Advertisement

Sorry about the formatting, I didn’t know it would do that.

“Not that I want to go there but maybe what Dumbledore felt when he was 17 yrs old for Grindlewald is the same feeling that some of us girls get when we like say – Helena as Bellatrix or, the guys get when they like Alan as Snape- doesnt really mean that we “want” them. We just are in a fan like matter infatuated with them- and boy I miss the days when gay meant “happy”. I was never around but things would be much simpiler.

Posted by BellaSnape on March 10, 2008 @ 05:07 PM “

BellaSnape….could you share how old you are? I’m confused because you say “us girls”..in my book, girls means a female younger than 18…but then you say you miss the days when gay meant “happy” which was pre-1970…

JKR is quite clear. Albus Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald in a totally erotic, obsessed, limerance, first love, gonads at attention, way…

Susan

We seem to treat homosexuals the same way the wizarding world treats werewolves and giants. Wouldn’t it be nice if we walked away from these discussions with a little more respect and tolerance for each other?

If you ever have the chance, try living in a place where you are not of the dominant culture. It is a wonderful way to see another’s point of view.

I really do hope that Dumbledore and Grindlewald did get together. What a sad thing it would be to life a that long and not know love.

JKR is quite clear. Albus Dumbledore fell in love with Gellert Grindelvald in a totally erotic, obsessed, limerance, first love, gonads at attention, way… Quote Susan

And because DD´s obsession is completely needless for the storyline Mrs. Rowling could have spared this part She just wants to catch people´s attention. Nothing else. Anne Rice is a convincing writer. Sexuality (ok she writes for adults of course) plays a role in her books. And the sexual attitudes are always important for the plot details of her characters. She is highly praised as an author, so is King. She already wrote about sexuality long before Joanne Rowling even was mentioned.

beckett, thanks for your comment!

I should have phrased my question clearer, because the point that I wanted to ask was “Have you read the books” because it is perfectly legit to have your character image built on the movies rather than the books. But you seem to have, so my puzzlement will forever be left as it is…

The thing that made me not want Dumbledore as my friend is actually not his past of having almost gone with the Evil Side, nor does it have anything to do with whether he is or isn’t gay (that’s a taste, not a character, and it doesn’t change what’s written about his characteristics in the books one bit). What made me personally hate him (I’m sorry for using such strong words, to anybody who likes his personality) and fear the prospect of going anywhere near a man like him in RL, is the personality traits that I felt he was suddenly revealed to have had all along, in the final book. In one word, I felt his personality was described as characterized his utter lack of empathy. His conversational tone with Snape in the pensieve striked me as extremely callous, even considering the fact that Snape is basically a sinner working for Dumbledore to atone his past mistakes.

But that was obviously just MY impression, and personalities aren’t ever things that get written down in books like “Character A’s personality is X, and B’s is Y.” So I genuinely wanted to know if there are many people who have read the books very closely AND gotten the same impression about Dumbledore as you have… It’s an extremely puzzling thing about a book, when you don’t know if what you yourself are reading is what the text actually means. Part of me still hopes I’m reading Dumbledore’s personality wrong. I mean, i think he is “empathy-less” and “callous” when he has just saved the world! That is obviously not a very sound message I’m getting from the book. So it’s got to be that your reading is closer to what JKR intended, right? At least, I hope so…

Medea,

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

I honestly don’t see the distinction here. Does this thread here on the Leaky constituite “significant” criticism? If so, then any criticism of the lack of gay characters held in a similar format on a web forum also be “significant” criticism? If so, then it’s highly probable that it could have been going on without your coming across it; if not then how does a thread like this constitute an increase in criticism or “dissing”.

I don’t understand what you think constitutes “significant”, and why you feel it’s going on now, but wasn’t going on previously.

“You missed my point, which was that the critics of the way AD was portrayed, by identifying him as a stereotypical celibate old queer, are themselves stereotyping.”

But does stereotyping not necessitate reducing people in a certain subgroup to simplified, recognisable qualities by which others can then pick them out? In the case of this particular stereotype, the reduction which makes me uneasy is the habitual pairing of old academic gay men with celibacy and bookishness, without any consideration of the kind of societal pressures, or historical imperatives that feed into it. There’s a long history of socially enforced celibacy homosexuals, traditionally encouraging things like channeling energies into a monastic or, yes, academic life. If DD were a real person, he’d actually have a past, and personal motivations, and experiences. As it is, he does unsettle me as a stereotype.

I don’t believe that it’s stereotyping to point out a stereotype, but I’m genuinely open to considering your point if you think I’m being hypocritical here.

3. Do you tell film critics that if they don’t like a movie they should just make one themselves? Do you really believe that all negative criticism is invalid, or just that which offends your sensibilities?

