Ugh, that guy needs to burn his computer



I'm not saying that it's not to get attention, but you also can't just claim that dumbledore isn't gay. However someone actually asked about him finding love so obviously his sexuality would come up

I dunno, though that post was obviously wrong I don't think it was all that bad, just ill thought-out.

How very...post-modern of that guy? Urgh.

Funny how all of the examples he points out to prove his point are uh...dead. Some of them are really really long dead.

Apparently he also wrote this.

Hmmm!

The problem with both arguments is that they rely on the assumption that Dumbledore wasn't gay in the books.

There is no reason to believe this after J.K has told us otherwise. It's entirely consistent with what's written in the books, there aren't any contradictions, and given the whole "love was Dumbledore's great tragedy", also that he's like a million years old, expecting him to be more blatantly homosexual - whatever that means - is too much.

Once you remove this faulty assumption the whole rest of both of his points falls apart. Half of it is just criticising people who are apparently saying he thinks that way because he's Christian and homophobic, and various other such things. While I don't blame him for wanting to write that, as I don't doubt there are a couple of people who would leap to that conclusion (it's blatantly obvious that it's true about other people, if not him personally), it doesn't actually support what he's trying to say at all.

EDIT: Also the unsupported idea that an author doesn't get to choose their own canon. Plotholes that get retconned later on must obliterate this guy's mind.

There are actually a couple of problems with that article and the way he proposes to read and interpret the Bible. Applying those same rules to other things could lead to all kinds of problems. Also, he's using the Latin Vulgate and pulling some words out of context to make his point. While it could be a viable means of interpretation in some cases, it would be a lot more convincing if he could take all of the context of the Greek (which is difficult given the many different transcripts) and make his point from that. Interesting, but not really a convincing way to do historical interpretation. It's also not really directly related to this thread.



Let me go back to my original question - if Rawlings were to come out and say that Dumbledore was really a woman in drag, would that destroy your current interpretation of him? The point is that my beliefs about Dumbledore are much more important than whatever canon Rawlings wants to come up with. If I'm going to enjoy the books, it's going to be because of the way I read and imagine them, not because of some set of historical ideas she tells us about.



I almost completely ignored your post as not worth a reply, but I decided to respond after all. I am a Christian, I do believe the Bible, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. I didn't bring the Bible or homosexuality into it at all. I, in fact, enjoyed the HP books and own all of them. If you have nothing productive to add short of perverting my arguments with nonsense, please do not bother posting.


As for the other link someone posted about the guy saying Dumbledore is not gay...the real question is simple: what is it that makes him wrong and Rawlings right? Should her interpretation be the right one because she is the author? This is an example of the problem with canon. Now if he tries to write or imagine something about Dumbledore or any of the other characters, he will be checked and corrected by the author's opinion as the 'truth.' Whatever he imagined or thought about Dumbledore doesn't matter anymore; all that matters is what the author says is true.

What makes him wrong and Rowling (not Rawlings, just so you know) right is that she wrote the books. She gets to decide what is "canon" within the Harry Potter universe and what is not. Anything else is pretty much theory and conjecture, some of it more valid than others. Saying Dumbledore is not gay (when his being gay is entirely consistent with the books) is much the same as my saying Hermione is a boy. It just isn't true, however much I might like to contradict the author.

EDIT: clarity

Isn't that what the bible is about?

I mean seriously the word witches was a mistranslation of poisoner and look what happened with that. <3 fallible bible

*laughs* Are you actually serious, the author is the final authority on what is and is not the absolute truth of the world they have created.

It's like going up to Estarra, stating that what you believe about lusternia is truth and anything that the admin provide that contradicts you is a lie.



Because JK created the character and as such knows the character more than some random person.

I like to weave characters, stories and worlds in my mind all the time. If anyone (cared enough) dared to challenge me on something to do with any of it and then tried to say their imagination over ruled mine they would be wrong.

However do consider, Dumbledore is shown to be gifted as a Wizard and caring. Doesn't it seem odd to you that he has never found anyone who he can care for as a partner? Maybe he has some scars from his past that never quite healed. Let's look at the characters we know had an effect on him in his young years... ooh Grindelwald... >_>

So you want Hermoine X Ron and Hermione X Harry slashfics? *ducks*

I always get her last name mixed up. I think the problem is that we give the author too much power. She is the author of the books, but they take on a meaning of their own when different people read them. It's like poetry - if we limited all interpretation of poetry to what the author originally meant, it would be a dead field. The thing that makes poetry great is also what makes fiction books great. We don't have to worry about what the author originally thought, we can immerse ourselves in the structure they give us and then fill in the gaps on our own. It allows us to read whatever we will enjoy, instead of having to try to enjoy whatever the author thinks. I don't care what was in her mind when she wrote it; I care what her writings bring up in my mind.

I also think your example isn't quite the same thing. Saying Dumbledore is not gay would be more like me saying that George went on to become very serious, closed his joke shop, and started to work at the Ministry. Rowling could easily come out and say that it isn't true, that he really kept up his joke shop and Percy came to help him. Neither one is really more correct than the other, they are both just our imaginations at work - just because she is the author doesn't mean that Rowling's imagination should trump mine.



I would argue that this is a statement of ignorance, but I will save that for another topic. Feel free to start one if you'd like to discuss that issue.

This is actually a good example. Remember how upset people got in the Glomdoring when they started setting up an identity/history, then admin events came along and disproved what they had set up? That is basically a parallel for what Rowling is doing now. She is the author; she can set up 'canon' but in the end her canon doesn't matter. It is never as satisfying as our own interpretations.



Not really. People who immerse themselves in caring deeply for a good number of people quite often never find partners. It's a common thing in life, and actually an interesting psychological phenomenon that came up relatively often in some of my classes in College.

