Character information from Jo
Fish Eye no Miko
LocoOwl
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
politically correct.
I think she has committed a fatal blunder with this move. But I could
be wrong as I have so often proved to be. Still will not change my
opinion, though.
Ron Hunter
Well, is it were April 1, I would think that was mostly a joke. What's
JKR been smoking?
Fish Eye no Miko
> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> > Wow. Just... wow.
>
> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board
This is a newsgroup, not a message board. Some people are picky about
the difference.
> for the following statement: I am very disappointed in J. K.
> Rowling's decision to make Albus Dumberdore gay. It
> was unnecessary and is just too preciously politically
> correct.
Dear God. Putting a gay character in something is not, in and of
itself, PC.
> I think she has committed a fatal blunder with this move.
Fatal? It's gong to kill her?
Catherine Johnson.
Jano
Fortunately this can still be incorporated to the last movies for much
interesting subplots.
Yellow
Why?
There are (were) no overtly gay characters in HP but gay people really
do exist so it is not unreasonable for the potterverse to have its fair
share.
And dare I say it, Dumbledore being gay doesn't actually make any
difference to anything except explain that the strong bond he formed
with another man was more than just friendship or hero-worship.
Jano
And actually makes more understandable his blindness at such an age when the
first love strikes the hardest.
Deevo
news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>>
>> Wow. Just... wow.
>>
>> Catherine Johnson.
>
> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
> politically correct.
Was it? What, if any, ultimate difference did it have to his character or
his role in the books?
Like I said in the other post on the subject it really depends if that was
her intent all along or whether it was included for PC reasons. I'd like to
think that Jo wouldn't do such a thing.
> I think she has committed a fatal blunder with this move. But I could
> be wrong as I have so often proved to be. Still will not change my
> opinion, though.
Like I said what, if any, difference does it make at this point? Also your
'opinion' seems to display an unfortunate prejudice.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
santosh
> "LocoOwl" <lewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>>>
>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>>>
>>> Catherine Johnson.
>>
>> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
>> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
>> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
>> politically correct.
>
> Was it? What, if any, ultimate difference did it have to his
> character or his role in the books?
Not to his character no, but to the perception of his character by
readers, and their opinion on him, yes, a lot.
<snip>
RobMac
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffctp0$2kt$1...@aioe.org...
Only to those readers who let their true bigotry and insecurity filter into
their interpretation of it.
I have to ask : "Why does it even matter?"
In 2007, why is this such a bombshell??
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
DaveD
"Jano" <fa...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:5nu85mF...@mid.individual.net...
Exactly - it helps explain why Dd was so blind to the evil side of
Grindenwald's beliefs; how someone who could be as clever as Dd could also
be so wrong, so stupid. So it's actually (admittedly only slightly)
plot-intrinsic in that it helps contribute to the internal logic of the
story.
And yes, we exist, so why shouldn't books mirror that reality too?
Particularly books that preach not just tolerance but acceptance. Thank you
Jo.
DaveD
SPT
>
>
>
> > Wow. Just... wow.
>
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> Fortunately this can still be incorporated to the last movies for much
> interesting subplots.
Great. Next week we'll probably find out he had an affair with Oscar
Wilde.
JKR should have stopped the character building on Dumbledore in Book
Six. When he DIED. The time to do character building is when your
character is still... a live character in your stories. Once he is
dead, spending half of another novel explaining his backstory is
pointless.
What would have good if she had spent some time building up one of the
active characters in Deathly Hallows. Harry Potter, for instance.
Ron Hunter
The real question is why she should feel motivated to share this
'backstory' information at this late date. It has no effect on the
plot, characters, or relationships of the story, and can only hurt sales
of the books, and attendance at the movies. Worse, the people who
already demonize the stories will have more glass in their scatterguns.
First, she 'deages' him, then she 'outs' him. That'll teach him to
give her trouble in the last book!
Ron Hunter
I should add that a single homosexual relationship when one is a teen
DOESN'T make one a homosexual.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Why?
Does his sexuality change the way the stories unfolded?
Does knowing he's gay now affect how much you enjoyed the books when you
read them?
Whether he's straight, gay, bisexual, or necrophiliac. It simply doesn't
matter.
The subject was never raised in the books, so it has absolutely zero impact
on the story.
It was announced in an interview, and wasn't in the books, so you could
almost argue that it's not canon anyway.
Besides, why all this hoo-ha over Dumbledores sexuality?
Has everyone forgotten that his brother is into beastiality, with a
particular penchant for goats?
Ron Hunter
> "santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ffctp0$2kt$1...@aioe.org...
>> Deevo wrote:
>>
>>> "LocoOwl" <lewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>>>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Catherine Johnson.
>>>> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
>>>> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
>>>> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
>>>> politically correct.
>>> Was it? What, if any, ultimate difference did it have to his
>>> character or his role in the books?
>> Not to his character no, but to the perception of his character by
>> readers, and their opinion on him, yes, a lot.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>
> Only to those readers who let their true bigotry and insecurity filter into
> their interpretation of it.
>
> I have to ask : "Why does it even matter?"
> In 2007, why is this such a bombshell??
>
>
>
Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia, ANYONE associated
with the educational system that isn't totally straight, and moral, is
considered a threat.
Once again, a single teenaged homosexual relationship doesn't make a
person a homosexual. Or maybe he had a 'thing' going with Filch....
Ron Hunter
All she had been doing since has been 'character assassination', not
character building. First Rita, now Joann. sigh.
Where's my QuickQuotes quill? Who shall we go after next, Arthur
Weasley? Maybe Molly had a lesbian lover in third year... sigh.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Why would it possibly change people's opinion of him?
(not quite so) Fat Sam
We're getting into dangerous territory now.
The implication above is that gays are more likely to be pedophiles. That
simply isn't true.
Herb
Because now we have to think of him possibly rodgering guys up the
arse at some stage in his life - or worse yet, been done himself.
It's just not something you want to know about.
Herb
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Exactly - it helps explain why Dd was so blind to the evil side of
>Grindenwald's beliefs; how someone who could be as clever as Dd could also
>be so wrong, so stupid. So it's actually (admittedly only slightly)
>plot-intrinsic in that it helps contribute to the internal logic of the
>story.
>
>And yes, we exist, so why shouldn't books mirror that reality too?
>Particularly books that preach not just tolerance but acceptance. Thank you
>Jo.
It does have a good side though. We can see in the books by DD's more
or less asexual nature that he has gotten his gay urges under control
and chosen to remain celibate.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
It's not something I even think about to be honest.
There are millions of straight men in the world, but I don't visualise them
all naked and sweaty, having sex with their wives or girlfriends.
So why would I visualise a gay man doing that with his boyfriend?
If you can't meet a gay man without visualising him naked and having sex
with a male partner, then I'd suggest you're probably bottling up some
pretty seriously repressed closet gay fantasies of your own.
Kenny
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1192851432.0...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
>
> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> Catherine Johnson.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that she did
this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean. JKR could have lots of
gay characters in her story and it wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact,
actually having a few openly gay characters would add depth to stories.
What I'm pissed about is all these little interviews and speeches she's
giving where she's spouting information that should really be in the books.
And now that she's done so much of it, the books cannot stand alone -- you
have to have a compellation of her speeches to supplement the books. This
is absolutely stupid. The books must be able to stand alone and she should
refer to the books when discussing the characters or plot or anything else.
If she has to clarify something in the books during an interview, that's one
thing because she can refer to the books. But dropping brand new
information is something else. The epilogue in DH is a perfect example of
this. It was so crappy that it left me wondering what the hell she was
thinking when she wrote it.
There is nothing, NOTHING, in the books that suggests that DD is gay. Why
did she all of a sudden blurt out that DD was gay in some lecture months
after the final book was released? What was the f-ing point? Something
like this should have been included in the books because it's important.
She could have developed the characters, shown how he loved and was betrayed
by Grindenwald, and how hurt he was because of it. But she didn't. In
fact, there was very minimal character development in the last three
books -- which IMHO was one of the reasons the last three books were such
monumental pieces of crap.
With this sudden announcement that DD is gay, it seems to me that she's
trying to make some sort of PC statement, but I'm not sure what the hell
she's trying to say. If she wanted to make a statement about homosexuality
or gay teachers, it should have been in the books. But she didn't do it.
Why? Was she scared that some people would be turned off her book and she
would lose sales? Was she scared that the religious right would scream
bloody murder? Was she scared that the Pope would freak out and say that HP
is no longer "The Prince of Darkness", and instead is now "The Homosexual
Prince of Darkness." Was she scared of the controversy that could
potentially erupt from having something like this in her books? Seriously,
what was the point? If it wasn't important enough to include in the books,
then she should have chalked it up to an idea that she wanted to use but
didn't. But to do what she did is just wrong.
Kenny
Fish Eye no Miko
> Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia,
Fear of children?
> Once again, a single teenaged homosexual relationship
> doesn't make a person a homosexual.
Except, Jo didn't say, "he had a thing for Grindelwald as a teen" She
said "He is gay, AND had a thing for Grindelwald when he was a teen"..
