The Latest--and Last --Harry Potter...

Remove all ads!

Barmy, if you think I'm a homophobe, then you really don't have a clue about what I stand for, despite my numerous comments on the Boards.

This come across as just a cheap publicity stunt by Rowling. What irks me as much as anything is that she chooses to come out with this now, when the series is finished. I can only attribute this to her not wanting to jeopardize sales of the books before she's milked the series as much as she can while still making this revelation "relevant".

 

I'm glad you said 'if'. As 'coming across' as, and 'you are a..' are obviously different things. You did come across as such though, and probably still are a little bit.

One question, is this a big story over around your bit? If it is, then I'm disappointed in your people and media.

If it is a publicity stunt, it's pretty rubbish one as it went largely unnoticed here as being gay means nothing. Rowling needs to get herself a new PR team....

 

Wells, as to the first part, that wasn't my intent, and as to the second part, I certainly hope I'm not, but quite often, one is the worst judge of one's own character. However, for more insight into my beliefs, I would like to draw your attention to this thread that I started early in my SP life.

I wouldn't call it a "big" story, but it's getting some notice. Again, I don't think people really care about the gay aspect; to me, it's more a question about Rowling's motives.

 

If she said that Dumbledore was into bestiality and frequently had long nights of passion with his phoenix, then maybe we'd have sat up over here and gone 'hang on a minute...'. But if she was going for publicity, the 'gay route' was a bad choice.

As I say, I'm fairly certain it was a random comment during an interview, and should be taken as such. She may as well have said 'Dumbledore very much likes to have Wheatabix for breakfast' for all I care.

 

Splunge, I have to disagree with you. I've read the article above, plus another from CNN, and the quote really did seem to me to be revealed by her as an off-the-cuff, inconsequential detail. I don't think she deliberately hid Dumbledore's gayness to protect sales, I think she just saw no reason to address it because she didn't want a detail so inconsequential to the story to be made into a big thing, and we all know that a very large chunk of North America would have demonstrated in force against the books if she'd mentioned this before now. So I think the timing is much better than it could have been.

And I think Barmy's absolutely right in that if this were a publicity stunt, don't think for a minute that the British Press, famous the world over for it's sensationalism, wouldn't have jumped all over this if it'd been the least bit controversial. Given how casually she mentioned it, I highly doubt it was such.

 

But DR, isn't the second part of your statement ("we all know that a very large chunk of North America would have demonstrated in force against the books") validating exactly what I said? If we knew it, then she did as well; she's not naive. She felt it would hurt sales, so she held off.

 

.. Or she didn't deliberately come to the decision to wait until now, she just never felt the need to mention it. Just like she never felt the need to mention the sexual orientation of other characters.

 

Please. Are you really that out of touch? Surely you are aware that homosexuality is, shall we say, controversial, unlike heterosexuality. Rowling is aware of this as well. Yes, it shouldn't matter, but the reality is that it does.

She knew exactly what she was doing, and I think her timing is suspect, to say the least.

 

Not really. It was controversial here 10+ years ago, but we've evolved as a society, and are a pretty tolerant nation.

And Tal, I'm fairly sure that Rowling wouldn't have deliberately send a comment out just to shake up the 'slash fiction' group that you Wiki linked to for me. It can't be THAT big a section as I've never come across it before.

Another thing, why would she need publicity now? Is there a new film coming out or something? I thought that was a long way off. If she wanted publicity there are much more effective ways of getting it, I'm sure.

The only reason this is a big story in some circles is because the word 'gay' is in it. Admit it. Then consider why that is.

 

But that's just it Splunge, I don't think she "held off," which suggests she was planning on revealing it at the most opportune time PR wise. She just didn't think it relevant to the story. I don't like licorice, for example. In fact, I hate it. I haven't mentioned it up to now because it never occurred to me to mention it, as it's inconsequential to anything I've discussed thus far. Thus, I wasn't holding off. See what I'm saying? I'm not trying to be controversial to licorice lovers by saying it or not saying it - it's simply irrelevant.

Dumbledore's being gay has no impact on the story, so there was no point in mentioning it or referencing it in the books. The stories were about Harry Potter and his friends vs. Voldemort, period. Delving into Dumbledore's personal life more than necessary would have been a distraction. part of Dumbledore's coolness as a character is that he's a mystery. Besides, Rowling obviously (at least to me) wanted to keep the focus on the story and the canon. If this had come out sooner, people would be scanning through every page looking for little hints of what MIGHT be construed as gay behavior, rather than focusing on - and enjoying - the story.

Actually, I can. She'd have put it in the books if Dumbledore's love life was ever a part of the story. As it wasn't, there's no point in mentioning it at all. In this instance, she was asked point blank about Dumbledore's lovelife and she answered honestly. Because to her, it's neither good or bad, it's just a part of his backstory.

