Here's the one that I read and they're pretty much the same thing...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071020/en_
----------------------------------
I read this on Yahoo! News... I just think it's kind of odd that she would just randomly say something like that when the article didn't say anything about a person in the audience asking and I fail to see the relevancy to it all and how it adds to the series as a whole. The only reference I see to it is that a director in the 6th movie almost put something in about Dumbledore's lost love and was going to say it was a woman, and that's when she corrected him about Dumbledore's sexual orientation. What's the big deal about being gay? You either are or you aren't. It's ridiculous that the way someone is born made "headline news"-- especially since the person is question is a FICTIONAL character [insert hand gestures]. I think it's sad to see that this made news on CNN when we have more pressing matters in the world. If I wanted some gossip fodder I would watch E! not CNN. I watch that show to know what's going on in the world.
Edit: Okay this is just getting fucking ridiculous.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_
I for one, fail to see how Dumbledore being gay will help tolerance. The books are catered to children. Children learn to hate differences as they get older and from their environment. And yes, adults read the books too. I love the series as I like reading most things fantasy/magical. A book is not going to make someone go-- "Oh that character is so awesome, I refuse to hate gay people because of it." That's idiotic to think that.
I think it is disrespectful to the GLBT community for people to think that a FICTIONAL character will help make strides in making people become more socially tolerant, especially a fictional character that is in a fantasy/magical story about a kid with a scar on his freakin' forehead trying to avenge his parents and save the day. If you're going to think that a fictional character will help social tolerance then why a Harry Potter character? Why not become more socially tolerant because of movies like "Boys Don't Cry", "A Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story", or I don't know... "The Matthew Sheppard Story"? Those stories that have been depicted in film are based on ACTUAL stories and teach a lesson that hating someone for something they can't help is just plain ol' stupid and causes irrevocable damage. In my opinion, this just cheapens the Gay Civil Rights Movement by saying that a fictional character has more impact in the world than the people who were apart of the Stonewall Rebellion.
2 comments:
Damnit, you beat me to ranting on this myself. Now I gotta be a followup rant.
Here's the article that set me off:
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674550,00.html
This author brings up a point that he was one of the most sage, revered characters in the books, yet he apparently kept his sexuality in the closet. He whines that since he stayed mute about his preferences, suddenly he's an insecure, lying homophobe that couldn't be open about his sexuality.
...wait, what? "FIC-TIO-NAL CHAR-ACT-ERS" And how does keeping quiet about your sexuality show "a lack of personal integrity" ? I never recall anyone going to Dumbledore and asking "So, are you straight or gay?" To my knowledge, his orientation, nay even his relationship status, was never called in to question. So WHY would he need to go "Welcome to another exciting year at Hogwarts, by the way, I'm gay. Lets welcome our new Professor of Defence Against the Dark Arts..."
I totally agree, there was NO reason to say he's gay. Not that I'm against him for being so (listen, we're talking like this is reality? JK Rowling, I tip my hat to you) but I'm more against the fact that it had very little, if any, reasoning or proof. Dumbledore being gay does not change anything. Nothing more was really revealed about his past that would change the outcome of the story: he's still dead, Harry still married Ginny, Snape still had an unrequited love for Lilly Potter, Ron's still Ron.
If this really was an attempt to raise GLBT awareness and tolerance, there's a plethora of better ways she could have done so. Donate to the causes, make appearances speaking on behalf of the organizations, so on and so forth. Don't just offhandedly come up with a random "Hey, well this character everyone loved was gay, so you should love gay people too" statement.
The only way she's going to redeem herself on this one is by writing a prologue to justify his homosexuality. Hell, I know it'd sell, and she's totally not against cashing in MORE on this (2 more movies, a theme park...$$$)
Hey, just letting you know I stopped by.
As for the article...was it CNN worthy? ...meh
Was I surprised? yes. Had no clue.
Does it matter? NO. I love the books, and I still love Dumbledore.
Hell...I still cry when I reread that pitch over the tower. bah!!!
Post a Comment