I mean, seriously, let’s say Dumbledore is gay. How does that change the story? Dumbledore never has a relationship with anyone. He never even has a romantic relationship with anyone. His sexuality is completely irrelevant to the story. Saying “he’s gay” is meaningless, because it doesn’t tangibly affect the story. In fact, it’s so totally intangible that we were able to get through SEVEN books without his being gay ever coming up.
It’s like saying “Obi-wan Kenobi was gay”. It doesn’t matter, because Obi-wan has no romantic relationships. Obi-wan could be a furry with a skunk fetish, for as much as it would matter to the story.
I can’t decide if I’m disappointed in Rowling having decided this, and done nothing with it, or if I’m disgusted with her throwing it out there in an attempt to draw attention back to a series which is all done.
You know…I really don’t see why this matters.
I mean, seriously, let’s say Dumbledore is gay. How does that change the story? Dumbledore never has a relationship with anyone. He never even has a romantic relationship with anyone. His sexuality is completely irrelevant to the story. Saying “he’s gay” is meaningless, because it doesn’t tangibly affect the story. In fact, it’s so totally intangible that we were able to get through SEVEN books without his being gay ever coming up.
It’s like saying “Obi-wan Kenobi was gay”. It doesn’t matter, because Obi-wan has no romantic relationships. Obi-wan could be a furry with a skunk fetish, for as much as it would matter to the story.
I can’t decide if I’m disappointed in Rowling having decided this, and done nothing with it, or if I’m disgusted with her throwing it out there in an attempt to draw attention back to a series which is all done.
I think Traister makes a pretty good case here that Rowling was dropping some big hints, at least in the last book.
She also makes a good point about authors micromanaging their readers’ perception of their works post-publication, as well.