Sick of it!
Oct. 22nd, 2007 01:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bladesparkRant time.
I am sick to death, after just two days even! of people being cynical and negative about J. K. Rowling's comment on Dumbledore's sexuality.
1. It's interesting. People want to talk about things that are interesting. It is not somehow taking away from The War In Iraq or The Loss Of Our Freedom or whatever other serious issue you've got your panties in a twist over to discuss light-hearted and interesting things. If I never read any news stories except those about serius issues, I would have serious issues, namely horrible depression. I'd like to have some lighter things in my life too.
2. It was NOT A FLIPPING PUBLICITY STUNT. Rowling is smart. The various publishing and movie industry people she works with are smart too. If they really did want to pull a coldly calculated publicity stunt, you can bet they'd have done it right before Deathly Hallows came out, or else right before the next movie. This will have completely fallen off the radar by the time there's another big opportunity for her to make more money.
3. This was not done solely to "suck up" to the GBLT community. Criminy. If she'd invented his gaynes just to suck up to them, she'd have put it into the books a little more explicitly. And if you think she just came up with this right now, please go back and read every description of Dumbledore's wardrobe from the first book on, and then come back and tell me she didn't know he was gay right from the start, and I will call you an idiot, because once you know it's pretty darn obvious.
4. This does not matter one bit to his character. I don't care if you think gays are the Evil Spawn of Satan, or if you're gay yourself and want to write disturbing Dumbledore/Snape slashfic. Since when should a good teacher's sexuality have anything whatsoever to do with how he interacts with his students? Sheesh people. Get your heads screwed on.
You know what happened here? Rowling has shown time and time again that she puts a lot of thought into her characters beforehand. She knows the birthdays, wand woods and cores, parentage, histories, and all kinds of other details of the minor background characters that you see for five pages in the entire series. You think she doesn't know literal volumes worth of detail about Dumbledore? She knew all kinds of things about him, but she didn't want to bog down the story with completely irrelevant deatils, so she left a lot of it out. She doesn't mention what core is in Parvati Patil's wand, and she doesn't mention Dumbledore's sexual preferences, because neither of those things would add anything to the story. But she knew about both, and when somebody asked her a question, she answered it honestly. That's it. That's the whole story. She was asked, and she answered. Fin.
So would you all please quit coming up with ridiculous and cynical explanations of what she was "really" up to here? I'm quite sick and tired of hearing them. The next person I see doing it is going to get a piece of my mind, and possibly a clue-by-four to the head.
Frankly I think most of those ascribing base motives to her can be exlained as a case of sour grapes. They wish they could be half as creative and successful.
I am sick to death, after just two days even! of people being cynical and negative about J. K. Rowling's comment on Dumbledore's sexuality.
1. It's interesting. People want to talk about things that are interesting. It is not somehow taking away from The War In Iraq or The Loss Of Our Freedom or whatever other serious issue you've got your panties in a twist over to discuss light-hearted and interesting things. If I never read any news stories except those about serius issues, I would have serious issues, namely horrible depression. I'd like to have some lighter things in my life too.
2. It was NOT A FLIPPING PUBLICITY STUNT. Rowling is smart. The various publishing and movie industry people she works with are smart too. If they really did want to pull a coldly calculated publicity stunt, you can bet they'd have done it right before Deathly Hallows came out, or else right before the next movie. This will have completely fallen off the radar by the time there's another big opportunity for her to make more money.
3. This was not done solely to "suck up" to the GBLT community. Criminy. If she'd invented his gaynes just to suck up to them, she'd have put it into the books a little more explicitly. And if you think she just came up with this right now, please go back and read every description of Dumbledore's wardrobe from the first book on, and then come back and tell me she didn't know he was gay right from the start, and I will call you an idiot, because once you know it's pretty darn obvious.
4. This does not matter one bit to his character. I don't care if you think gays are the Evil Spawn of Satan, or if you're gay yourself and want to write disturbing Dumbledore/Snape slashfic. Since when should a good teacher's sexuality have anything whatsoever to do with how he interacts with his students? Sheesh people. Get your heads screwed on.
You know what happened here? Rowling has shown time and time again that she puts a lot of thought into her characters beforehand. She knows the birthdays, wand woods and cores, parentage, histories, and all kinds of other details of the minor background characters that you see for five pages in the entire series. You think she doesn't know literal volumes worth of detail about Dumbledore? She knew all kinds of things about him, but she didn't want to bog down the story with completely irrelevant deatils, so she left a lot of it out. She doesn't mention what core is in Parvati Patil's wand, and she doesn't mention Dumbledore's sexual preferences, because neither of those things would add anything to the story. But she knew about both, and when somebody asked her a question, she answered it honestly. That's it. That's the whole story. She was asked, and she answered. Fin.
So would you all please quit coming up with ridiculous and cynical explanations of what she was "really" up to here? I'm quite sick and tired of hearing them. The next person I see doing it is going to get a piece of my mind, and possibly a clue-by-four to the head.
Frankly I think most of those ascribing base motives to her can be exlained as a case of sour grapes. They wish they could be half as creative and successful.
