it, who can take care of herself magically, who can deal with Harry's fame and is caught up in his life but still manages to be her own person. Where Ron's mocked her booksmarts, Harry's always had nothing but respect for her intelligence. I never envisioned H/Hr to be about marriage or children (like OBHWF is), but a relationship which represented equal partnership where both improve the other's qualities, temper the other's fallacies, and solve/save the plot.

I should get off this soapbox.

pushing the 'preaching tolerance' wheelbarrow.

Yeah, if people were really accepting, then what is the big deal? It's just a shame that this world in these days still needs preaching where it comes to tolerance. But, by definition there's nothing wrong with JKR saying a character is gay to promote awareness that homosexuality exists and is normal, it's just that she deliberately left it out of her books to keep those "safe from controversy" that's chafing me. If homosexuality is too controversial for your books whereas heterosexuality is fine to mention, then really you're not very accepting at all, children's books or not, because homosexuality is normal, not controversial.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I should get off this soapbox.

No, I enjoyed the oration! :-)

One of the reasons I enjoyed OotP so much was because that give-and-take between Harry and Hermione really seemed to shine. Dear JKR has TOLD us that R/Hr is ideal because they are 'opposites'. So much so that it will never work out, between them, IMO; yes, Ron needs direction, but he has and always will resent same, or push against it. Like he did in the books we've read. You can't 'direct' or push a railway carriage when the brakes are on full.

Anyway, OotP was the book where I really (first) noticed Harry's and Hermione's give-and-take. Her persuading him to start the DA, coming to get him out of his possession funk, his correcting her about Hagrid (although that was a minor thing).

I don't think I quite agree with your 'homosexuality is normal' stance, and it is still controversial in large parts of the world. As you say, JKR had a decision to make, and she took the safe route ... commercial matters outweighed any pro-liberal stance she might have. Now, after the books are finished, the coffers filled and the accolades collected, she's added this to the rest of her retroactive fixes and supplementary material, risk free. Trying to have her cake and eat it too, in a small way.

But we shouldn't be too harsh, maybe. I've watched a few minutes of her latest interview session - the one in Canada, it's on the-leaky-cauldron.com's video gallery - and, like I said, I don't think she's coming over as an aggressive 'YAY, SEXUAL EQUALITY AND TOLERANCE FOR EVER!' type; she's defending herself (against statements of incredulity at the media storm kicked off by all this) as having "simply answered a fan's question". Fair enough. It's Emmerson and Melissa and other fans who are trying to equate the series to the Western world's answer to intolerance.

(But I have yet to watch the whole thing, so I may have to change my mind)

[darynthe.livejournal.com]

This whole deals ticks me the wrong way. Maybe because I am sick and so have low tolerance to BS than normally. She should just STFU already about the series.

And especially what I heard her say that any grown up reading it would have realized DD was in love with G.. WTF? We have plenty, exponentially more canon for HH and it never was. Why would then I read subtext for this? Grrr.

[selene-13.livejournal.com]

Yeah, subtext, deeper meaning, keeping your themes straight... this is not JKR's thing.

And now she's going all Whiney McWingeabout how "DD is my character and I can say what I want!" in response to the discussions that have flared up. Well, yeah sure, naturally, but other people are going to have opinions about your text, whether you meant it that way or not. I thought that was the beauty of it? She's so spoiled. Should we stop writing essays about the meaning of Shakespeare or Blake because they're not alive anymore to tell us what's what? o_o

Anyway, she really should just STFU. The Death of Imagination carries on and on...

Did you see this link?
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/10/23/dumbledore/index_np.html
Good essay about Rowling's chattiness and inability to just let us make up our own minds. It's true, if JKR has so much more to say about the story, then why doesn't she just write another book?