Dumbledore is gay

[Mr. Kinsley]

Maybe or maybe not on Flash, but, Uum, hello? Batman and Robin. Duh.

And Aquaman. Definitely Aquaman.

 

EDIT: Looking a little farther into Wikipedia (yeah, I know. Not that reliable.) I found this juicy little tid-bit for any Justice League/Superfriends fans.

 

On February 22, 2007, Warner Bros. hired Kieran Mulroney and Michelle Mulroney to write a treatment for a potential Justice League movie. No announcement was made on the characters, actors, or crew involved.[4] They handed in their script by June that year.[5] In September, word broke that Warner Brothers, incredibly happy with the Mulroney script, is moving ahead on the project and George Miller was announced as the director.[6] The film features Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter. The story tells of how they first team up to battle Maxwell Lord and the OMACs. Filming will begin in Australia on February 2008 for a 2009 release date.[7] Jessica Biel was in talks to play Wonder Woman, but passed on the role.[8]

 

I wonder if they'll get that guy from Entourage to play Aquaman?

[Beltmann]

Dumbledore: A Lovely Outing

 

Now she tells us? When I first heard that J.K. Rowling had revealed the homosexuality of Professor Albus Dumbledore, esteemed headmaster of Hogwarts, before a packed congregation of children and adults at Carnegie Hall on Oct. 19, my reaction was half appreciation, half annoyance. Ten years, seven books, 4,000 pages, and it never occurred to her to mention this before? At least she didn't make the gay character a fairy (or a troll), so we'll be spared those jokes, I thought. Rowling's announcement felt almost too strategic, a gotcha! she conveniently withheld until the multibillion-dollar revenue stream had had years to flow. And why bother? The outing of Dumbledore doesn't seriously reshape any plotline in the Harry Potter novels, nor do the books ever drop the kind of hints that would inspire questions from readers. Also, the saga is over, and Dumbledore's, you know, dead, so, like that infamous moment on Law & Order when viewers suddenly learned that one of the show's main characters was a lesbian literally 10 seconds before she left the series, it all seemed a bit easy.

 

It's not. Rowling is shrewd, but she's not an opportunist or a coward. One simple fact overrode my skepticism: She didn't have to do this. Not now, not later, not with two movies pending, and not in a roomful of kids. And make no mistake: All of these were choices, including her unveiling of a romantic backstory for Dumbledore, lest anyone think she was either joking or throwing a gratuitous pride-parade Patronus at the tiny band of flat-earthers whose shrieks that her books promote witchcraft were long ago drowned out by the world's giggles.

 

So why now, and why Dumbledore? The answer has much to do with the universe Rowling has created, in which easy assumptions about a character's motives, past, or inner life have, in book after book, been proven wrong, and with her own progressive and humane politics. It's often said that if every gay person in the world were to turn purple overnight, homophobia would disappear: In other words, fewer people would be inclined to vilify other human beings if they woke up one day and discovered that they'd been aiming stones at their college roommate, their aunt, their grocer, or their grandson. Statistics bear this out: People who have a gay family member or friend have more enlightened attitudes about homosexuality than those who don't. What Rowling has done, brilliantly, is to turn Dumbledore purple. She didn't reveal his sexuality in order to unlock a new way of reading the books, or as a provocation. She simply told the world that a main character in the best-loved books of the last 10 years is homosexual, and asked her audience to contend with it

[gogo]

I've been meaning to ask my nieces (ages 12 and 10) and nephew (age 8) about this. It keeps slipping my mind though, I think because I'm pretty sure it really won't really be a big deal to them. They live in a world where it's not an issue if their friends have two moms or two dads, or that there's a kid in the 4th grade who is a boy but dresses like a girl. I do wonder if they've heard this though, and if their reaction is as disinterested as I'm expecting it to be.

[Gobias Industries]

Dumbledore: A Lovely Outing

 

True, true.

[tugmoose]

Gayest Shakespeare charactor: Iago.

 

 

Ever noticed how much cross-dressing went on in The Bard's plays?

[poppydawn]

I'm almost finished with the last book (yes, I'm just that slow). I'm just not seeing it. In fact, at one point during towards the end it's mentioned that Dumbledore and whats-his-name-supposed-gay-loverman were "best friends". While I do know that writers create rich backgrounds for characters with details that don't necessarily make it onto the page, I'm thinking this reeks of an unnecessary publicity stunt.

 

Then again, maybe I'll see something in the final 100 pages that convinces me otherwise.