See the difference?
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> It does have a good side though. We can see in the books by
> DD's more or less asexual nature that he has gotten his gay
> urges under control and chosen to remain celibate.
Really? Where the books does it say he's celibate? We have no idea
what he gets up on holidays or in the summer.
And, anyway, why would that be good? How is denying yourself love and
a relationship, and, yes, SEX a "good thing"? How would you feel if
someone told you YOUR urges were evil, an "abomination" and for you to
be a good person, you could never have a relationship and or sex ever
in your life?
Catherine Johnson.
x
I think Rowling's turning out to be an asshole. Apparently she feels
the need to have her name surface again in the news, so she modifies
the history of a character in a sensational way to get attention (when
she's not dropping her dress on television).
Nothing was said about Dumbledore's 'personal tastes' in any of the
books that would lead the reader to think that he was queer (then
again: Richard Harris in the first movie? Let's think about it...)
just as nothing has been said in the story to lead the reader to think
that Potter turns out to be a paedophile in his later years (handy
though, that imperius curse can be), or Hermione starts hooking after
graduation to make ends meet, or that Ron's and Neville's 'ends' DO
meet in a dark quiet place; not yet, that is.
But I think that you can bet if she ever feels run-down on publicity
again that she'll fabricate something else about a character just
because they've outlived their literary usefulness - the 'cattle' WILL
go to see the last two movies, and both movies and books will always
generate residuals.
In article <1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Fish Eye no Miko
> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that
> she did this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean.
> JKR could have lots of gay characters in her story and it
> wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, actually having a few openly
> gay characters would add depth to stories.
Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even had
to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open ended...
They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never had any
other relationships <wink, wink>
Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
with Tonks at the end of HBP...
> What I'm pissed about is all these little interviews and speeches
> she's giving where she's spouting information that should really
> be in the books.
Like where everyone ended up at the end. We get this PoS epilogue
with almost NO information (wow, Harry and Ginny had kids! No shit?
ANd ROn and Heriome I'm shocked!), and then she has all this info
about what happened,... PUT IT IN THE DAMN BOOK, WOMAN!
> And now that she's done so much of it, the books cannot
> stand alone -- you have to have a compellation of her
> speeches to supplement the books. This is absolutely
> stupid.
Agreed. I don't like feeling like I need to "readings" to understand
the full depth and breadth of the books...
> The books must be able to stand alone and she should
> refer to the books when discussing the characters or
> plot or anything else. If she has to clarify something in
> the books during an interview, that's one thing because
> she can refer to the books. But dropping brand new
> information is something else.
It's also unfair to people who don't read her interviews and things.
And it puts the information in a wobbly place, canon-wise, since some
people refuse to accept that her interviews are canon. And why should
they have to? This info should be in the books, anyway.
> The epilogue in DH is a perfect example of this. It was
> so crappy that it left me wondering what the hell she was
> thinking when she wrote it.
Yeah. I actually kinda liked the epilogue, there just should have
been more of it. What was going on the Wizarding world? What did the
characters do for a living? None of this was in there.
> There is nothing, NOTHING, in the books that suggests that
> DD is gay. Why did she all of a sudden blurt out that DD was
> gay in some lecture months after the final book was released?
> What was the f-ing point? Something like this should have
> been included in the books because it's important. She could
> have developed the characters, shown how he loved and was
> betrayed by Grindenwald, and how hurt he was because of it.
Yeah...
Though, in all honesty, I felt the DD stuff in DH was too long as it
was. Maybe if she had stopped telling the SAME DAMN STORY about his
sister over and over, and give us actually NEW information?
> But she didn't. In fact, there was very minimal character
> development in the last three books -- which IMHO was
> one of the reasons the last three books were such
> monumental pieces of crap.
Ouch!
> With this sudden announcement that DD is gay, it seems
> to me that she's trying to make some sort of PC statement,
> but I'm not sure what the hell she's trying to say. If she
> wanted to make a statement about homosexuality or gay
> teachers, it should have been in the books. But she didn't
> do it. Why? Was she scared that some people would be
> turned off her book and she would lose sales? Was she
> scared that the religious right would scream bloody murder?
Like they need an excuse... d-:
> Was she scared that the Pope would freak out and say
> that HP is no longer "The Prince of Darkness", and instead
> is now "The Homosexual Prince of Darkness." Was she
> scared of the controversy that could potentially erupt from
> having something like this in her books? Seriously,
> what was the point? If it wasn't important enough to
> include in the books, then she should have chalked it up
> to an idea that she wanted to use but didn't. But to do
> what she did is just wrong.
Ummm.. This.
^_^
Catherine Johnson.
Green-Eyed Chris
Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> wrote:
>http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-revea
>ls-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
>
>Wow. Just... wow.
Having no great desire to go back and read through all of the threads I
ignored on the subject, I'll simply say chalk up another one for the
Fish Eye.
Hagrid never married? Hmm.
Why did DD really trust Snape? Hmmm.
What made him choose that boy in the orphanage? Hmmmm.
Wow indeed!
--
Chris
Fish Eye no Miko
> >santosh wrote:
>
> >Why would it possibly change people's opinion of him?
>
> Because now we have to think of him possibly rodgering
> guys up the arse at some stage in his life - or worse yet,
> been done himself. It's just not something you want to
> know about.
Actually, it is. In fact, thank you for putting the image in my head.
Hmmm... hot, gay wizard sex...
Catherine Johnson.
Fish Eye no Miko
> JKR should have stopped the character building on
> Dumbledore in Book Six. When he DIED.
I remember getting to "King's Cross" and going, "Oh, my God. DD's
dead and he's STILL doing the effing exposition! ARGH!"
> The time to do character building is when your
> character is still... a live character in your stories.
> Once he is dead, spending half of another novel
> explaining his backstory is pointless.
And downright annoying. Not to mention that we get the same damn
story about five times, from different people. Sorry, Rowling, but
you are NOT Kurosawa.
And, unless I'm mistaken, it had no relevance to the plot, except for
the little it about him trying on the ring.
> What would have good if she had spent some time building
> up one of the active characters in Deathly Hallows. Harry
> Potter, for instance.
Amen.
Catherine Johnson.
Kenny
"x" <x...@x.xxx> wrote in message news:201020071236554791%x...@x.xxx...
> I think Rowling's turning out to be an asshole. Apparently she feels
> the need to have her name surface again in the news, so she modifies
> the history of a character in a sensational way to get attention (when
> she's not dropping her dress on television).
Though I haven't quite tossed her into the "asshole" category yet, I kind of
agree with what you're saying. It does seem that she is saying stuff like
this for both shock effect and to keep her name in the news -- perhaps
because it's a backhanded way of promoting her upcoming mystery book -- or
whatever it is.
> Nothing was said about Dumbledore's 'personal tastes' in any of the
> books that would lead the reader to think that he was queer (then
> again: Richard Harris in the first movie? Let's think about it...)
Also think about Diggory in the GOF movie. I'm pretty sure he was hitting
on Harry when he suggested to take a bath in the prefects bathroom ...
> just as nothing has been said in the story to lead the reader to think
> that Potter turns out to be a paedophile in his later years (handy
> though, that imperius curse can be), or Hermione starts hooking after
> graduation to make ends meet, or that Ron's and Neville's 'ends' DO
> meet in a dark quiet place; not yet, that is.
I bet somewhere there's a piece of fan-fiction where that happens.
> But I think that you can bet if she ever feels run-down on publicity
> again that she'll fabricate something else about a character
I don't think she actually fabricated this, rather it was an idea she didn't
use. However, I see your point and I wish she'd shut the hell up and just
talk about the books instead of dredging up ideas that she didn't use (or
making stuff up out of hat) and saying that they are an important part of
the book when there is no mention of it whatsoever in a lame effort to keep
her name in the news, give her books more "social" punch instead of relying
on what she has written to speak for that, promote her next endeavor, or
what ever the hell she is doing. Enough is enough. I feel this is a
situation where the artist is becoming detrimental to their own work.
Kenny
DaveD
"Herb" <he...@erb.com> wrote in message
news:pu5kh3p6cdn5f6f9r...@4ax.com...
But obviously Arthur rogered (as you so eloquently put it) Molly, and Lily
was rogered by James, not forgetting Tonks and Lupin *during* book 7, shock
horror! Basically if you describe someone as married then that's (part of)
what you're basically saying - the same as if you say they're gay. So why is
Dd any different?
DaveD
DaveD
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:c4qdncK-9OUuiYfa...@giganews.com...
Lol - indeed! Though I think it's just another piece of the backstory she's
been giving out in interviews since DH. It gives extra weight to the
explanations of why Dd would go along with Grindenwald's evil ideas as
that's out of character with the Dd we're used to in the first 6 books who's
very supportive of muggle rights, unlike Gw. It's just this bit of backstory
is controversial to some, though I doubt it's much of an issue to JKR.
I admit, I think there are enough reasons to have included at least a
stronger hint to that in DH as that aspect does relate to the plot. The
problem is that there's so much backstory, DH (and the rest of the books,
for that matter) would have been too big and bitty to enjoy.
