Fetish for small men?Quote:
Originally Posted by See Her Pee
Printable View
Fetish for small men?Quote:
Originally Posted by See Her Pee
A statement that's not in the actual books, made both after she had killed the character off and ended the series as a whole?
Pff. Sounds like attention whoring to me. "How am I ever gonna keep attention now that the series is over? ;_; I KNOW! I'll make one the characters gay!"
Of course, she made the guy she KILLED gay. JK Rowling is obviously a violent homophobe.
There was a fair bit of subtext in the last book, so to me it sounds more like "I want to make this character X and be all edgy and stuff, but I don't wanna risk losing sales by actually saying it" than pure attention whoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetsetlemming
She's whoring.
And I doubt that'll be the last book and the last statement about the damn thing.
When is it ever?
Eh, I don't think the opportunity really came up in the book to actually explicitly say it. It's not like he would have just said "Yes, Harry, the prophecy is the reason you were chosen. Oh, and by the way, I'm gay," and part of the wise elderly mentor stock character is that they're a solitary sort, so no lover being introduced is normal and expected. She may have made the subtext a bit less "sub" and bit more "text" around Grindelwald and Dumbledore, but I don't think the main concept there was intended to be an unrequited or betrayed love, rather than Grindelwald's actions being the main catalyst for the fall-out.
And no, it's certain to not be the last book. It will just be the last about Harry, like she said. She could have churn out plenty more by going back to Dumbledore's tales that made him famous, the first rise and fall of Voldemort, or by sending Harry's children on mysterious and wacky adventures.
Maybe then next book will be about Dumblefuck's gay adventure's. When he was at hogwarts in his adolescence...dating different guys and learning spells.
You really aren't making yourself look good here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mydyingautumn
And I care?
Considering that this is a discussion forum, you still remain here and you went to the effort to reply, I'd say that you do care.
More specifically, you care enough about your ego and image here that you feel the need to gain the last word with a scathing retort worthy of Cheezymadman.
You need out more often.
I am more and more amused as this progresses, given that you're only demonstrating his point. :angel:
Besides, despite the derogatory slant you place on that concept, it could be a text of significant importance on a societal level, especially since Rowling's popularity gives her an instant and sizable market base. I don't think Rowling would do that, since she's tended to fairly conventional fantasy (conventional, but fairly well-written, though the last three or four books could have used a good editor to trim the excess) thus far, and other texts on the everyday travails of an overtly homosexual person have been published. Rights must always be defended...always fought for...I fight for your rights, for otherwise, who would fight for mine? Or something like that, no?
methinks quite possibly that she just wants attention.
mainly because the series itself is over, as stated by her.... read it somewhere i dont remember where.
i dont see how defining his sexuality is going to contribute to the harry potter series/w.e. u wanna call it as a whole.... :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by b1gwi11
The fan base man. Think about it...
Like I said, a lot of people who read the series are in fact homo/bi or at least pro homosexual. Why? I have no idea.
Anywho, everyone has pretty much already had their opinion on harry potter. All the religious folk have hated it, so she's not going to lose anything there. Most fans will now have something to discuss and will want to re read the books in hope to find some new prospectives..
By itself, it would make very little difference (besides adding a slightly different spin on some of the scenes out of Dumbledores past). The real difference is meta-textual and has more to do with social conditions and why she chose to reveal this post-series rather than in the main narrative itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by b1gwi11
There aren't many GLBT characters in mainstream fiction. There's even fewer that are portrayed as anything beyond villains and/or flaming cliches. So when a well-rounded, flawed but ultimately sympathetic GLBT character turns up in a hugely successful book series, it makes waves. It's a role model sort of thing and it's heavily tied to social attitudes towards, and stereotypes of, said groups.
Now, springing this revelation after the series is finished (despite it looking like a long-planned character trait) suggests a lot of things outside the main work. It suggests an author who was afraid to include it for some reason, which in turn suggests things about the society she's operating in.
And that's where all the stupid controversy comes in.
edit: And if anyone thinks that hardline religious folk are the only people who have problems with homosexuals, their opinion is simplified to the point of caricature.
Of course they're not the ONLY people who hate homosexuals, but they are a huge percent of the one's so against it, and that creates half the controversy.