[Good Old Neon]

Sort of related, and I

[gogo]

I've been meaning to ask my nieces (ages 12 and 10) and nephew (age 8) about this. It keeps slipping my mind though, I think because I'm pretty sure it really won't really be a big deal to them. They live in a world where it's not an issue if their friends have two moms or two dads, or that there's a kid in the 4th grade who is a boy but dresses like a girl. I do wonder if they've heard this though, and if their reaction is as disinterested as I'm expecting it to be.

As expected, not a lot of concern from these kids. The 12 year old said that her friend Gillian doesn't believe it, then giggled. The 10 year old shrugged. And the 8 year old, when asked if he was surprised, said "not really".

 

My dad, who has not actually read the books, seems to be the only person in my family really concerned by this. And my mom and aunt kept calling him "Dumbledorff", so their opinions were immediately disregarded.

[bobbob1313]

just absurd and one more example of religions increasing insignificance insofar as reality and what folks are really concerned about is concerned.

 

[caliber66]

Seriously, we're talking about one parochial school taking the books off the shelf in their library. It's not like they had a book burning, or told the kids that they would go to hell for reading the books. In fact, the pastor invited the kids who want to read the books to read them elsewhere, but they won't be able to get them at the school library. Big deal.

[bobbob1313]

Also, I like the apologies for linking Fox's unbiased article. I wonder if he (or anyone from this board) would apologize for linking CNN, which is, at least in their broadcasting, as biased as Fox, but on the other side.

[Good Old Neon]

Seriously, we're talking about one parochial school taking the books off the shelf in their library. It's not like they had a book burning, or told the kids that they would go to hell for reading the books. In fact, the pastor invited the kids who want to read the books to read them elsewhere, but they won't be able to get them at the school library. Big deal.

 

That a school, an institution of learning, is concerned about their students descent into the occult, sorcery, magic, which is, it should be pointed out the headmaster, not real

[jenbobblehead]

Also, I like the apologies for linking Fox's unbiased article. I wonder if he (or anyone from this board) would apologize for linking CNN, which is, at least in their broadcasting, as biased as Fox, but on the other side.

is that really true?

[Good Old Neon]

Also, I like the apologies for linking Fox's unbiased article. I wonder if he (or anyone from this board) would apologize for linking CNN, which is, at least in their broadcasting, as biased as Fox, but on the other side.

 

That was intended as a joke

[caliber66]

That a school, an institution of learning, is concerned about their students descent into the occult, sorcery, magic, which is, it should be pointed out the headmaster, not real

[Good Old Neon]

Why should an institute of learning have books about teenaged wizards on its library shelves in the first place?

 

Because reading, in and of itself, is a form of education and should be encouraged.

[LouieB]

not that there's anything wrong with that

I thought he was just happy all the time...

 

LouieB

[ikol]

Because reading, in and of itself, is a form of education and should be encouraged.

 

So I guess they better have a copy of every book ever written.

[caliber66]

Because reading, in and of itself, is a form of education and should be encouraged.

 

So I guess they better have a copy of every book ever written.

Pretty much.

[Good Old Neon]

So I guess they better have a copy of every book ever written.

 

No, but it would make sense to cater to the students tastes and/or honor book requests made by students.

 

The Bible the school is founded upon involves as much swords and sorcery as the Potter series

[ction]

No, but it would make sense to cater to the students tastes and/or honor book requests made by students.

 

So they should subscribe to Hustler and stock porn DVDs in the multimedia section?

[Good Old Neon]

So they should subscribe to Hustler and stock porn DVDs in the multimedia section?

No, that would be the priest

[ction]

LOL

 

LOL

[caliber66]

I still don't see why the school should be expected to stock Harry Potter books at its library. I would prefer they spend their limited funds on reference books & stuff for class. It's not as if the kids are being denied access to the books.

 

Is it a little kooky, a little reactionary? Maybe. Is the priest being overcautious by responding to the concerns of a few parents? Sure. Did the priest say the kids could read the books, but not at the school library? Yep. Still have no problem with this.

[Good Old Neon]

I still don't see why the school should be expected to stock Harry Potter books at its library. I would prefer they spend their limited funds on reference books & stuff for class. It's not as if the kids are being denied access to the books.

 

Is it a little kooky, a little reactionary? Maybe. Is the priest being overcautious by responding to the concerns of a few parents? Sure. Did the priest say the kids could read the books, but not at the school library? Yep. Still have no problem with this.

 

No one said they should be expected to stock the books