Though it makes me wonder if there are any more relevant revelations to
come! And will there be anything left for the Potterverse
encyclopaedia/Hogwarts: A History?
DaveD
Fish Eye no Miko
wrote:
> "Herb" <h...@erb.com> wrote:
> > "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>Why would it possibly change people's opinion of him?
>
> > Because now we have to think of him possibly rodgering
> > guys up the arse at some stage in his life - or worse
> > yet, been done himself. It's just not something you want
> > to know about.
>
> But obviously Arthur rogered (as you so eloquently put it) Molly,
You know "rodger" refers to anal sex, right?
Not to say that that DIDN'T happen between those two (straight people
have anal sex, too, after all), but I want to be sure you know what
you're saying.
Catherine Johnson.
Eric Bohlman
> The real question is why she should feel motivated to share this
> 'backstory' information at this late date. It has no effect on the
> plot, characters, or relationships of the story, and can only hurt
> sales of the books, and attendance at the movies. Worse, the people
> who already demonize the stories will have more glass in their
> scatterguns.
> First, she 'deages' him, then she 'outs' him. That'll teach him to
> give her trouble in the last book!
The reason is that Steve Kloves was ad-libbing a bit on the script for
HBP and wrote some lines where Dumbledore was reminiscing about past
(female) loves. When JKR reviewed it, she said that was wrong and that
Dumbledore was gay.
I see this mostly as drawing a parallel between Dumbledore and Snape;
much of the trajectory of their lives was driven by wanting someone they
couldn't have. Making Dumbledore gay serves the exact same function as
making Snape straight; it enables them to have crushes on the "right"
people. No more, no less. It does not make the story any more "sexual"
than it already was. I'll go a previous poster one further and say that
if viewing him as gay makes you (generic you, not the OP) think of actual
sex acts and that offends you, you need psychiatric help. Mentally
healthy people's minds don't involuntarily play dirty movies that offend
them.
Paracelsus
gay from the very first book. Remember the chocolate frog card where we
were told that Dumbledore is fond of chamber music and ten pin bowling.
That juxtaposition of upper crust and lower class tastes may be a hint.
The bowling alleys were Dumbledore's cruising grounds. After the tragic
end of his love affair with Grindewald he gave up looking for a wizard
lover of his own class and began have casual affairs with working class
muggles.
The tormented academic spy-master and closet homosexual is almost a
stereotype in British fiction. If you watch movie The Good Shepherd
(starring Matt Damon) you will see Michael Gambon playing a similar type
of character.
Steve Morrison
(snip)
> Besides, why all this hoo-ha over Dumbledores sexuality?
> Has everyone forgotten that his brother is into beastiality, with a
> particular penchant for goats?
>
Except he isn't! In the same interview, Jo said that the inappropriate
charm on goats was intended to make a goat that was easy to keep clean
with curly horns. Check the front page of http://www.accio-quote.org/
Jano
> On Oct 20, 9:07 am, "Kenny" <omgtheykilledke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that
>> she did this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean.
>> JKR could have lots of gay characters in her story and it
>> wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, actually having a few openly
>> gay characters would add depth to stories.
>
> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even had
> to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open ended...
> They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never had any
> other relationships <wink, wink>
> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
> with Tonks at the end of HBP...
Perhaps Remus was bi and it will be revealed in future happy moments. I must
admit that perhaps I'm specially slow, since never suspected anything about
remus/sirius (or dd/gw for that matter) while reading the books.
Bill Blakely
<dav...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Jano" <fa...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>news:5nu85mF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Yellow wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Hunter [rphu...@charter.net] said:
>>>> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>>>> >
>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
>>>> >
>>>> > Wow. Just... wow.
>>>> >
>>>> > Catherine Johnson.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Well, is it were April 1, I would think that was mostly a joke. What's
>>>> JKR been smoking?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> There are (were) no overtly gay characters in HP but gay people really
>>> do exist so it is not unreasonable for the potterverse to have its fair
>>> share.
>>>
>>> And dare I say it, Dumbledore being gay doesn't actually make any
>>> difference to anything except explain that the strong bond he formed
>>> with another man was more than just friendship or hero-worship.
>>
>> And actually makes more understandable his blindness at such an age when
>> the
>> first love strikes the hardest.
>
>
>Exactly - it helps explain why Dd was so blind to the evil side of
>Grindenwald's beliefs; how someone who could be as clever as Dd could also
>be so wrong, so stupid. So it's actually (admittedly only slightly)
>plot-intrinsic in that it helps contribute to the internal logic of the
>story.
It also helps to explain why later on DD was as initially resistant to
fighting against GW.
>And yes, we exist, so why shouldn't books mirror that reality too?
>Particularly books that preach not just tolerance but acceptance. Thank you
>Jo.
>
>DaveD
Unfortunately, she didn't put it in the books, although with respect
to DD I do believe it is hinted at in DH. I think she must not have
had the nerve to put it in the books, knowing the controversy it would
create, and talking about it afterwards is a compromise between
putting it in the books and not mentioning it at all.
-----------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: Billions for Halliburton but not one cent for children's health care.
Frodo Baggins
NO.
Yellow
> Yellow wrote:
>
> > Ron Hunter [rphu...@charter.net] said:
> >> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
> >> >
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
> >> >
> >> > Wow. Just... wow.
> >> >
> >> > Catherine Johnson.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, is it were April 1, I would think that was mostly a joke. What's
> >> JKR been smoking?
> >>
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > There are (were) no overtly gay characters in HP but gay people really
> > do exist so it is not unreasonable for the potterverse to have its fair
> > share.
> >
> > And dare I say it, Dumbledore being gay doesn't actually make any
> > difference to anything except explain that the strong bond he formed
> > with another man was more than just friendship or hero-worship.
>
> And actually makes more understandable his blindness at such an age when the
> first love strikes the hardest.
>
Indeed, I agree.
Frodo Baggins
<samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
> LocoOwl wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> >> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> >> Catherine Johnson.
>
> > statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
> > Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
> > politically correct.
>
> > be wrong as I have so often proved to be. Still will not change my
> > opinion, though.
>
> Does his sexuality change the way the stories unfolded?
> Does knowing he's gay now affect how much you enjoyed the books when you
> read them?
>
> Whether he's straight, gay, bisexual, or necrophiliac. It simply doesn't
> - Show quoted text -
So what does matter in your opinion? Is it ok to have a pedophile or a
transvestite character or a guy who gets "intimate" with goats ... in
a children's series? I mean where would YOU draw the line?
Kenny
"Bill Blakely" <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
news:b5lkh3ht6umgat4kl...@4ax.com...
<Stuff cut>
> Unfortunately, she didn't put it in the books, although with respect
> to DD I do believe it is hinted at in DH. I think she must not have
> had the nerve to put it in the books, knowing the controversy it would
> create, and talking about it afterwards is a compromise between
> putting it in the books and not mentioning it at all.
It's not a compromise, it's a cop-out. She didn't have the guts to put
something that potentially controversial in her book, and waited months
after the release of her final book to mention it. If it was important, put
it in the book. If it was an idea she wanted to use, but didn't, have the
courage to say so. But to do what she did was a lousy thing to do.
Kenny
Yellow
The books do not tell us Dumbledore is celibate and who knows what
transpired on his regular visits to Hogsmead. :-)
Let's just hope he did not waste his existence on being either asexual
or celibate!
Yellow
> Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia, ANYONE associated
> with the educational system that isn't totally straight, and moral, is
> considered a threat.
Maybe in your backward village a homosexual teacher is a step too far
but thankfully that is *not* the case in the UK, where the books are
set.
And just for the record gay is *not* equal to immoral and is *not* equal
to pedophile.
For fuck's sake! :-(
> Once again, a single teenaged homosexual relationship doesn't make a
> person a homosexual. Or maybe he had a 'thing' going with Filch....
JK says he is gay. She does not say this because be had a single
relationship in his youth but because she made the character gay.
Therefore Dumbledore *is* gay.
Fish Eye no Miko
> NO.
Maybe you should read the whole post, then?
Catherine Johnson.
Yellow
LOL! Not in my world it doesn't but instead is just another word for
sex, any which way. :-)
John Szalay
news:OYsSi.21375$G25.9279@edtnps89:
>
> "Bill Blakely" <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
> n
> <Stuff cut>
>
>> Unfortunately, she didn't put it in the books, although with respect
>> to DD I do believe it is hinted at in DH. I think she must not have
>> had the nerve to put it in the books, knowing the controversy it
>> would create, and talking about it afterwards is a compromise between
>> putting it in the books and not mentioning it at all.
>
> It's not a compromise, it's a cop-out. She didn't have the guts to
> put something that potentially controversial in her book, and waited
> months after the release of her final book to mention it. If it was
> important, put it in the book. If it was an idea she wanted to use,
> but didn't, have the courage to say so. But to do what she did was a
> lousy thing to do.
>
>
> Kenny
>
>
>
and Alberforths "inapproprate charms on/with a goat" isn't
controversial or at least raise some questions ?