Yes.



Not if he just ignores it. Seriously, most of the fanfiction out in the world are AU fanfics where the writers took the characters in a totally non-canon direction. (A lot of them are crap, but some of them are really good too.) They didn't let canon ideas stop their imaginations one bit. All story canon does is give you a blueprint of a character and a story. You can either let the story be built by the canon blueprint in your imagination, or you can ignore the canon blueprint and use your own. That's the great thing about the imagination, anything's possible.

Meh, If your arguements are going to be that the bible had to be revised, the rules that everyone _must_ follow aren't relevant any more so we can ignore them, or something along those lines then I'm not really interested because it's the arguments I always hear and they are far from convincing.


Glomdoring really is a completely separate issue, because alot of that is to do with wether that is the fault of the players. Also player organisations are there to be developed by the players, the histories... the "canon" of lusternia is the stuff that we can't change like the creation of the world, how the universe works, why the gods won't give us chocolate, and the like.

However imagine trying to tell Estarra or any of the divine that the events they run or the histories they write are invalid because they don't match your ideal world.
Such as taking the enigmatic side of Elostian(<3) away and stating that what you believe about him is the only truth.



However Dumbledore was a troubled teenager at one point and JK has made a point of showing that her characters can grow (Harry having relationships rather than remaining a 12 y/o) We see Dumbledore after the process then glimpse back to his past where he was a somewhat normal adolescent (hey I wanted to take over the world too )

They more revolve around proper and consistent interpretation, a clearer understanding of what those rules are and why we don't believe they apply anymore, the fact that the Bible itself condemns any revision, and a few other things. The vast majority of people - myself included - get settled into the arguments they like and recycle them over and over without thinking about their validity or doing any further research - I think this might be one of those cases.

It's rather more like having your own ideas and history, only for Estarra to overrule it with her own. If you remember, that caused a good deal of problems and a lot of angry people, with good reason. Because Lusternia is a continually evolving world, it is slightly different in that the admin have to shape it in order to ensure that it remains successful. Any things that are non-essential, you will notice the divine do not answer. What other divine are out there? What is the history of Terentia, was she ever in love? I may have plenty of ideas about these things. I could announce what I think about everything - would the divine be right to come along and correct me by telling me what "really" happened?



True enough, which explains even further why he would have difficulty ever establishing a mutual relationship - a point which was also hinted at throughout the books. Especially given his family history, he had plenty of issues with relationships which would have made this sort of love difficult for him to ever achieve. It could be arguable that he was never gay, given the books and ignoring any interpretation Rowling gives later. Her words now, though, shoot down any other valid interpretations our possibilities - like the divine coming along and telling me that my ideas about the histories are all wrong.

Probably. But that's not the same thing, obviously. False analogies need not apply.

At any rate - Rowling wrote the books. Rowling wins. She could easily go right ahead and publish a new edition of, say, the Half-Blood Prince that explicitly says Dumbledore was in love with Grindewald.

Besides, even though I don't think it crossed my mind at the time, it makes very much sense given the events of the book. Given Grindewald and Dumbledore's behaviour towards one another, it was actually pretty easy for a reader to guess without needing Rowling to tell them that.

seriously over this, I've learned long ago that people who believe in the bible refuse to acknowledge it's falability. I'll just say that if there is only one true bible why are there so many different versions?

Yes because you would be wrong


Yes, Dumbledore was attracted to Grindelwald who horridly lead him astray and all that jazz hence preventing him from ever establishing a relationship. We know that dumbledore can form friendships it's just that he appears to have let someone in and it turned out horribly wrong for him.

Things actually make sense if you accept it rather than violently reject the idea because you don't like it.

Simply, your interpretation was wrong. This tidbit of information as another sense of reality to the books and allows for certain possibilities, we know that in the real world there are homosexual and bisexual people (and some are AWESOME!!!) so why not in this world which is just outside our own?
It also allows for possibilities such as jk intending other characters to be less than straight but actually accepted that being gay doesn't automatically make you flame... I have people who honestly believe I'm straight through no real effort on my part, they observed my behaviour and came to their conclusion just as you did with dumbledore.


EDIT: tehe I wanna go call the owners of that godhates:censor: website devil worshipers again

All this time I thought he was asexual.

Oops.

He licked cane toads.

Licking toads is bad.

Yeah, poor lil hoppy toads.

How is it different than this? It simply reveals another thing about the character in question which could have been in the authors mind all along. I'm sure I could make a case for consistency as well.



If you do a little bit of reading or studying of Christian apologetics, you'll see this answered several times over. Again, though, not really the point of this thread.

I would be just as 'right' as the admin in question - it's something unwritten. Every idea holds equal merit when we're talking about something that is not central and is not yet written. I only become wrong when the admin make it a part of the world. That is something that should never happen unless there is a very specific reason.



You only say he was attracted to Grindelwald because Rowling said so - of course the idea makes sense in hindsight. Had we had this conversation a few weeks ago, I seriously doubt you would even attempt to explain it in the same way.



You're right - this tidbit adds realism to Rowling's world, while taking it away from my own. The problem is, I am the reader. The whole point of a book is to engage the imagination of the reader - without that aspect, fiction books are completely worthless. If the author decides to trample the imagination of the reader, then the effectiveness of the book is actually diminished. The purpose of an author is to provide a framework world and a small snapshot of events which happen within this world. From that point, readers enjoy it because they are sucked into their imagination, creating ideas for how the characters look and feel, their mannerisms, and yes, even the non-critical parts of their histories. We construct our world around the stories, which is exactly why they are amazing. Take away that, and you are left with the equivalent a nonfiction book without any useful information.