Now that youv'e found out that dumbledore is gay has your veiw of harry potter changed?
2007-10-25 00:08:19 · 29 answers · asked by crazyspringerpup 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Maybe if he had tried to snog Harry!!!!!!!!
Don't be silly, in this day and age (the age of political correctness) a gay character makes the magical world a bit more realistic.
I'm just disappointed that JK didn't announce it till after the book had been released. Dumbledore was the obvious choice as her gay character. We never heard that he had ever married or had a relationship at all, except friendships.
2007-10-25 02:58:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No totally not.
Just because dumbledore is gay, that just cant ruin the whole point on harry potter.
If harry potter went gay then it may change abit.
There are many gay people in the world and who really cares if dumbledore is gay really?
2007-10-25 07:12:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
More to the point, has dumbledores view of harry potter changed?
2007-10-25 07:12:46 · answer #3 · answered by Proper Gander 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. The books have a certain tolerant and progressive tone. Dumbledore's outing is only in keeping with that.
2007-10-26 00:13:37 · answer #4 · answered by web_researcher 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way has it changed..... its still the same story with the same brilliant storylines!!!! Anyone whos view has changed should be ashamed of themselves.
Does it really matter if Dumbledore is gay????? He's still a great character and HP is still a classic!
2007-10-25 09:50:00 · answer #5 · answered by Kymikat 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all. remember folks that this is backstory.
Also, I don't think that JKR has an agenda, or is seeking more publicity.
According to the story I read, she had told the writer of the screenplay for HBP that Dumbledore was gay because there was mention of a female love interest in the screenplay and she had to set them right. Having done that, she might as well have made it public, since it would have eventually come out anyway--she could control when and how it was done. and in any case, this story came out because she was directly asked if Dumbledore loved anyone.
Throughout the series, we know Dumbledore as a tireless and seemingly single-minded fighter against Dark Wizards (at least from Harry's perspective; we do have to remember that Albus is also a great teacher, an alchemist, and important theoretical Wizard--remember the tools and instruments he made himself). But how did Albus become that way?
We learn much about this in DH, with Arianna's story, Aberforth's story and the story of the friendship between Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald. In reading DH, it was clear that Grindelwald seduced Dumbledore on a number of levels; intellectually, ideologically, and, by JKR's new revelation, emotionally. We don't know if that seduction was sexual as well, and I'm not sure it is important for us to know.
The revelation completes the picture for us of a man who felt betrayed, injured by one he loved, ashamed at how far he went from rational thought and behavior, how far he really was from what he thought he was.
The up shot is that we now know more completely Dumbledore's motivations for fighting Dark Wizards--his shame at his own tangential contribution to Grindelwald's career, his reluctance to fight him, and, when Voldemort rose, his determination to not to repeat his prior mistake of inaction and to fight Voldemort from the start.
So in summery, It was part of the way JKR viewed Dumbledore and understood him. I don't think it was something that would have come out voluntarily--more likely something that would have made a scholarly article 50 or 60 years from now after she was gone and literary scholars had access to her full notes (assuming she left them to be investigated).
BTW, there is some inkling of this in DH, where Rita Skeeter talks about devoting a chapter in her book about Dumbledore to the Dumbledore/Harry relationship. This is not to say that there was anything improper--but that JKR did put out a hint.
wl
2007-10-25 07:58:16 · answer #6 · answered by WolverLini 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Not one bit but it does show how homophobia is still prevalent especially in the states . Shock horror my little kid is going to turn queer because a fictional wizard bats for the other side oh come on its the 21st century there is Paul O'Grady on at teatime here in Britain and the pop industry is run by nice boys. Get a life you bigots!.
2007-10-25 08:23:14 · answer #7 · answered by jack lewis 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, It really doesn't matter what sexuality a character has. It's not like it mattered when we all thought he was straight.
I question why this information wasn't made clear in the books earlier though, instead of bringing it out after the final book was released?
I wonder how this will affect narrow minded peoples opinions of the author and the books now. I don't think it was a wise decision.
2007-10-25 07:13:11 · answer #8 · answered by Aquarius0276 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Why should it? The books have not changed. They are still great works of fiction. If someone chooses to focus on a single thing about one character, then you can pick apart most books. I think that the majority of people who liked HP will still like it, and the people who didn't like it (who focused on the witchcraft etc...) will just have another reason not to like it. They are great books, and have opened up a generation of children to reading novels (I think of it as gateway literature).
2007-10-25 09:26:16 · answer #9 · answered by Brian D 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My view of the books themselves haven't changed, because they were all wonderful to read, and Dumbledore's sexuality really doesn't change the storyline one bit. However, I do feel like I've lost a lot of respect for JK Rowling since her announcement, because I feel like it is nothing more than a publicity stunt to cause controversy, which will then boost sales of the books, as controversy usually does. She is the richest woman in Britain, richer than the Queen. Why would she need to boost sales?
2007-10-25 07:32:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