Kenny
"Paracelsus" <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:JfsSi.90502$Da.45316@pd7urf1no...
> I disagree. There is evidence that Rowling conceived of Dumbledore as gay
> from the very first book.
Yes, I said that she probably had the idea, but decided not to use it.
>Remember the chocolate frog card where we were told that Dumbledore is fond
>of chamber music and ten pin bowling. That juxtaposition of upper crust
>and lower class tastes may be a hint.
And it may not be. Not everyone who goes bowling or listens to chamber music
is gay. Also, there was little else regarding DD's life brought up in the
next six books. Then one day, BAM, she announces he's gay. That's pretty
stupid. If he's gay, put it in the book and develop it there.
> The bowling alleys were Dumbledore's cruising grounds.
Really. Where do you get this idea? Lots of people go bowling without the
intent of knocking balls and pins with someone else.
>After the tragic end of his love affair with Grindewald he gave up looking
>for a wizard lover of his own class and began have casual affairs with
>working class muggles.
And this is stated in the books where? Oh, wait, IT ISN'T. It's just
announced one day by the author that DD was in love with Grindewald and that
he was gay. However, there's nothing in the books to even suggest this.
Despite the droning on and on and the rehashing of DD's past in DH, there is
not one love letter, not one intimate memory, not one clue that DD was gay
and his first love was Grindewald.
> The tormented academic spy-master and closet homosexual is almost a
> stereotype in British fiction. If you watch movie The Good Shepherd
> (starring Matt Damon) you will see Michael Gambon playing a similar type
> of character.
And the angle of the tormented academic teacher/closet himosexual is not
developed at all. In the books, we saw nothing like this. I don't really
care that it's in other books, we're talking about the HP series, and this
idea was never developed. Instead, she avoided the subject entirely until
one day, months after the last book is released, while answering a few
Q&A's, she goes (to sort of quote a previous poster on this NG), "Oh, did I
mention that DD was gay?"
Kenny
santosh
Ah, so for you being asexual or celibate is wasted existence? Like
animals eh?
Kenny
"John Szalay" <john....@pullmyfinger.att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns99CFA3DF25410...@216.196.97.142...
> "Kenny" <omgtheyki...@telus.net> wrote in
> news:OYsSi.21375$G25.9279@edtnps89:
>>
>> "Bill Blakely" <wcbl...@hughesnet.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Unfortunately, she didn't put it in the books, although with respect
>>> to DD I do believe it is hinted at in DH. I think she must not have
>>> had the nerve to put it in the books, knowing the controversy it
>>> would create, and talking about it afterwards is a compromise between
>>> putting it in the books and not mentioning it at all.
>>
>> It's not a compromise, it's a cop-out. She didn't have the guts to
>> put something that potentially controversial in her book, and waited
>> months after the release of her final book to mention it. If it was
>> important, put it in the book. If it was an idea she wanted to use,
>> but didn't, have the courage to say so. But to do what she did was a
>> lousy thing to do.
>>
>>
>> Kenny
>>
> and Alberforths "inapproprate charms on/with a goat" isn't
> controversial or at least raise some questions ?
The Alberforth-goat thingy didn't raise a lot of controversy, did it? There
were a few posts, but nothing major. Personally, I thought it was funny.
And even if a lot of people got their undies in a knot over it, JKR could
have said that the spells used were non-sexual in nature or something like
that (in fact, she did IIRC). However, having one of the main characters be
openly gay, well all hell would have broken loose. Wingnuts like Mallory
would have accused her of trying to turn her precious children away from God
and Christianity and towards witchcraft, and was turning them into raging
homosexuals. And I'm willing to bet she didn't want to have to deal with
all that garbage so she shelved that idea. I'm not angry that she made that
decision (though I think the books would be richer had she made DD openly
gay early on), however, I think it was wrong and a lousy thing to do to
announce during a Q&A at a f-ing book reading.
Like I said, if it was that important, put it in the book. If it was an
idea that was shelved and not developed, then admit that, and have the
courage to explain why the idea was scuttled. But to do what she did was a
Kenny
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1192900786.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 9:07 am, "Kenny" <omgtheykilledke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that
>> she did this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean.
>> JKR could have lots of gay characters in her story and it
>> wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, actually having a few openly
>> gay characters would add depth to stories.
>
> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even had
> to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open ended...
> They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never had any
> other relationships <wink, wink>
> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
> with Tonks at the end of HBP...
LOL! I suppose the argument could still be made that Lupin was gay because
he didn't want to be with Tonks. Maybe being a werewolf was just a
convenient excuse ...
<stuff cut>
>> There is nothing, NOTHING, in the books that suggests that
>> DD is gay. Why did she all of a sudden blurt out that DD was
>> gay in some lecture months after the final book was released?
>> What was the f-ing point? Something like this should have
>> been included in the books because it's important. She could
>> have developed the characters, shown how he loved and was
>> betrayed by Grindenwald, and how hurt he was because of it.
>
> Yeah...
> Though, in all honesty, I felt the DD stuff in DH was too long as it
> was. Maybe if she had stopped telling the SAME DAMN STORY about his
> sister over and over, and give us actually NEW information?
IMHO, there was too much new info in the last book. That in itself isn't a
bother, but there was little lead-up to it in the previous books. I feel
that the last book should have tied up the loose ends, and explained things
using the new information, not introduce brand new sub-plots with little or
no lead up from other books.
>> But she didn't. In fact, there was very minimal character
>> development in the last three books -- which IMHO was
>> one of the reasons the last three books were such
>> monumental pieces of crap.
>
> Ouch!
I know I'm harsh, but that's how I feel. The first three books were great.
GOF, was a little off, but still very good. OOTP was an unmitigated
disaster. HBP was just marginally better, and HD had a lot of potential,
but fizzled out rapidly and turned into a major disappointment.
>> With this sudden announcement that DD is gay, it seems
>> to me that she's trying to make some sort of PC statement,
>> but I'm not sure what the hell she's trying to say. If she
>> wanted to make a statement about homosexuality or gay
>> teachers, it should have been in the books. But she didn't
>> do it. Why? Was she scared that some people would be
>> turned off her book and she would lose sales? Was she
>> scared that the religious right would scream bloody murder?
>
> Like they need an excuse... d-:
I think she should have made DD openly gay early on and to hell with what
the religious right thought. I think it would have added a lot to the
series, especially if he showed his hurt over Grindewald (even if we didn't
know who his first love was until DH), and she could have showed both
intolerance by some and tolerance by others as that would fit nicely into
the underlying theme throughout the books.
Kenny
santosh
>
> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fe...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:1192900786.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 20, 9:07 am, "Kenny" <omgtheykilledke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that
>>> she did this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean.
>>> JKR could have lots of gay characters in her story and it
>>> wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, actually having a few openly
>>> gay characters would add depth to stories.
>>
>> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even
>> had to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open
>> ended... They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never
>> had any other relationships <wink, wink>
>> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
>> with Tonks at the end of HBP...
>
> LOL! I suppose the argument could still be made that Lupin was gay
> because he didn't want to be with Tonks.
No. Someone cant be both gay and het.
<snip>
Yellow
Yeh, right, 'cause that's *exactly* what I said. LOL!
Kenny
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffds9g$n5d$2...@aioe.org...<stuff cut>
>>> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even
>>> had to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open
>>> ended... They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never
>>> had any other relationships <wink, wink>
>>> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
>>> with Tonks at the end of HBP...
>>
>> LOL! I suppose the argument could still be made that Lupin was gay
>> because he didn't want to be with Tonks.
>
> No. Someone cant be both gay and het.
>
> <snip>
Huh? I don't get what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that he is both
gay and het. I'm saying in a (lame) humourous way that the argument could
be made that Lupin was gay (though he may have realized it or was in
denial.) He tried blowing off Tonks all through HBP, then seeing that
everyone was pressuring him, he gave in, dated and married her because that
was what was expected of him. He admits regretting marrying and knocking
Tonks up, and uses the werewolf excuse. But maybe, just maybe, he was using
that as a cover to hide his true feelings.
Of course, this is all just speculation ... or is it?
Kenny
Paracelsus
> "Paracelsus" <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:JfsSi.90502$Da.45316@pd7urf1no...
>
>> I disagree. There is evidence that Rowling conceived of Dumbledore as gay
>> from the very first book.
>
> Yes, I said that she probably had the idea, but decided not to use it.
>
>> Remember the chocolate frog card where we were told that Dumbledore is fond
>> of chamber music and ten pin bowling. That juxtaposition of upper crust
>> and lower class tastes may be a hint.
>
> And it may not be. Not everyone who goes bowling or listens to chamber music
> is gay. Also, there was little else regarding DD's life brought up in the
> next six books. Then one day, BAM, she announces he's gay. That's pretty
> stupid. If he's gay, put it in the book and develop it there.
>
>> The bowling alleys were Dumbledore's cruising grounds.