I honestly can't see how anyone sees this as a publicity stunt on Rowling's part. You keep saying she's not naive - which is true. But she's very media savvy. She gets far more publicity than she wants as it is (which isn't to say she doesn't want publicity in general, just not controversy). I suppose some of you are determined to believe this was a publicity stunt, and if it is it's got to be the lamest, laziest, and worst timed (in terms of maximum media impact) publicity stunt in the history of the world. But whatever - think what you want. I happen think you're being silly and over-reacting by about a mile.

[ October 21, 2007, 21:50: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Exactly right. Especially this bit..

Basically what I was trying to say, but more better put. Good lad.

 

Barmy, in your British cocoon, maybe it doesn't matter, but Harry Potter is an international phenomenon, and on the world stage, on the whole, it is significant. So you can be proud about British moral superiority if you want (and you have every right to be so in this regard), but to not recognize the attitudes of a large segment of western society is pretty self-centred.

Edit: @ DR

Yes, I get exactly what you're saying. But again, not liking licorice is hardly controversial, except maybe to licorice manufactures. Homosexuality is controversial, and Rowlings knows it. IMO, she is well aware of what she's doing, and when she's doing it.

[ October 21, 2007, 22:00: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

I often choose not to recognise discrimination and ignorant dislike. Is that so bad? Sorry if it is. Apologies all around. I guess it's one of my many weaknesses.

 

Bah. Posts are coming far too fast for my pathetic typing "skills". I'm editing while others are posting.

Yes it is, when "not recognising" equates to "buring your head in the sand".

 

Ah, but maybe if we did more of that with these idiots they'd eventually realize nobody is listening and find something else to point at angrily. Maybe next week it will be those 'damn immigrants', the 'damn Asians', or the ever-popular-these-days, 'the Muslims'. Whatever the ignorance is directed at, it doesn't deserve notice.

 

I would think that if you honestly believed that, you'd be commending her for leaving it out of the books all this time so as not to take the focus off the story. Up to this point, the Harry Potter saga has been about good vs. evil and friendship, all in a magical and fantastical setting. Thank God. If this had come out earlier, or if she'd even casually mentioned something about Dumbledore's "boyhood crush" or whatever in one of the books, the focus in the general public would be taken OFF the drama of secret revelations and the anticipation of who's going to die next, and instead would have been a political football for the world's self-appointed morality police. Everyone would be calling Rowling a gay rights propagandist, trying to brainwash throngs of little kids into thinking gay people are cool (or wizards). If Valdemort had been gay, it'd be the opposite - she'd be branded a homophobe.

So of course it's controversial, I agree. But it's also IRRELEVANT to the Harry Potter storyline. If she just wanted to cause controversy, she would have given Dumbledore a pink robe and a lisp from day one. Or short of that, held a press conference, like most celebrities do when they want to make headlines. Again - she did NOT bring his love life up, the interviewer did. I refuse to fault her for answering honestly. The term "publicity stunt" suggests deliberate intent to catch headlines on the part of J.K. Rowling. I see absolutely no indication whatsoever that this is the case. None. She's been interviewed on television a few thousand times. She's never mentioned Dumbledore's (or anyone else's) sexual preference once, ever. That doesn't strike me as someone looking for publicity of this kind, especially from a friggin' childrens author.

Methinks thou dost sensationalize too much.

 

Barmy, that might work when you're dealing with fringe elements like, say, "Canadians against African swallows carrying pineapples". But with something like this, ignoring it isn't going to make it go away. It needs to be addressed head on. And while I appreciate Rowling's attitude, I think her attempt was poorly considered.

Edit: Bah! Again!

@DR - I agree it's irrelevant to the storyline. But then why bring it up now? She could have just as easily said that Dumbledore's sexuality was something she never gave any thought to (which, if it really didn't matter, would be true, so why choose gay now?).

Again, she knew exactly what she was doing by bringing this out now, and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

 

From what I know about Rowling, she doesn't see much point in lying to her fans about her work, except for protecting key plot points from spoilers of course. Like all good authors she developed a rich and complicated backstory for Dumbledore on her own, which included his being gay for whatever reason. Obviously it was a detail that meant something about Dumbledore as a character, but had no impact on the Harry Potter story. Hence, it was ommitted. I'm sure Dumbledore ate his boogers as a child too, but again - Rowling saw no reason to bring it up since it was irrelevant. If she were asked in this Q&A about Dumbledore's hygiene and Rowling mentioned "well as a child, he ate his boogers and pooped his pants" it would have been the same as if someone asked if he ever finds "true love," and she said:

I honestly don't see this as anything other than what it is - an honest answer to an impromptu question from a young fan. Any other answer would have been dishonest on her part. I agree that "she knew what she was doing." Politely answering a question.

"Publicity stunts," by definition, are planned and calculated ahead of time. I really can't imagine Rowling thinking to herself "Finally! Thanks to this little kid, my chance to be controversial has arrived! Now I can finally take the focus away from the story, like I always wanted!!" when fielding that question. Seriously. But by all means, feel free to believe otherwise even though no evidence whatsoever bears that out.