“**I’m not answering straw-man or ad hominem arguments, sorry. Come back with something more accurate and we can talk.”

I’m sorry that I was unneccessarily snippy, but your argument really did strike me as a sweeping dismissal of the whole point of criticism.

You said: “rather than criticising JKR for not putting the right type of gay character in the right way in her series of fantasy novels for children, try writing your own story and characterising homosexuals the way you think they should be characterised.”

To me, that sounds like you’re saying that criticism isn’t a legitimate exercise unless you’re prepared to create an alternative product. Such a position puts rather a lot of people out of a job.

Sorry if I was confusing but I am 18 years old and I will be 19 on July 13, born in 89.

P.S. – Im sorry but Dumbledore just isnt gay in my own mind, and I dont want him to be- I think what Jo was really trying to do is cause an uprise of attention about homosexuals, I love her dearly and have nothing against her that is just what I believe she is doing- because How many times has this been posted on here now and the comments get up in the 150’s almost debating about it. Homosexuality whether you accept it or not it a private matter based on your own religious and political views. TO me Dumbledore loved McGonagall.

Some people here, making a big deal out of something which is NOT, are living proof that Rowling is waaay ahead of our times. At least when it comes to homossexuality.

She’s right about Dumbledore. He is a character who just happens to be gay. The comment about fundamentalists all hating hte same thng made me roar, it’s so true! Love you Jo!

‘Well I prayed whether or not I should read them, and God told me no.’

That is too surreal! I like the point that J.K.Rowlings brings up about this sort of non-logic.

I wonder how this happened to her? Did she go up to the bookcase featuring Harry Potter, start to pray in the middle of the bookstore for some answer – and behind her someone said “Oh God, no way, what is that woman doing over there by the Harry Potter books?”

Ella, sweetie, you’re still not reading. You quoted me as saying that I didn’t come across significant criticism, but I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t RECALL significant criticism. I’m sorry, but I can’t converse with someone who actually manages to misquote me despite my words being right there.

why is she speaking for some of us who have a problem with homosexuals- she says its a fear of people loving? excuse me but that is not what the issue is here if anything there could be more love in the world but in a harmonious way- not this way, I still have no stance on it, but technically she is wrong it is repulsive to some to think about two men or two women, doing stuff that a man and a woman were made to do. It has nothing to do with people loving eachother why do you think christians also oppose war- its fighting and there is no love invloved in it. Idk, this is all confusing I think it would have been better for her to just let us decide what we wanted to about Dumbledore.

“Ella, sweetie, you’re still not reading. You quoted me as saying that I didn’t come across significant criticism, but I didn’t say that. I said I didn’t RECALL significant criticism. I’m sorry, but I can’t converse with someone who actually manages to misquote me despite my words being right there.”

That’s perfectly ridiculous. I read you fine. I responded to what you said. I quoted you word for word. If you don’t want to continue the debate, don’t, but you don’t score exit points by prevaricating on senseless semantics.

Ella, it’s not true that you quoted me word for word. Go back and read what I wrote – my words are not the words you put in quotation marks and attributed to me. Taking issue with having words attributed to me that I never said isn’t semantics, it’s a fundamental issue. This is so basic that I can’t believe you are acting in good faith – all you need to do is go back to page six of the comments and compare my actual posts to the words you put in quotes on this page and said were mine. They’re not the same. They’re not “word for word”.

At any rate, I am closing my correspondence with you; best wishes.

I don’t understand where you think I’m misquoting you.

In your post – the last on page six – you say:

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

In my post halfway down this page I quoted you as saying:

“I didn’t say I never came across criticism. I said I didn’t recall any SIGNIFICANT criticism.”

I cut and pasted it to make the reply.

How and ever, it’s not worth getting het up over. Suffice to say, as far as I’m concerned I was in perfectly good faith, but apologise for letting my annoyance heat my responses.

There’re times and places for anger and this isn’t it. So I sincerely wish you a good week.

Bellasnape, Thanks for clarifying the fact that you are 18. Frankly, it provides some excuse for your comments. What if I were to say that it’s repulsive and disgusting to think of what one man and one woman do together in bed? I hear that your are confused. Why don’t you go to pflag.org and read their site. Or get a good modern book on adult sexuality…I recommend Our Bodies Ourselves. Susan

Wouldn’t it be nice if we walked away from these conversations with a little more tolerance and respect for each other?

Wouldn´t it be nice NOT to delete messages the mods cannot stand? Wouldn´t it be nice to reduce the star cult? Wouldn´t it be nice to question Mrs Rowling´s ideas of what she calls moral and tolerance?