>
> Really. Where do you get this idea? Lots of people go bowling without the
The point is that bowling alleys and chamber music concerts are
generally attended by different classes of people. (Of course this is
not always the case. I once attended a private chamber music concert at
a home where the owner had a private bowling alley with a working pin
setting machine. The homeowner was not gay.) When I first read the card
I simply took it to mean that Dumbledore was comfortable in a wide range
of social settings. It could also mean that he was attempting to conceal
his sexual orientation by seeking out lovers from a class people his
other friends did not normally associate with.
There was also an offhand remark Dumbledore made to Slughorn about
liking the knitting patterns in muggle magazines. That may or or not be
a little private joke between him. Slughorn may have unconvered or
suspected Dumbledore`s sexuaul orientation and teased him about it.
>
>> After the tragic end of his love affair with Grindewald he gave up looking
>> for a wizard lover of his own class and began have casual affairs with
>> working class muggles.
>
> And this is stated in the books where? Oh, wait, IT ISN'T. It's just
> announced one day by the author that DD was in love with Grindewald and that
> he was gay. However, there's nothing in the books to even suggest this.
> Despite the droning on and on and the rehashing of DD's past in DH, there is
> not one love letter, not one intimate memory, not one clue that DD was gay
> and his first love was Grindewald.
>
All of which is perfectly consistent with a homosexual love affair in an
era where homosexual relations were a criminal offence. Also, DD was not
proud of his coonection with Grindewald and went out of his way to
conceal it.
Remember also that we get most of our information on Dumbledore`s past
through Rita Skeeter`s book and Abeforth`s memories. Skeeter is too
dense to realize the truth and Abeforth may have wanted to keep that
particular family secret.
Looking at the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindewald as a
homosexual love affair makes sense of the whole affair and its
conclusion. There was simply too much emotion invested in it for it to
be a simple friendship between too young men.
>> The tormented academic spy-master and closet homosexual is almost a
>> stereotype in British fiction. If you watch movie The Good Shepherd
>> (starring Matt Damon) you will see Michael Gambon playing a similar type
>> of character.
>
> And the angle of the tormented academic teacher/closet himosexual is not
> developed at all. In the books, we saw nothing like this. I don't really
> care that it's in other books, we're talking about the HP series, and this
> idea was never developed. Instead, she avoided the subject entirely until
> one day, months after the last book is released, while answering a few
> Q&A's, she goes (to sort of quote a previous poster on this NG), "Oh, did I
> mention that DD was gay?"
Why would it have to be developed? It is part of a backstory that makes
sense of some of Dumbledore's behaviour.
I would have preferred if Rowling had kept quiet about it. I like a
little mystery left in a story. (I thought the epilogue was perfect in
that respect.) However, I don't think it is gratuitous information or a
last minute invention on her part.
>
>
> Kenny
>
>
>
santosh
>
> "santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ffds9g$n5d$2...@aioe.org...
>> Kenny wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Fish Eye no Miko" <fe...@cox.net> wrote in message
> <stuff cut>
>
>>>> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even
>>>> had to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open
>>>> ended... They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never
>>>> had any other relationships <wink, wink>
>>>> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the
>>>> thing with Tonks at the end of HBP...
>>>
>>> LOL! I suppose the argument could still be made that Lupin was gay
>>> because he didn't want to be with Tonks.
>>
>> No. Someone cant be both gay and het.
>>
>> <snip>
>
> Huh? I don't get what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that he is
> both gay and het. I'm saying in a (lame) humourous way that the
> argument could be made that Lupin was gay (though he may have realized
> it or was in denial.)
If he really had been gay he would never have started anything with
Tonks.
> He tried blowing off Tonks all through HBP,
> then seeing that everyone was pressuring him, he gave in, dated and
> married her because that was what was expected of him.
There is no evidence in canon that anyone was "pressuring" Lupin to move
ahead with Tonks.
It is true that Harry pressurised him in DH to go back to Tonks when he
proposed to join Harry on the Horcrux hunt, but that's totally
different.
> He admits regretting marrying and knocking Tonks up, and uses the
> werewolf excuse.
I think it was genuine.
> But maybe, just maybe, he was using that as a cover to hide
> his true feelings.
>
> Of course, this is all just speculation ... or is it?
Like I said, if he was gay, he'd never have felt anything for Tonks to
begin with.
Kenny
> Kenny wrote:
<stuff cut>
>> Huh? I don't get what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that he is
>> both gay and het. I'm saying in a (lame) humourous way that the
>> argument could be made that Lupin was gay (though he may have realized
>> it or was in denial.)
>
> If he really had been gay he would never have started anything with
> Tonks.
I've known a couple of gay friends who got married before they (for lack of
better words) accepted who they were. Now they're divorced and a lot
happier with themselves.
As for the rest of the post, I was just making a joke. I personally don't
believe that Lupin was gay. Rather, I'm just speculating about what if he
was...
Kenny
mueckelein
> Fish Eye no Miko wrote:
>
> >http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> > Wow. Just... wow.
>
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> JKR been smoking?
LOL!
DaveD
"Yellow" <ye...@please.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2184701bb...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
Oh dear - is this an example of 2 cultures separated by the English
language, lol? Just like Yellow says, at school - admittedly some years
ago! - rogering simply meant sex as well! Perhaps the term has evolved since
then :) (Or perhaps it's the addition of the "d"!!)
DaveD
Drusilla
> In article <1192851432.0...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-revea
>> ls-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
>>
>> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> Having no great desire to go back and read through all of the threads I
> ignored on the subject, I'll simply say chalk up another one for the
> Fish Eye.
>
> Hagrid never married? Hmm.
>
> Why did DD really trust Snape? Hmmm.
>
> What made him choose that boy in the orphanage? Hmmmm.
>
> Wow indeed!
LOL, I think this is the best post about the subject so far :D
--
_ _
Granjeros en Peru tienen ganancias de menos de $1 por dia. El proyecto
"POTATO GOLDMINE" puede cambiar eso.
Farmers of Peru have incomes of less than $1 per day. The "POTATO
GOLDMINE" project might change that.
Fish Eye no Miko
> "Yellow" <y...@please.no.spam.com> wrote:
> > Fish Eye no Miko [f...@cox.net] said:
> >>"DaveD" <dave...@DELETETHISBITblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But obviously Arthur rogered (as you so eloquently put it) Molly,
> >>
> >> You know "rodger" refers to anal sex, right?
> >> Not to say that that DIDN'T happen between those two (straight people
> >> have anal sex, too, after all), but I want to be sure you know what
> >> you're saying.
> >
> > LOL! Not in my world it doesn't but instead is just another word for
> > sex, any which way. :-)
>
> Oh dear - is this an example of 2 cultures separated by the English
> language, lol? Just like Yellow says, at school - admittedly some
> years ago! - rogering simply meant sex as well! Perhaps the term
> has evolved since then :) (Or perhaps it's the addition of the "d"!!)
Actually, I think it's just that that the "anal sex" version of the
term is the only one I've heard, so....
Sorry, my badness.
Catherine Johnson.
Yellow
Now you mention it, I think you are right about it being spelt without a
"d" - I am crap at spelling and just copied.
Jano
People does lots of things for really surprising reasons.
Richard Eney
Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>Kenny wrote:
>> "x" <x...@x.xxx> wrote
>>> But I think that you can bet if she ever feels run-down on publicity
>>> again that she'll fabricate something else about a character
>>
>> I don't think she actually fabricated this, rather it was an idea she
>> didn't use. However, I see your point and I wish she'd shut the hell up
I agree 100%.
<snip>
>> Enough is enough. I feel this is a
>> situation where the artist is becoming detrimental to their own work.
Agreed.
>I disagree. There is evidence that Rowling conceived of Dumbledore as
>gay from the very first book. Remember the chocolate frog card where we
>were told that Dumbledore is fond of chamber music and ten pin bowling.
There are some very good reasons for those choices. They have to do
with the history of European philosophy. Chamber music is often composed
according to a particular canon of musical theory that is based on
neo-Platonic number theory. Similarly, ten-pin bowling has the pins
set up in a triangle, and a triangle of ten dots is a major element
of neo-Platonic number mysticism.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>The point is that bowling alleys and chamber music concerts are
>generally attended by different classes of people. (Of course this is
>not always the case. I once attended a private chamber music concert at
>a home where the owner had a private bowling alley with a working pin
>setting machine. The homeowner was not gay.) When I first read the card
>I simply took it to mean that Dumbledore was comfortable in a wide range
>of social settings. It could also mean that he was attempting to conceal
>his sexual orientation by seeking out lovers from a class people his
>other friends did not normally associate with.
>
>There was also an offhand remark Dumbledore made to Slughorn about
>liking the knitting patterns in muggle magazines. That may or or not be
>a little private joke between him. Slughorn may have unconvered or
>suspected Dumbledore`s sexuaul orientation and teased him about it.
I would like to point out that Dumbledore did not say he enjoyed
_reading_ knitting patterns. He said he enjoyed knitting patterns.
