I can see my keen blade of logic +5 must cut through this epic-level pointless blabber.

I hereby coin the word "queerists" to describe people who read books in a theoretical capacity determining its stance in regards to homosexual rights. As can clearly be discerned, the word is a mixture between "queer" and "theorists".

Also, Dumbledore was totally gay. A beard like that? Either gay, a paedophile, or both.

EDIT: Paedophag?

On one hand, your logic rings a bell and I find myself wanting to accept whatever you say.

On the other hand, you are a non-dork and a non-nerd...who cares about the opinions of non-nerds?

If it's any consolation, while I may not be a nerd, I am a freak. Today was an excellent example. I rode a girl like a pony (in a non-sexual capacity, though she was shrieking), I had a verbal swordfight with a taxi driver, and I invented my own religion of which I am both God and King. Essentially I am elected by my own divine mandate. It's a pretty sweet racket.

Well, in that case, I'm sold.

Good decision. I am, after all, a certified card-carrying man.

I think it was pretty obvious Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. Not necessarily in a sexual way, but there was some sort of lust/obsession going on, otherwise he would never have done what he did.

Twelve and a quarter inches. Rather bendy. Good for... charming

I remember a quote on Bash a while ago about replacing the D in wand with a G throughout the book. Less subtle than your example, but it still provided some a amusement.

When reading the book I figured the same, just not on a sexual level. Perhaps Estarra is right and there's more to the characters than J.K. Rowling was able to fit in the books, I'm sure her publicist would have said HELL NO to the idea of a gay character, especially one so vital as Dumbledore.

I feel like a nerd giving my harry potter analysis. Oh well

Below the frame of the photo, you're actually a three foot circus dwarf in Cher-drag, though, with pierced nipples.

She's already released other information about the characters that she couldn't include. There were also talks of some sort of appendix-type book with random stories of her characters.

i think the main reason that people argue that dumbledore cannot be gay because there's no evidence of him being so is that they believe that everyone is by default straight and will remain straight unless proven otherwise

this isn't necessarily so, and there is as much proof that dumbledore is straight as there is that he is gay - fundamentalists just can't bring themselves to see it in the way the author designs it

everyone who says that he's not gay can shove a stick up their ass and bleed on it

So, Derian, what do you do if the author relases a prequel to something that explains a character's background and motivations differently than you would like? Are you going to pretend it doesn't count because it spoils your ideas? Is it okay because it's written in a book? Why does making it in a book make it better than the author giving out tidbits?

Not every idea holds merit. The admin is right. It's their canon.

And where is this assertion that that's the point of the book even coming from? I come to Lusternia for that. I read books to immerse myself in the author's world, not my own. You can't just apply that wish of yours universally and say that contradicting that is a bad thing, especially since it's inherently unstable as I explained above.

The point that Rowling said so making it true is being interpreted incorrectly. The thing is, it's entirely consistent with what's written. Maybe we wouldn't have explained it that way before knowing for sure, but some people (not me) clearly suspected it. So it doesn't have to be the case, because it doesn't contradict anything. Draco's recently revealed shellfish allergy doesn't contradict anything from the books either, so we have to go along with it. It's not quite as important a part of his character as you might think sexual orientation is though.

Derian seems to subscribe to Barthes' idea that the author is "dead."

Rowling, apparently, disagrees, and so do a number of people here!

There is a reason that very few authors ever release a prequel that includes the same characters - in fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head. In some cases, it could be done (of done very carefully), but only if everything is done extremely carefully. Making off-hand comments which change the image of a character does not really fall into this category.



I suppose this is the part I disagree with. The author is there solely to serve their audience. You will probably notice that people with very weak imaginations rarely read fantasy or fiction books. Why? Because everyone likes to imagine the world they are reading about. The author is simply a vessel to make that happen. You can say it's their cannon, and I suppose I agree with that much. The point is that the canon should be as small as possible while still providing structure and framework for the story. Expanding the canon simply for the sake of imposition is counter-productive.

Simple experience. As I said above, people without imaginations don't get into fantasy. We all read it so that we can imagine, not so that the author can tell us everything. Movies are rarely as widely-acclaimed as their book counterparts if the book comes out first, simply because the movie doesn't match what people imagined. Let's think about that for a minute - what would have happened if they had decided to include this little tidbit about Dumbledore and his interest in a female in the movie. Would we all now be talking about how stupid the movie was because it broke canon? Or would there then be two different canons? Surely the author would be right, and we would all hate the movie for not following...right?



Sure, it doesn't contradict anything directly from the books. Neither would several of my ideas or suggestions. The fact that something doesn't contradict does not mean that it is true. What matters is whether it is central and important to the story, and whether there are indications in the story toward that point. Few people would have seriously supposed that Dumbledore was gay before this announcement, so there clearly isn't a strong indication there. What people are now doing is taking the conclusion that she announced, then working backwards to search specifically for indications that it might be true.

Really? That'd be awesome. She could probably write a whole book about Dumbledore. Or James/Lilly/Snape when they were kids. Or the younger Voldemort.

I've always wanted her to write a Marauders book!

EDIT: Eh, nevermind. Just feeding the troll

I'd love a prequel about Dumbledore's younger days and Snape and Lily things as well. I don't know if there are any Pern readers out there but I really enjoyed reading the Robinton prequel. Of course he was my favorite character....

I've always wanted a "Voldemort - the Inbetween Years" book.

Cover is of him sat in a well-lit study in front of a fireplace with reading glasses, back is a corpse stretched out on the floor ala a tigerskin rug.