Harry Potter behind the scenes spoilers

[Shropt]

You make interesting points, but these are still fictional characters and not real people. It's not like someone who dislikes gay people because they are gay is suddenly going to say "Wow, because of this fictional character I now see the light that gays and their lifestyle are ok with me". It's not like interacting with a real person who you form a friendship with and then later find out they are gay. I don't think this "outting" or Dumbledore does anything. I think it's JK just trying to be PC.

I think you are looking way too far in to these comments. Most HP fans are wanting answers now that the books are finished. JK is just trying to finally answer questions that have been posed for years.

 

[Ktjn]

https://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

I am sure there are many upset religious parents. Even though Rawling, like some have said, was just filling in the gaps.

 

[Bannister]

https://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

I am sure there are many upset religious parents. Even though Rawling, like some have said, was just filling in the gaps.

What's a few more religious people pissed off at her really.

 

[galactiboy]

I heard about this earlier today, but didn't know the context of her story. I don't think its a publicity stunt, but like others have said answering a question and filling in gaps (no pun ) about the characters.

Tolerance is a huge part of the books, and I think its cool to have her working to use the stories to impact the real world. And even though it wouldn't necessarily make a homophobic person do a 180 on their feelings, exposure to different cultures, beliefs and orientations (even in fictional works) is a big factor in promoting acceptance.

 

[gdb]

PC would be JK saying Colin Creevey was gay (which would explain his stalking Harry with a camera). In today's political climate there's really nothing PC about the principal of a school being gay. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

 

[KitFisto]

https://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

I am sure there are many upset religious parents. Even though Rawling, like some have said, was just filling in the gaps.

I doubt it. Most religious parents probably would not let their kids read stories about witchcraft/evil/darkness and such. It's a very taboo subjet to them.

 

[Darth Loki]

Well at least she didn't have anyone sleeping with a werewolf.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Lupin and Tonks

 

[KitFisto]

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Lupin and Tonks

I doubt he was in a wolfie state when he was hittin' it though

 

[galactiboy]

I'm sure it was reminiscent of the graveyard scene in Brahm Stokers Dracula... Grrr:chew
(I know Chewie's not a werewolf, but it's the closest thing we have )

And I'm sure the ultra-conservative have enough reasons besides a gay character to ban the books from their kids, but I'm sure it can be a further rallying point for them to try and censor schools from carrying them.

True story, a comic shop in my hometown was actually shut down by the local churches because the sold D&D stuff... never underestimate the power of a lot of close-minded fearful people

 

[darthviper107]

I doubt it. Most religious parents probably would not let their kids read stories about witchcraft/evil/darkness and such. It's a very taboo subjet to them.

Most religious people (christians) who are mad about the books don't know why but are just that way because they were told by other religious figures that the books were bad. When they came out my parents didn't like them at all and didn't want us reading them but they had no idea what they were about, in fact one reason they said they didn't like them was that he was disrespectful to his parents--except that his parents are dead and he lives with his aunt and uncle who are *******s.

 

[gdb]

True story, a comic shop in my hometown was actually shut down by the local churches because the sold D&D stuff... never underestimate the power of a lot of close-minded fearful people

Words to live by.

 

[Anzik]

Acceptance and tolerance are catch phrases with little connection to reality. There are many popular actions that should not be accepted or tolerated. Its like saying that all discrimination is bad. Discrimination isn't bad, it just depends on the grounds on which you discriminate.
For a fundamentalist Christian, the books would be off limits anyway. If Christians were as hysterical as they are portrayed in the media there would have been riots and arsons or death threats and contracts put on her life because the witches and wizards celebrate Christmas.
I'm glad she didn't put this in the books, as it would have been blatantly apparent as a statement. She writes characters first, and their traits are just part of that character. Outside of Lupin and Snape there was no mention of anything about sexual preference in the staff.
Her points about discriminating against werewolves, and for that matter witches and wizards for that matter, were clearly hyperbole about tolerance. Dumbledore's sexuality is redundant.

 

[blue_rogue]

I doubt he was in a wolfie state when he was hittin' it though

I don't know. Remember, Tonks can change her appearance.

 

[Wetanut]

Acceptance and tolerance are catch phrases with little connection to reality. There are many popular actions that should not be accepted or tolerated. Its like saying that all discrimination is bad. Discrimination isn't bad, it just depends on the grounds on which you discriminate.
For a fundamentalist Christian, the books would be off limits anyway. If Christians were as hysterical as they are portrayed in the media there would have been riots and arsons or death threats and contracts put on her life because the witches and wizards celebrate Christmas.
I'm glad she didn't put this in the books, as it would have been blatantly apparent as a statement. She writes characters first, and their traits are just part of that character. Outside of Lupin and Snape there was no mention of anything about sexual preference in the staff.
Her points about discriminating against werewolves, and for that matter witches and wizards for that matter, were clearly hyperbole about tolerance. Dumbledore's sexuality is redundant.

Well put. Dumbledore's sexual orientation is of secondary/tertiary importance to the story (if at all). The HP books, in their bottom-line, is a coming-of-age story. Premise of magic, locale, etc., all play into it and enriches the story but Harry's voyage from unloved orphan to realizing his potential as a human being (yes, despite his powers, he's a human first) is the rock-bottom foundation. The themes of tolerance, acceptance, etc., are part and parcel of that journey. For that reason, the sexuality of any of the characters are immaterial IMO, even though they may provide enrichment in the backstory of the individual characters.

 

[Darth Caedus]

I also think that the MAIN theme is just love. It's what saves people, brings them together, and in Dumbledore's case when was younger, blinded him to what he knew all along with Grindewald.

 

[pixletwin]

Here is an important thing to remember along the lines of the "Love conquers all" theme:

If Grindewald had the Elder Wand, how was it that Dumbledore beat him in their infamous duel?

I'll tell you what it was: Grindewald would not kill Dumbledore because he still loved him. He surrendered his wand to Dumbledore, thus making Dumbledore master of the Wand.

Just food for thought.

 

[galactiboy]

For that reason, the sexuality of any of the characters are immaterial IMO, even though they may provide enrichment in the backstory of the individual characters.

Actually not really, much of the books deal with the sexual and relational (although tame) exploration of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Although they are heterosexual... but the theme is still very present. So if heterosexuality is flaunted, why not reveal the decision that some characters were in same-sex relationships?

 

[KitFisto]

Actually not really, much of the books deal with the sexual and relational (although tame) exploration of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Although they are heterosexual... but the theme is still very present. So if heterosexuality is flaunted, why not reveal the decision that some characters were in same-sex relationships?

I don't know that I call the relationships of harry, Ron and Hermione "flaunting" heterosexuality. In the end this just doesn't matter.

 

[Agent0028]

I think that was dealing more with the issues of growing up and the confusion and angst that goes along with relationships both platonic and romantic.

 

[Darth Caedus]

Here is an important thing to remember along the lines of the "Love conquers all" theme:

If Grindewald had the Elder Wand, how was it that Dumbledore beat him in their infamous duel?

I'll tell you what it was: Grindewald would not kill Dumbledore because he still loved him. He surrendered his wand to Dumbledore, thus making Dumbledore master of the Wand.

Just food for thought.

In the Kings Cross chapter, Dumbledore said he was the more skilled wizard and Grindewald knew it. He also said that Grindewald knew why Dumbledore wouldn't face him: because of his sister (which was said in the book), but NOW, it was because Dumbledore still had feelings for him.