"Knitting" in that usage can be seen as a verb: "DD enjoys creating
patterns" - by manipulating people so that they behave according to
the pattern he has in mind.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 7:39 am, SPT <Rhododacty...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> JKR should have stopped the character building on
>> Dumbledore in Book Six. When he DIED.
>
>I remember getting to "King's Cross" and going, "Oh, my God.
>DD's dead and he's STILL doing the effing exposition! ARGH!"
>
>> The time to do character building is when your
>> character is still... a live character in your stories.
>> Once he is dead, spending half of another novel
>> explaining his backstory is pointless.
>
>And downright annoying. Not to mention that we get the same damn
>story about five times, from different people. Sorry, Rowling, but
>you are NOT Kurosawa.
>And, unless I'm mistaken, it had no relevance to the plot, except
>for the little it about him trying on the ring.
Well, the fight (as in the book) did give him some motivation for
the idiotic stunt of trying to use it before de-horcruxing it: he
wanted to bring back his sister and was afraid that de-horcruxing
it would ruin it for its original purpose. (As it apparently did,
since IIRC the people Harry brought back were very fragile and
could not have lasted long.)
>> What would have good if she had spent some time building
>> up one of the active characters in Deathly Hallows. Harry
>> Potter, for instance.
>
>Amen.
Ditto. Or even Ginny, who was reduced to a WWII battlefield nurse
cliche.
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Kenny <omgtheyki...@telus.net> wrote:
>"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote
><stuff cut>
>
>>> Huh? I don't get what you're saying. I'm not suggesting that he is
>>> both gay and het. I'm saying in a (lame) humourous way that the
>>> argument could be made that Lupin was gay (though he may have realized
>>> it or was in denial.)
>>
>> If he really had been gay he would never have started anything with
>> Tonks.
>
>I've known a couple of gay friends who got married before they (for lack of
>better words) accepted who they were. Now they're divorced and a lot
>happier with themselves.
I've known people who were bi, happily married (heterosexually) _and_
actively gay (with trusted healthy friends, and with knowledge by the wife).
It's not even all that uncommon.
>As for the rest of the post, I was just making a joke. I personally don't
>believe that Lupin was gay. Rather, I'm just speculating about what if he
>was...
I don't think Lupin was gay.
If we're looking for literary justifications, how about the fact that
a very standard slang term for an aggressively heterosexual male is "wolf"!
=Tamar
Richard Eney
Green-Eyed Chris <cw...@SPAMfreenet.de> wrote:
>In article <1192851432.0...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>ls-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more
>>
>>Wow. Just... wow.
>
>Having no great desire to go back and read through all of the threads I
>ignored on the subject, I'll simply say chalk up another one for the
>Fish Eye.
>
>Hagrid never married? Hmm.
>
>Why did DD really trust Snape? Hmmm.
>
>What made him choose that boy in the orphanage? Hmmmm.
He didn't "choose" the boy. The boy's name was written down by the magic
quill when he was born. DD literally had no choice in the matter. He
wasn't headmaster at the time.
=Tamar
Steve Morrison
> (not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Besides, why all this hoo-ha over Dumbledores sexuality?
>> Has everyone forgotten that his brother is into beastiality, with a
>> particular penchant for goats?
>>
>
> Except he isn't! In the same interview, Jo said that the inappropriate
> charm on goats was intended to make a goat that was easy to keep clean
> with curly horns. Check the front page of http://www.accio-quote.org/
Hm, maybe I spoke too soon! This is from a more detailed account of the
question and answer session:
Question: This was easily the funniest question of the evening.
A little girl asked what improper charms Aberforth Dumbledore
had used on goats.
Answer: Rowling looked stunned, and then asked, "How old are
you?" (I believe she was eight.) Then Rowling blushed slightly
and said that there might have been any number of charms one
might use on a goat, such as a charm to keep the goat clean,
or to keep its curly horns - "and that is my answer /to you/."
The older audience members got the joke and had quite a laugh,
but the little questioner seemed quite satisfied, too.
Frodo Baggins
> RobMac wrote:
> > "santosh" <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ffctp0$2kt$1...@aioe.org...
> >> Deevo wrote:
>
> >>> "LocoOwl" <lewial...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
> >>>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> >>>>> Catherine Johnson.
> >>>> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
> >>>> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
> >>>> politically correct.
> >>> Was it? What, if any, ultimate difference did it have to his
> >>> character or his role in the books?
> >> Not to his character no, but to the perception of his character by
> >> readers, and their opinion on him, yes, a lot.
>
> >> <snip>
>
> > Only to those readers who let their true bigotry and insecurity filter into
> > their interpretation of it.
>
> > I have to ask : "Why does it even matter?"
> > In 2007, why is this such a bombshell??
>
> Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia, ANYONE associated
I have problems when you put those two words together in the same
sentence as "equivalents" (although pedophile-phobia is what you
perhaps evidently meant). They are not equivalents by ANY stretch of
imagination. One is slowly being eliminated, the other has to be
quickly strengthened and issues like child sexual abuse by close
familiy members/friends included in the whole gamut of "phobias".
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frodo Baggins
> > > > doesn't make a person a homosexual.
>
> > > Except, Jo didn't say, "he had a thing for Grindelwald as
> > > a teen" She said "He is gay, AND had a thing for
> > > Grindelwald when he was a teen"..
> > > See the difference?
>
> > NO.
>
> Maybe you should read the whole post, then?
>
> Catherine Johnson.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I read the whole post. My point is that Jo did not know what she was
saying (not too clear in her own head about the whole thing) or did
not know what she wanted to say (tried to be too smart among the
"elite" audience) or both (most likely)!
Frodo Baggins
<samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
> Herb wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:56:01 +0100, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
> > <samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> santosh wrote:
> >>> Deevo wrote:
>
> >>>> "LocoOwl" <lewial...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> >>>>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>
> >>>>>> Catherine Johnson.
>
> >>>>> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the
> >>>>> following statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's
> >>>>> decision to make Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is
> >>>>> just too preciously politically correct.
>
> >>>> Was it? What, if any, ultimate difference did it have to his
> >>>> character or his role in the books?
>
> >>> Not to his character no, but to the perception of his character by
> >>> readers, and their opinion on him, yes, a lot.
>
>
> > Because now we have to think of him possibly rodgering guys up the
> > arse at some stage in his life - or worse yet, been done himself.
> > It's just not something you want to know about.
>
> There are millions of straight men in the world, but I don't visualise them
> all naked and sweaty, having sex with their wives or girlfriends.
> So why would I visualise a gay man doing that with his boyfriend?
>
> If you can't meet a gay man without visualising him naked and having sex
> with a male partner, then I'd suggest you're probably bottling up some
> pretty seriously repressed closet gay fantasies of your own.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's CRAP argument. When you meet a buddy, you dont think of him
having sex with his girlfriend but when you meet his desirable
girlfriend, perhaps you do think of her all naked and sweaty, but YOU
are in those thoughts with her! When you meet someone who is gay, you
may think of him having sex but you are NOT in the thoughts with HIM.
A small but VITAL difference. Cant see why that makes you a closet
homosexual ... just very imaginative. Another thing. I believe that
there are "male" and "female" partners in a same sex relationships.
Perhaps you are wondering which side of the relationship you have just
encountered.
Fish Eye no Miko
> > > > > Once again, a single teenaged homosexual relationship
> > > > > doesn't make a person a homosexual.
> > > >
> > > > Except, Jo didn't say, "he had a thing for Grindelwald
> > > > as a teen" She said "He is gay, AND had a thing for
> > > > Grindelwald when he was a teen"..
> > > > See the difference?
> > >
> > > NO.
> >
> > Maybe you should read the whole post, then?
>
> I read the whole post. My point is that Jo did not
> know what she was saying
That's extremely presumptuous of you.
> (not too clear in her own head about the whole thing)
> or did not know what she wanted to say (tried to be
> too smart among the "elite" audience) or both (most
> likely)!
How do you know this?
Catherine Johnson
Alex Clark
> JKR should have stopped the character building on Dumbledore in Book
> character is still... a live character . . .
That's right. And Citizen Kane should have ended right after he said,
"Rosebud."
--
Alex Clark
Arm Molotov Riddle
Alex Clark
> Remember also that we get most of our information on Dumbledore`s past
> through Rita Skeeter`s book and Abeforth`s memories. Skeeter is too
> dense to realize the truth and Abeforth may have wanted to keep that
> particular family secret.
He wasn't trying all that hard to keep it secret. You could write it
off as Aberforth being rude just for the heck of it, but he did
suggest that Albus's close friendship with Elphias Doge had to do with
"his every orifice".
--
Alex Clark
A vomited dorm roll (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Green-Eyed Chris
dic...@radix.net (Richard Eney) wrote:
Get smart. You're still arguing based on the books. In her Playboy
interview, JKR will tell us exactly what DD used magic quills for.
IIRC, it was this kind of behavior on JKR's part that drove Troels to
leave the group.
--
Chris
Green-Eyed Chris
Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 6:10 pm, Paracelsus <petersim@_nospam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Remember also that we get most of our information on Dumbledore`s past
>> through Rita Skeeter`s book and Abeforth`s memories. Skeeter is too
>> dense to realize the truth and Abeforth may have wanted to keep that
>> particular family secret.
