Renquist - 29 October 2007 12:43 PM

Robin Bobcat - 29 October 2007 01:12 AM

Renquist - 28 October 2007 07:26 PM

I think she’s just said it to drum up publicity. You’ll have people re-reading the books looking for signs and hints that he’s gay now. Notice how she waited until long enough after the last book’s publication that everyone that wanted to read it has already read it?

“Hmmm...well, sales of the old books have slumped a lot. Guess they’re old news. The new book’s past the release rush. There must be some way to get people back into them. Wait...wait...got it...lost it...YES! I’ll say Dumbledore likes other men’s wands! Then everyone’ll trawl through them hunting down signs of effeminacy!!!”

If she really wanted to drum up sales, she could have said that Hagrid was a Scientologist...

I thought that was obvious.

Yes, that’s why they kept Gawrp (sp?) hidden.  Just like John Travolta and his autistic son.

I still don’t reckon anyone who hasn’t read the books is going to be buying them just because a character is gay.

And I think she has the right to have backstories to the characters that aren’t involved in the plot. It makes them more 3D, and the books better written, in my opinion.

However, we’re obviously not going to agree on this.

I was a big fan of the books (I use “was”, since it’s unfortunately over) and wasn’t too happy about that announcement. I mean, she’s the author and it’s her character, but like someone said before, that admission really did not further or expand the plot or offer anything of value. That said, I didn’t enjoy Dumbledore being “sexualized” (or something). He’s freakin’ Dumbledore, I do not need nor do I want to know what he does in his bedroom with people of any sex.

I’m supportive of gay issues, but I don’t see how this helps or furthers that cause.