“My biggest problem with this bit of news is that it seems JKR is telling us that in order to type-cast the character of a benevolent, loving, and selfless men (basically a man with near flawless ethics who’s only sin seems to be loving too much) is to visualize him as a gay man.” -Benny
I have to say, this is one of the more bizzare arguments I’ve seen made thus far. It also happens to be one of the most baseless arguments I’ve see so far. Where, where are you getting the idea that JK Rowling is trying to suggest that she believes that the only way to personify “a man with near flawless ethics who’s only sin seems to be loving too much” is to picture a gay man? This is simply an absurd leap. If she had made Albus Dumbledore Canadian, would she have also been suggesting that “a man with near flawless ethics who’s only sin seems to be loving too much” must also too be Canadian?
Nothing in the Potter series ever struck me as particularly dark and sinister. It was a just a good mix of “good vs evil.” On my scale, dark and sinister is a good deal darker than anything that Rowling presented.
I’ll take a shot at the offensiveness of the skin-color to sexual-orientation comparison, if you don’t mind.
Skin color is not a state of mind, and it is not something that a person is at all responsible for, it is something they are handed at birth. Furthermore, it is utterly a-moral. There is no moral weight attached to it at all. It should be uncontroversial.
Sexual orientation is a state of mind, and states of mind can be good or bad. It is also very controversial as to its character and origins, as I mentioned in an earlier post – even within the gay community. Moreover, sexual desires and sexual behavior, on the other hand, are obviously morally significant. I would go on to argue that homosexuality – its internal principles, once characterized – cannot support this significance. Perhaps I’ll do that tomorrow (like others, I need to get to bed, too). So there is a very real question as to whether or not homosexuality is good or bad for an individual, and for society as it considers that question.
Now, for the question of offense, I think you have to admit that the possibility, at least, exists for a very wrongheaded comparison here, and if gay advocates are wrong in making that analogy, then a very very serious comparison has been employed, and the significant suffering of millions of people who were enslaved and discriminated against because of their (morally neutral) skin color has been misappropriated and abused. Their reality of their plight really has been undermined, if gay advocates are wrong about this. That’s why Martin Luther King’s daughter is up in arms about the use of that comparison.
Regards,
Steve
Strut95, I am not going to press this any longer because I see that you don’t want to be truthful about your feelings with me and this discussion.
But, good luck with your views.
Strut, Basically you’re saying that you don’t like that Jo included in her series an aspect of human life and society that you don’t particularly like or agree with. Or is it that she made one of the most beloved characters a homosexual and showed him as a great person and a real person rather than a stereotype?
I think what Ann was trying to say was that just as someone is either born black, or white, so too is one born gay, or not gay. Now, to those who subscribe to the idea that being gay is a choice, let me enlighten you, it’s not a choice—being gay myself, I feel I can adequately set the record straight, so to speak. Furthermore, to those who would seek to refute my position, I ask you: are you gay? If not, I believe it is probably I who should be differed to as the authority on the subject.
i have a feeling this is just a publicity stunt to stay relevant now that the harry potter series is over.
Seriously, what does a clean curly horned goat mean ???
Steve, You just stated that you believed genetic disposition played at least some part in being gay. So in that sense, does a homosexual REALLY get to choose to be gay? Are they responsible for that?
The ONLY comparison I made was that simply being black (Or any race for that matter) does no harm to others, neither does being gay. Of course, racial minorities and homosexuals have both been subjected to inhumane discrimination and violence, but I never associated their plights.
” smith i have a feeling this is just a publicity stunt to stay relevant now that the harry potter series is over.”
That’s what I thought, I mean the encyclopedia is nice but it’s dragging out. :l She uses ‘charity’ as a thing for continuing some sort of book related to HP… Or well, as far as I’ve seen. I’ll admit this is probably the third interview I’ve followed about her.
I just want to thank Ms. Rowling for completely destroying one of the most iconic characters of my generation. Dumbledore was always a father figure to us readers, and now he will always be just some dead, gay hippie. Genius move, though, waiting until all the books were out to let us know one of our favorite characters is a queer. Thanks a load. I hope my little sisters don’t find out, they’re not finished reading yet, and I’d hate to have the books’ image ruined for them as well.
J.K. Rowling is now one of my favorite people in the world. I liked her books very much, and I’ve enjoyed hearing them read by Jim Dale on CD. I love this turn of events, and I suspect that this will provide yet more reason to value these books in the decades to come. In the future when gay marriage is legal and viewed as a normal and healthy alternative, just as interracial marriage is normal now but was abhorrent only decades ago, J.K. will be viewed as being ahead of her time yet again.
It isn’t just her writing that has made her an international star, but it is also her ability to put things into the culture that we need, even when we didn’t know we wanted it. Who would have thought 15 years ago that a book about a boy wizard would make the writer of that book richer than the queen of England?!
As a gay person who has loved the Harry Potter books for seven years, I’m very happy to read that Dumbledore was gay.
It adds up, and explains so many missing pieces of Dumbledore’s character… the inexplicable complete lack of mention of any family or love interest of his in any of the other books, which is odd for such a prominent public figure… and yes, it explains his otherwise puzzling interactions with Grindelwald.
It seems clear since the opening of Order of the Phoenix that JKR doesn’t approve of gay-bashing. When Dudley harassed Harry and asked him if Cedric was his boyfriend, with the clear intent to hurt Harry, that was made clear. JKR’s writing makes it clear that she didn’t like any of Dudley’s behavior before he was morally reformed by the Dementors.
That said, I also wish that JKR would have added some more canonic references if she truly supports gay rights. Maybe she wasn’t able to pass that content through her editors… after all, it is pretty controversial to actually mention real gay people in children’s books in the US. Maybe, as many people rightly say, it was mostly irrelevant to the plot.
To the people who complain that she added Dumbledore’s gayness gratuitously… let’s be frank, it would be much more a fantasy to imagine that in a community of tens of thousands of magic-users, none were gay. Even conservative estimates of gay people generally come to a conclusion that 3% of people are gay. Other people cite up to 10%. So, if as JKR has stated, Hogwarts has 1000 students, then 30-100 of them are likely gay.
And a comment to the people who have said they will no longer read the books because of their religious beliefs:
Are you just echoing what current religious leaders are telling you? Are you selectively reading from the Bible? Are you eating shellfish? Do you wear cotton-spandex blend clothing? What gives you the religious and moral authority to decide that God hates one of those sins more than the others?