>
>He wasn't trying all that hard to keep it secret. You could write it
>off as Aberforth being rude just for the heck of it, but he did
>suggest that Albus's close friendship with Elphias Doge had to do with
>"his every orifice".
My e-books aren't perfect, but my nifty little search program can't find
anything resembling that quote in any of the books. Could you pin it
down?
--
Chris
Jano
I can't, but I remember it too, it's there somewhere. I think when the trio
arrive at the pub first time during curfew.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
Perhaps you do, but when I meet someone, their private sex life is among the
last things on my mind.
I'd suggest you need to get out and get laid more often. You seem to be
obsessing about sex.
Green-Eyed Chris
The same might be said to JKR. Was she alone in that hotel room when she
finished writing DH?
BTW, if it's not too personal, why "not quite so" all of a sudden?
Sounds like the little lady has put you on half rations.
--
Chris
Eric Bohlman
news:1192948163....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> I have problems when you put those two words together in the same
> sentence as "equivalents" (although pedophile-phobia is what you
> perhaps evidently meant). They are not equivalents by ANY stretch of
> imagination. One is slowly being eliminated, the other has to be
> quickly strengthened and issues like child sexual abuse by close
> familiy members/friends included in the whole gamut of "phobias".
The suffix "-phobia" generally indicates that the attitude in question is
_irrational_, and while "pedophobia" may be clumsy, it's a useful term
for an _irrational_ fear of pedophilia/pedophiles. And yes it's possible
to be _irrationally_ afraid of something that's genuinely dangerous. If
you live in an area where there are extremely poisonous snakes, it's
_rational_ to be scared and take precautions to avoid being bitten. But
it's _irrational_ to refuse to walk through downtown Chicago out of
concern that you might be bitten by a poisonous snake. Similarly, seeing
pedophilia, or even hints of it, in perfectly innocent situations (such
as any type of mentorship relationship), is irrational (and is really a
sign of a dirty mind, reading sexual connotations into things that aren't
in any way sexual). And so is applying double standards; if, say, both
gay and straight porn tend to emphasize models between 18 and 25, you
can't rationally infer that gay men tend to be attracted people much
younger than that range while straight men don't. Finding 19-year-olds
attractive isn't an indication of wanting to have sex with 13-year-olds,
period.
In any case, no teacher with even a modicum of ethics is going to let any
perception that a student is sexually attractive influence his or her
behavior toward that student. Sure, there have been exceptions, but
that's just what they are, exceptions. The interests of safety are _not_
served by treating them as the rule or the default. And the best way to
prevent the exceptions is transparency, not treating people as guilty
until proven innocent (note, for example, that all of Dumbledore's
"solitary" interactions with Harry have actually been observed by Fawkes,
who's a free agent not subject to Dumbledore's orders).
Eric Bohlman
> That's CRAP argument. When you meet a buddy, you dont think of him
> having sex with his girlfriend but when you meet his desirable
> girlfriend, perhaps you do think of her all naked and sweaty, but YOU
> are in those thoughts with her! When you meet someone who is gay, you
Translation: perhaps you imagine cheating on him with her. You view her
as a possession to be taken from him. Rational people have often asked
"why don't more straight men realize that for every gay man around,
there's an extra unpaired woman available to them?" The answer seems to
be that too many straight men (not a majority, but too many) regard an
unpaired woman as less desirable than a woman attracted away from a
previous relationship. The point of winning is more about making the
other guy lose something than getting something desirable for oneself,
and all that. So they resent gay men because they don't have girlfriends
they can "steal." It's as if love is some sort of zero-sum quantity.
> may think of him having sex but you are NOT in the thoughts with HIM.
> A small but VITAL difference. Cant see why that makes you a closet
> homosexual ... just very imaginative. Another thing. I believe that
> there are "male" and "female" partners in a same sex relationships.
> Perhaps you are wondering which side of the relationship you have just
> encountered.
You believe that based on what observations? And why would that be
salient to you in any case?
You're coming across as the type of person who, when observing phenomena
that don't correspond to your simplified model of how the world works,
concludes that your model is right and the world is wrong. I hope I'm
wrong about that.
(not quite so) Fat Sam
LOL, not a personal question at all. In fact, I'm very glad you asked.
The old name was a very literal description of me.
I was so overweight, I was pretty much what you would call clinically obese.
That's the polite way of saying it. In my own words, I was a fat bastard ;-)
After buying a 4XL Ireland rugby shirt a few months ago in time for the
rugby world cup, I tried it on and it looked like it had been painted onto
my body.
That was the final straw that broke the very overweight camels back.
I decided I was sick of not being able to buy clothes that fit me off the
peg. I was sick of having to find specialist websites that do clothes for
huge people. And I was sick of having to pay 2 or 3 times as much for my
clothes as normal people.
So I embarked upon a completely radical, yet sustainable lifestyle change.
I'm not bothering with faddy diets, because they aren't sustainable, and as
soon as you shift the weight and come off the diet, it all piles back on
again.
The first thing I did was buy a steamer and a George Foreman grill.
Then I cut out red meat entirely (well, I allow myself a bit of lean beef
once a fortnight to prevent cravings).
I replaced the meat in my diet with fresh fish, turkey and chicken.
I started to stock up on fresh veg, fruit, and a variety of interesting
salad leafs.
I cut out frying and roasting in oil altogether, and changed the way I
present my food. Now I fill up on veg and regard the small bit of meat on my
plate as a special treat.
All sugarry drinks are gone, replaced by carbonatd water. I'm down to one
coffee a day, and I snack on things like fruit, celery and carrots.
I've also started exercising a lot more than before.
Already, I've had to put some of my largest clothes into storage, and I've
been able to bring some old smaller items back into regular circulation.
Some of my favourite garments fit me again, and that's given me more
determination to keep going.
I don't get pangs of hunger too often either, because I'm keeping myself
satisfied by snacking on celery, carrots and fruit, drinking lots of water
to fill me, and I've discovered that I love V8 vegeable juice.
Occasionally I get a craving for a Macdonalds or KFC, but when I do, I just
remember my mantra (kindly borrowed from Aerosmiths Steve Tyler).
"Nothing tastes as good as thin feels".
I feel better now than I've felt in a long time.
Fish Eye no Miko
> Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
> > Alex Clark <alexbcl...@pennswoods.net> wrote:
> >
> >>He wasn't trying all that hard to keep it secret. You could
> >>write it off as Aberforth being rude just for the heck of it,
> >>but he did suggest that Albus's close friendship with
> >>Elphias Doge had to do with "his every orifice".
> >
> > My e-books aren't perfect, but my nifty little search program
> > can't find anything resembling that quote in any of the books.
> > Could you pin it down?
>
> I can't, but I remember it too, it's there somewhere. I think
> when the trio arrive at the pub first time during curfew.
"That old berk," muttered Aberforth, taking another swig of ale,
"Thought the sun shone out of my brother's every orifice, he did."
-DH, "The Missing Mirror" (Ch. 28), pg. 563, US edition.
Catherine Johnson.
Green-Eyed Chris
"\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <saman...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>Green-Eyed Chris wrote:
<snip>
LOL! Rugby vanity. ...Irish no less. I should have known better than to
ask, but I understand. I threw off 10 kilos about 20 years ago by doing
1000 calories a day. The 1st week was very rough because nothing
happened at all. Then, probably after my blood lipids were burned up, I
felt my kidneys churning and started losing about a pound a day.
The memory of how all diet food tasted like rubber stuck with me and I
have managed to keep my weight down just thinking about it. My system
currently thrives on one banana, two toast sandwiches of choice and 8
bottles of beer a day.
BTW, not that I know anything about them, but your reports on military
aircraft interested me because I remember the days when the skies over
Germany were raining Starfighters (Lockheed F-104). I went to Wiki and
found that there was a "commonplace grim joke in Germany that the
cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of land
and simply wait". "German Starfighters proved to have an alarming
accident rate. In German service, 292 of 916 Starfighters crashed,
claiming the lives of 115 pilots." "The German public called it
Witwenmacher ("Widowmaker"), fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin") or
Erdnagel ("ground nail," the official military term for a tent peg." I
don't think the RAF had them, but have you heard anything as to what
might have been behind that?
--
Chris
Green-Eyed Chris
Fish Eye no Miko <fe...@cox.net> wrote:
Thanks! As I suspected, my source says "office".
Come to think of it, that _is_ quite a hint for people writing and
reading on two levels.
The way JKR casts her pearls of wisdom to the sows, we don't need adult
editions. We need the annotated editions.
--
Chris
(not quite so) Fat Sam
LOL, and from our performance in the world cup, I wonder why I bothered.
> I should have known better than
> to ask, but I understand. I threw off 10 kilos about 20 years ago by
> doing 1000 calories a day. The 1st week was very rough because nothing
> happened at all. Then, probably after my blood lipids were burned up,
> I felt my kidneys churning and started losing about a pound a day.
