Everyone probably heard already about Dumbledore being gay. My question is why are people so engaged with his sexuality. It's on the news and the internet. Every where I turn, there are writers who find this discovery to be shocking. This just proves how ridiculous people become when the subject of homosexuality is involved.
Dumbledore is a fictional character. He is like the powerful wizard and blah blah blah. To be honest with you, Dumbledore being gay has nothing to do with the plot of the Harry Potter series. However, his love life did end up tragically. This makes me wonder what J.K. Rowling really feel about gay love. Does she view it as a destructive force? If not, then why can't Dumbledore be happy with his love interest? Also, why didn't J.K. Rowling come out with Dumbledore being gay since the very beginning instead of waiting after the books are finished?
The answer is because people would probably not buy her story. Harry Potter as we know it would not be as popular. This is my guess because when the first book came out, it was like a decade ago. At that time, most people are still very much against homosexuality. Although I do not agree with her method of coming out with Dumbledore's gayness, I appreciate her for portraying a gay character to be a kind, gentle, talented, skillful, powerful wizard of all time. At least, this helps put some positive light on homosexuality...even though she did state that Dumbledore's love was a tragic.
Which brings me to my next point...why is it that most gay characters or movies end catastrophically? I hardly see any true homosexual love being illustrated positively on the television or the media. Will the citizens only accept homosexual movies if the main characters do not find happiness? The only two happy ending lesbian movies I've seen are Saving Face and Imagine Me and You. I'm just starting to think that people do not want to see homosexuals end up happily together.
Anyway, I hope Harry Potter will still be popular for its own amazing plot and NOT because one of the main characters in gay. Why is homosexuality so important to the public?
Here is an article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
not at all, who cares if the wizard was gay, he was a great man who deserve our respect and honor.
My point exactly. Now, it seems like people are beginning to interpret Harry Potter in a different because Dumbledore is gay. I admit that J.K. Rowling is brilliant because I see that Harry Potter has a lot to say about government in the real world. It's not merely an adventure book for kids, but it carries political messages to adults as well. But most of the media is like "Oh My God, the he is gayyy! This is the end of the heterosexual wizard world!"
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Rowling came out about Dumbledore b/c the movie producers were planning on dropping hints about how much of a player Dumbledore was in the movies. So Rowling had to set them straight...one thing leads to another and its everywhere.
Silent enim leges inter arma
Dumbledore...a player? lol That is very out of his character. Rowling only came out with Dumbledore being gay because one of the fans asked her during their conference, no? If no one asked, she probably wouldn't tell. Or perhaps she has been waiting for someone to ask her such question. Maybe she even planned to come out with Dumbledore being gay in the first place but didn't quite know when and where...
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
I think that the media just likes distributing such useless information for the sake of big bucks. The reporters covering this story know that homosexuality - in any context, it seems - is a controversial topic. At any rate, whatever the media corporations deem news IS news - a huge contradiction in itself, huh?! The topic of a fictional character being controversial simply because he is gay is and sounds stupid. Who would care if the character is gay or not, it has nothing to do with the significance of Dumbledore being the Headmaster/Wizard and the protector/mentor of Harry Potter.
However, if the reporters are initiating that J.K. Rowling's portrayal of a gay wizard simply reinforces a stereotype about perverted old gay men, then that is of concern and a topic of debate and controversy. There is no denying that such a plot/perspective is meant to further brew discrimination against homosexuals, which also leaves the news/tabloids at fault for not accomplishing any "social responsibility" to stop this "indirect" harassment of gays. Such an article/story is usually ambiguous as to why it is so controversial, or is otherwise devoid of its importance to society as a whole. If anything, the article only contributes to the propaganda to sell more Harry Potter books, tickets to the movies, and other related products, again, the aim of corporate business. Money, Money, Money............Ugh! I am so sick and tired of hearing about people's money scams pursued at the expense of everyone else. The least these media corporations could do is provide adequate quality entertainment, but that's another story all together...............
A.C.S.
Yes, everything is done for the sake of money. I can't really tell if Rowling purposely made Dumbledore gay to challenge the readers and the "authority". Money is definitely one of the many motives behind her and her publishing company's actions. They even sued a religious group in India for copying the Hogwarts Castle for their religious festival...which I thought that was outrageous.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
Every good actor and writer has subtexts that are never spoken. They envision everything that has led to the moment that the character says or does something and what is going on in the back of his mind when he speaks. This gives insight into Dumbledore`s subtext.
I wonder whether Rowling had anything to do with the choice of Sir Ian McKellan (who is gay} to play Dumbledore. She might have explained everything to him and known he would play the character around the ``unrequited love`` subtext perfectly.
Like you, I`ve definitely noticed that gay characters` love lives on TV and movies in America get either stereotyped into tragedies or downplayed and neutered. There are movies I didn`t bother to go to after reading that, rather than being historically accurate,. the producers have chosen to de~gay scenes and characters.
On the show Friends, the gang lived in a neighborhood where, in real life, for every three guys you meet who are married to women, you`d meet one with a male partner. But in ten years on the air, they must have met hundreds of men married to women, and not one single male couple.
In real life, I see happily married same sex couples all over the place, and on TV and movies, nearly every gay character has his or her life comically neutered or made tragic. We`re the silly sidekicks or the tragic characters who don`t have real and varied lives.
It`s like blacks on 196O`s TV. They were maids or butlers, but didn`t have real lives with someone they loved. Gay depictions will get there eventually.
I didn't know Sir Ian McKellan is gay. No wonder. I agree that great writers often put in subtexts that are never spoken. I admire Rowling very much for her creativity and what she has to say about "authority".
Yes, tv shows always portray homosexuals in a tragic or a comedic way. I guess that's where all the stereotypes of gay people came from. I'm not sure if they are trying to help homosexuals or look down on them even more. Are they trying to get sympathy from the viewers by having their love lives end tragically or are they trying to say that homosexual love can never end up happily? Are they trying to point out to people how funny gay people are or are they trying to get more people to laugh AT gay people?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife