Young Writers Society

Then again, none of the professors really had any romantic involvements, except Snape and Hagrid.

This disappoints me. It has been said before, but I never saw any foreshadowing of this in the books, and it feels like an afterthought.

Personally, my opinion of Dumbledore was tarnished by the last book. It made him seem so less personal and loving. You find out that he's been manipulating everyone he knew and setting Harry up for that fight with Voldemort.

So, it doesn't really hurt my feelings for Dumbledore because they already were injured. I think the whole thing is stupid and lowers my respect for Rowling. Why did she need to say that? It doesn't help anything. As to the fanfiction, well, they'll have a field day with it.

Sureal wrote:Personally, I wish she'd made it more obvious in the actual books. That'd have made Dumbledore's fight with (and subsequent killing of) Grindelwald so much more emotional and meaningful.

As it is, I agree with Suzanne - it feels so tacked on.

Oh, and I just have to add: flytodreams, that's a little immature, don't you think?

Yeah...maybe it was just shock..

Cpt. Smurf wrote:Although, looking back on it (for those of us with a considerable level of immaturity), the statement from Griselda Marchbanks, in book 5 during Harry's OWLs, that Dumbledore had "...done things with a wand I'd never seen before" could perhaps be interpreted as a suggestion towards his sexuality XD

*Drowns in own laughter.*

Kyle, that was brilliant. You made my day.

Hey, I've noticed that a lot of people said Dumbledore killed Grindlewald. Actually he didn't, in fact he's still alive by book 7 though Voldemort finishes him off when he tries to stop him getting the Elder wand. He's locked away in Nuremburg (I think).

But what I would like to point out is that Rita Skeeter(burn in hell) said their 'magnificent' duel migth not have been all they made it out to be. Maybe that's why, he was in love.

P.S. Everyone is saying his homosexuality detracts from his awesomeness, pawnage etc.(whichever lingo). Just my opinion, he doesn't try it on (well, overtly) in the books so GO DUMBLEDORE!
(please don't flame me)

Hmm. On the one hand, I agree that this kind of blindsided me (although I will own that I didnt really give much thought to Dumbledore's sexuality) and I'm not sure it equates with the Dumbledore character as he is in my head. So it would have been nice to have had a bit more warning. On the other hand, the idea of Dumbledore being gay doesnt necessarily lower my opinion of him. And I kind of find it amusing. So...whatever.

Fantasyartist wrote:Hey, I've noticed that a lot of people said Dumbledore killed Grindlewald. Actually he didn't, in fact he's still alive by book 7 though Voldemort finishes him off when he tries to stop him getting the Elder wand. He's locked away in Nuremburg (I think).

Hah, no flaming here, I promise. I noticed the Grindewald thing, too, but I waited to check out a copy of the book and forgot about it. xD

And it's Nurmengard. :/anal retentive:

xD

I dont think she was joking persay, but i do wonder if she mentioned that only to spark controversy about her books now that the hype is gone.

Cade: i deffinitly agree that the book was about love, not homosexuality, and that Dumbledore was teaching harry about the concept of love in general (whomever it might be towards) however its kindof nice to know who dumbledore loved - afterall this wasn't talked about in the book and it is hard to accept advice from someone about love w/o knowing that they loved deeply themselves - so I like the addition of Dumbledore loving Grindlewand, but maybe it could've been brought up in different circumstances and not just blurted out. Now it's probably going to cause some great controversy (which will sell books but cause the deeper meaning to be lost).

Fantasyartist: I really didn't know Grindlewand wasn't killed. Thanks for letting me know

Sorry, but why is this a big deal? Even if Rowling gave a straight answer, why on earth should Dumbledore's sexuality affect who he is? Its something I have never understood about homophobic behaviour. How exactly does who I fall in love with and what we do in the bedroom matter? I think the whole thing is stupid. Dumbledore is Dumbledore. His 'on screen' personality isn't miraculously different because we know he's gay. The words are the same, the actions are the same. Nothing has changed about Dumbledore as a person. Why should we even care about his sexuality.

(As a side note, labels like 'gay' or 'bi' irritate the heck outta me. Why should it be important? Being in love is wonderful, why bother it with labeling?)

Hahah I found this on www.icanhascheezburger.com and I had to post it.



It's kind of spam but.... still fits the topic!

I don't think that is something that is meant for real public opinion. If Rowling felt that it was necessary for the character or the story plot, then it would have been elaborated on, or mentioned in some way. But for the super-die-hard fans out there, think about it. The subtlety of Dumbledore's character could allow for other things to be explored, no pun intended. Don't think too much about it. I feel surprised. I bet a lot of us do. But if anything that should only cause us to admire Rowling even more. She was able to create these characters beyond the plot lines and what actually goes into the novels. The fact that she was able to elaborate such a story and characters with actual histories and charactertistics of their own, such as homosexuality or whom they were "smitten" with without letting it dominate those character, is amazing. Ultimately, that is what I think of with this whole business.

Cpt. Smurf wrote:Although, looking back on it (for those of us with a considerable level of immaturity), the statement from Griselda Marchbanks, in book 5 during Harry's OWLs, that Dumbledore had "...done things with a wand I'd never seen before" could perhaps be interpreted as a suggestion towards his sexuality XD

Ooh, metaphor. *snicker*

I don't see what the big hooplah is, really. It's just a character trait. BFD. It's nothing worth getting your britches in a bunch over.

I don't see what the big hooplah is, really. It's just a character trait. BFD. It's nothing worth getting your britches in a bunch over.

Seriously. So he's gay? Imagine we didn't know. Would it have made any difference in the long run? Personally I think it's not a big deal, and it doesn't make me view Dumbledore or the story differently. But I do agree that if it was elaborated on in the book it would have a had a much deeper significance. But again, this is not a gay-embracing time, as this thread makes evident.

[s]BlackGhost[/s]

O M G. Wow...I'm cracking up!



How...odd. Dumbledore? Gay? Whoa.

x

It was dumb. It sounded tacked on at the last minute, and it sounded like she was under pressure to "stand up for gay rights" or that sort of nonsense. I mean it's a children's series. Did she really have to do that?