Funny, that was the first thing I noticed.
As soon as all the antioxidants started purging my system of toxins, I was
peeing like a horse for a few weeks.
Now I have a pretty constant abdominal rumble, which I've learned to embrace
as a friend. Every time I hear it, I visualise a big JCB taking a scoop of
fat out of my belly.
I've always been a person who struggles to maintain a healthy weight.
Before I joined the air force in 1994, I had been quite seriously
overweight, and in order to get accepted, I had to lose 6 stone. I managed
to shift it in 6 months through sheer hard work and willpower, but when I
left the RAF again in 2003, I piled all the weight back on again.
> The memory of how all diet food tasted like rubber stuck with me and I
> have managed to keep my weight down just thinking about it. My system
> currently thrives on one banana, two toast sandwiches of choice and 8
> bottles of beer a day.
Aaaah, Beer.
Now there's a solution I can relate to as an Irishman.
> BTW, not that I know anything about them, but your reports on military
> aircraft interested me because I remember the days when the skies over
> Germany were raining Starfighters (Lockheed F-104). I went to Wiki and
> found that there was a "commonplace grim joke in Germany that the
> cheapest way of obtaining a Starfighter was to buy a small patch of
> land and simply wait". "German Starfighters proved to have an alarming
> accident rate. In German service, 292 of 916 Starfighters crashed,
> claiming the lives of 115 pilots." "The German public called it
> Witwenmacher ("Widowmaker"), fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin") or
> Erdnagel ("ground nail," the official military term for a tent peg." I
> don't think the RAF had them, but have you heard anything as to what
> might have been behind that?
I'd heard about their excessively high crash rate too.
I always assumed it was because their wings are too small. LOL. Have you
ever noticed how short and stumpy the wings are on them?
DaveD
"Fish Eye no Miko" <fe...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1192987213.8...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
I think in that context it's more likely to have been used as a polite
euphemism for saying he thought the sun shone out of Dd's arse, which isn't
really a gay thing at all, just that someone has a ridiculously good opinion
of someone else and thinks they can do no wrong.
DaveD
DaveD
"santosh" <santo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ffds9g$n5d$2...@aioe.org...>> news:1192900786.6...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Oct 20, 9:07 am, "Kenny" <omgtheykilledke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I am really pissed that
>>>> she did this -- NOT making DD gay, that's not what I mean.
>>>> JKR could have lots of gay characters in her story and it
>>>> wouldn't bother me a bit. In fact, actually having a few openly
>>>> gay characters would add depth to stories.
>>>
>>> Yeah... Remus and Sirius, for example. Hell, she would't've even
>>> had to outright say they were gay, she could have left it open
>>> ended... They were "friends" at school <wink, wink> and have never
>>> had any other relationships <wink, wink>
>>> Hell, a lot of people were speculating they were gay until the thing
>>> with Tonks at the end of HBP...
>>
>> LOL! I suppose the argument could still be made that Lupin was gay
>> because he didn't want to be with Tonks.
>
> No. Someone cant be both gay and het.
Erm, how about being bi??? Kinda both gay and het (or, as I mistyped it the
first time, hay and get... Guess it's been a long day lol)
DaveD
santosh
Hmm, I learn something new everyday. Are there trisexuals and
quadsexuals, pentasexuals and above? ;-)
Fish Eye no Miko
> DaveD wrote:
> > "santosh" <santosh....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> No. Someone cant be both gay and het.
>
> > Erm, how about being bi??? Kinda both gay and het (or,
> > as I mistyped it the first time, hay and get... Guess it's
> > been a long day lol)
>
> Hmm, I learn something new everyday.
You've never heard of bisexuals before? Wow.
Catherine Johnson.
SPT
But Citizen Kane is all about Charles Foster Kane. He is the central
character in the movie.
This is not true of Deathly Hallows. The central character is Harry
Potter. Dumbledore only appears briefly as some sort of vision.
SPT
> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>
> > Wow. Just... wow.
>
> > Catherine Johnson.
>
> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
> politically correct.
I think the word "precious" is just about right. I thought about
calling it "precious bourgeois posturing". But I thought that might be
a bit elitist.
> I think she has committed a fatal blunder with this move. But I could
> be wrong as I have so often proved to be. Still will not change my
> opinion, though.
Ron Hunter
>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>>>
>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>>>
>>> Catherine Johnson.
>> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the following
>> statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's decision to make
>> Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is just too preciously
>> politically correct.
>>
>> be wrong as I have so often proved to be. Still will not change my
>> opinion, though.
>
> Does his sexuality change the way the stories unfolded?
> Does knowing he's gay now affect how much you enjoyed the books when you
> read them?
>
> Whether he's straight, gay, bisexual, or necrophiliac. It simply doesn't
> matter.
> The subject was never raised in the books, so it has absolutely zero impact
> on the story.
> It was announced in an interview, and wasn't in the books, so you could
> almost argue that it's not canon anyway.
>
> Besides, why all this hoo-ha over Dumbledores sexuality?
> Has everyone forgotten that his brother is into beastiality, with a
> particular penchant for goats?
>
>
His brother runs a BAR. He ran a SCHOOL. Most people would say that
made a great deal of difference.
Ron Hunter
> Steve Morrison wrote:
>> (not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Besides, why all this hoo-ha over Dumbledores sexuality?
>>> Has everyone forgotten that his brother is into beastiality, with a
>>> particular penchant for goats?
>>>
>> charm on goats was intended to make a goat that was easy to keep clean
>> with curly horns. Check the front page of http://www.accio-quote.org/
>
> Hm, maybe I spoke too soon! This is from a more detailed account of the
> question and answer session:
>
> Question: This was easily the funniest question of the evening.
> A little girl asked what improper charms Aberforth Dumbledore
> had used on goats.
> Answer: Rowling looked stunned, and then asked, "How old are
> you?" (I believe she was eight.) Then Rowling blushed slightly
> and said that there might have been any number of charms one
> might use on a goat, such as a charm to keep the goat clean,
> or to keep its curly horns - "and that is my answer /to you/."
> The older audience members got the joke and had quite a laugh,
> but the little questioner seemed quite satisfied, too.
>
> Source: http://eldritchhobbit.livejournal.com/175955.html
Hummm. At 8, perhaps her mother needs to have a 'talk' with her....
Ron Hunter
>>>> Deevo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "LocoOwl" <lewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1192861956.3...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Oct 19, 11:37 pm, Fish Eye no Miko <f...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-...
>>>>>>> Wow. Just... wow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Catherine Johnson.
>>>>>> I will, no doubt, get beat up badly on this board for the
>>>>>> following statement: I am very disappointed in J. K. Rowling's
>>>>>> decision to make Albus Dumberdore gay. It was unnecessary and is
>>>>>> just too preciously politically correct.
>>>>> character or his role in the books?
>>>> Not to his character no, but to the perception of his character by
>>>> readers, and their opinion on him, yes, a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Only to those readers who let their true bigotry and insecurity
>>> filter into their interpretation of it.
>>>
>>> I have to ask : "Why does it even matter?"
>>> In 2007, why is this such a bombshell??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia, ANYONE
>> associated with the educational system that isn't totally straight,
>> and moral, is considered a threat.
>
> We're getting into dangerous territory now.
> The implication above is that gays are more likely to be pedophiles. That
> simply isn't true.
>
>
Didn't say it was, now did I?
Ron Hunter
> On Oct 20, 7:49 am, Ron Hunter <rphun...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, in these days of homophobia, and pedophobia,
>
>
>> Once again, a single teenaged homosexual relationship
>> doesn't make a person a homosexual.
>
> Except, Jo didn't say, "he had a thing for Grindelwald as a teen" She
> said "He is gay, AND had a thing for Grindelwald when he was a teen"..
> See the difference?
>
>
The definitions of 'gay' are very muddy in the thinking of most people,
and quite different from the 'official' definitions. To many people,
anyone who has had a singly homosexual relationship is labeled 'gay'.
There is no indication he ever had such a relationship with anyone else.
Unless she can come up with a pattern of such behavior, then I would
conclude that her usage is the common, rather than the technical, use of
the term.
I am old enough to recall when the word 'gay' referred to a happy,
carefree person. Strange it became associated with a group which is
often anything BUT happy.
Ron Hunter
Because most people misunderstand the definition of 'gay', and misuse
the word 'homosexual'. Unless she can point to a pattern of Albus
engaging in such relationships exclusively over his lifetime, then 'gay'
is probably not the right word. A single such relationship is
inadequate for applying the term, but MOST people do not understand this
fact.
Ron Hunter
I agree 100%. My wife has a phobia of snakes. Not a bad thing since we
live in an area of the US where all 4 varieties are found. What is
irrational without valid cause is that in my area, a middle age man
can't go to a public park and sit and watch the children play without
attracting the attention of people so irrationally afraid that everyone
is a pedophile that the police would be called. If you think this is
untrue, just try it some day....
BTW, finding 13 year olds attractive isn't an indication of intent to
have sex with them, either. Sometimes 'pretty' is just an aesthetic
judgement.