(Untitled)

[thistlerose]

1. Soooo, Gay!Dumbledore has made fandom_wank.

2. And some amusing icons over at userpicks3. I'm seeing a lot of complaints that "OMG, it's not explicitly stated in the book! Damn that Rowling bitch!" This from some of the same people who complain that when it comes to romance, Rowling tends to tell instead of show. (An assertion with which I tend

Comments

[beckaandzac]

Re #3: Word.

I'll need to check out those icons when I get back from work.

[thistlerose]

Yeah, some of them are not quite work-safe. *g*

Thanks!

[lady_sarai]

I completely, totally, 100% agree with you. Absolutely. In fact, the fact that it isn't important to the plot--it just is--possibly makes me even happier. ::shrug:: Either way, I think it was gutsy of her to say so at all, in any forum.

But really, it's totally all her Masterplan--everytime fandom calms down and the wank begins to calm, she will drop a fandom!grenade. Just to keep things interesting.

I want to be just like her.

;)

[mincot]

ROFL!!! I was VERY amused by that. Check out Cheezburger, too; there's a good lolcat on the topic.

And I was extremely happy to see her assertion that his sexual orientation just didn't matter! YES!!!

As for why not in the text--1) stories written from Harry's viewpoint. The kid is not the most emotionally savvy guy in the world; just ask ... Hermione. Ron. Ginny. Sirius. Remus (if even REMUS notices ... )...ANYONE.

2) DD's age. At his age one MIGHT have come out if one was a certain social class, but DD never struck me as having that background.

[thistlerose]

Do we know Dumbledore was in the closet? I mean, he never seemed to be pretending to be straight. For all we know, those closest to him - McGonagall, Snape, possibly Aberforth - were aware.

[thistlerose]

Seriously! I wonder what diamond she'll hand us next. *rubs hands together*

[madeline871]

I'm impressed that JKR would reveal that kind of information about a major character given the backlash that was sure to come. Some people seem to be taking this personally - WTF? Like you said, it not at all important to the story anyway.

[thistlerose]

Oh, some people in fandom like to take everything personally. *g*

[goddessofwords]

It's more important to the story itself than most of the het relationships she mentions -- and some of the ones she spends considerable text on. She imagined one of her characters queer and chose not to include it in the books, for whatever reason. I don't think she owes the world uncloseted queerness and we should rage at her for not doing it, but for her to claim she's made an argument for tolerance is absurd, in my opinion.

[thistlerose]

I don't see how.

And really, which relationships did she spend significant time on? Harry's, and the that affect Harry, which include Ron/Hermione, Bill/Fleur, and Remus/Tonks. Harry learned that Dumbledore was pretty well infatuated with Grindelwald. I really don't see how learning that the infatuation was sexual as well as intellectual would have advanced the plot in any way. I mean, Harry knew everything he needed to know. The rest was outside his sphere.

[goddessofwords]

I was thinking primarily of Remus/Tonks. That has nothing to do with anything, but she goes out of her way to bring it to Harry's/the reader's attention a lot anyway. Sometimes in highly contrived ways (hospital scene, for instance). We don't need nearly so much detail about Snape's history with Lily in order to understand his motives, either, but we still get it. Merope and Riddle's relationship is even further outside Harry's sphere, but gets decently fleshed out. It would have been much easier than any of that to slip in a remark somewhere in all the gossip about Dumbledore's past. It would add depth to Dumbledore's history, which was so much the focus of the 7th book that it's hardly beside the point.

If the Wizarding world is as conservative as it seems, mentioning it could turn into a can of worms that would take over the story too much. It wouldn't have to be, but it could. There's also stylistic consistency -- she's generally focussed on magical metaphors for various prejudices, and avoided real ones. There are plenty of

[thistlerose]

I figured you were thinking about Remus/Tonks. I don't know. Tonks is near enough to Harry in age and likes him enough to be all, "Hey, look at my ring!" If Remus had hooked up with someone else - someone not close to Harry, I mean - I don't think we'd ever have heard about it. Not that I don't wish Remus/Tonks had been excluded from the books. Meh.

I don't think that stating explicitly that Dumbledore is gay would have added more depth to his character. Like I said, the infatuation was there in the story.

Anyway, it's not really that important. Have you seen this post? It made me giggle hard. :)

[hildigunnur]

I think I agree with you completely.

[thistlerose]

Yay! :)