Dumbledore is gay..

[Brock]

..Apparently.
Seems slightly bizarre to discuss the sexuality of a fictional children's character to me, but hey ho.

 

[Noodley]

And a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall added: "It's great that JK has said this. It shows that there's no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster."

 

[Brock]

Well.. I suppose it's ok as long as he doesn't start waving his wand around anywhere near me.

 

[Fab Foodie]

And a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall added: "It's great that JK has said this. It shows that there's no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster."

Oh Stonewall FFS...

 

[Bigtallfatbloke]

I can 't think of anything PC to say.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Gawd - it's just stories FFS. Indeed the characterisation in HP books is very poor.

 

[John the Monkey]

Can't see as it matters, tbh. If it was significant to the plots of the books, it should have been in the books, imo. As it is, the reader should be left to their own opinions of the world and characters portrayed.

 

[gavintc]

Gawd - it's just stories FFS. Indeed the characterisation in HP books is very poor.

Well whatever magic she spread, she certainly managed to move a few books with poor characterisation. Perhaps, kids don't really worry about the depth of the character, but just like the story.

 

[barq]

From what I've seen I don't think they are very well written books, but if she wants to introduce a bit of variety, do unexpected things, or play with the genre then fair enough. There's no reason why Dumbledore should have to be straight.

It slightly reminds me of the whole Tellytubby thing with Tinkywinky.

 

[gavintc]

She is not going to win the Booker prize, but then she never intended to. She planned to produce a set of books that were novel and different for children. She succeeded. So, why not complain about poor characterisation in Janet and John books or Pooh bear books. You are missing the point.

 

[Melvil]

I really don't understand why she didn't 'out' him in the books if he was gay - seems like she has 'bottled it' in a way - wants to be modernist and PC but also not upset her publishers and kiddie/parent fanbase (and run the risk of slightly fewer sales of her books - gawd forbid!!!!). Sorry, but it seems a bit of a snide thing to do - if her books are all about promoting tolerance why didn't she make the situation a bit more obvious?





....on a side note I did wonder if J.K Rowling might have made Snape gay and then revealed that Harry's dad taunted him about his sexuality - that would have been quite interesting and also explained Snape's hatred for Harry...?

 

[ufkacbln]

To me it smacks of getting as much publicity as possible.

The ranting that will ensue from the Religious Right will do more for her sales than any advertising ever would!

 

[Richie1964]

It was obvious anyway. His name is an anagram of odd bum leer!

 

[Melvil]

It was obvious anyway. His name is an anagram of odd bum leer!

You have way too much time on your hands!

 

[Brock]

odd bum leer
I suppose it's upto J.K herself how she thinks of her characters. Clearly she would've had an idea of who this person was when she started writing about him, and if she imagined him gay, then that was a facet of his character that helped her create a rounded personality. Whether it came out explicitly in the book would be purely down to the narrative, and in the end there was no reason why it should.
I'm pretty sure she's achieved enough that she wouldn't need to belch this out purely for the tabloid inches.. After all, she just has to finish a book and it's prime time headline super news for a month.
I've read them all out of an interest in popular culture, and I think they're fantastic children's books. Just what the xbox generations need.