JK Rowling Sucks

If a the entertainment industry had to have only completely original ideas, there would be no entertainment industry. It would have been Beowolf, and thats it.
 
I just hope nobody sees the Seven Samurai and uses it as the framework for a western with Yul Brenner . . . . oh, nevermind.
 
Pooh, Beowulf. Gilgamesh maybe, and even that would only be because writing hadn't been invented much before.
 
Now she is telling kids that dumbledore the wizard is a homosexual.
How great is she now, getting young kids excited about reading?
Is that the kind of excited reading you want in an elementary school?
I say we spread a rumor that she defiled the Koran and let nature take it's course.
 
Where did she say that Dumbledore is a homosexual? One of my friends told me that it says Harry is gay in the last book, but he could just be lying.
 
Now she is telling kids that dumbledore the wizard is a homosexual.
Click to expand...
Carrying on the theme that most of her "HP" components are borrowed from earlier works by other people..... in the Lord of the Rings films, a certain senior figure was played by an actor noted for being quite militantly "gay". Mere coincidence?
 
DannyinJapan said:
Now she is telling kids that dumbledore the wizard is a homosexual.
How great is she now, getting young kids excited about reading?
Is that the kind of excited reading you want in an elementary school?
I say we spread a rumor that she defiled the Koran and let nature take it's course.
Click to expand...

Danny, this is not a cool post. Offensive, irrational, and just crappy.

I've never heard anything about Dumbledore being gay, and I've never heard her allude to anything of the such at all. In fact there was never any sexuality in relation to Dumbledore in the books at all.

Harry married Ginny at the end of the books.

Also, whats with the homophobia?

Edited. I read the link. She said so. Still everything above stands. That was offensive bullshit. I guess we should sick the Muslims on all the faggots and they'll rid the world of the scourge.

She says, btw in the speach that his affair gone bad, never discussed in any of the books, was dumbledore's great trajedy. What a work of genious to have created so deep a character IMO.
 
I don't see the big issue if he's gay. Having never read the books, I looked up a 4 or 5 page thread on the subject on rottentomatoes.com. Basically, I knew that within that thread I would hear rational response, full on gay bashing, a very in depth take on it from some of the gay posters (it's a movie boards site that leans about as left as BFC leans right...maybe a lil' more left;)), and various "meh" posts.
It's all back story. Who really cares? From what I understand, JK is putting together an encyclopedia of Harry Potter to fill in some blanks. It doesn't detract from the book or story, really. Besides, she's always been sort of anti-authority and anti-establishment and pretty progressive. Is it really that much of a stretch that she would make a character gay? It very well could just a be a thumbing of the nose to the uber conservative churches that have spoken out against her "unchristian" books filled with "witchcraft and devil worship".

Whatever her motivation, it doesn't bother me any at all.
 
Steely_Gunz said:
I don't see the big issue if he's gay. Having never read the books, I looked up a 4 or 5 page thread on the subject on rottentomatoes.com. Basically, I knew that within that thread I would hear rational response, full on gay bashing, a very in depth take on it from some of the gay posters (it's a movie boards site that leans about as left as BFC leans right...maybe a lil' more left;)), and various "meh" posts.
It's all back story. Who really cares? From what I understand, JK is putting together an encyclopedia of Harry Potter to fill in some blanks. It doesn't detract from the book or story, really. Besides, she's always been sort of anti-authority and anti-establishment and pretty progressive. Is it really that much of a stretch that she would make a character gay? It very well could just a be a thumbing of the nose to the uber conservative churches that have spoken out against her "unchristian" books filled with "witchcraft and devil worship".

Whatever her motivation, it doesn't bother me any at all.
Click to expand...

ah, you do have a point.

but dumbledore is like the jesus of harry potter series, and its just wrong imho at least to make such an important man homo.

;)
 
I dunno, from where I sit it looks more like a lame publicity grab, though the yokel-baiting appeal might have swayed her decision to do it. If Dumbledore's orientation was all that important, why not include it in the story? If it's not important, why mention it at all?
 
Fiddleback said:
Danny, this is not a cool post. Offensive, irrational, and just crappy.

I've never heard anything about Dumbledore being gay, and I've never heard her allude to anything of the such at all. In fact there was never any sexuality in relation to Dumbledore in the books at all.

Harry married Ginny at the end of the books.

Also, whats with the homophobia?

Edited. I read the link. She said so. Still everything above stands. That was offensive bullshit. I guess we should sick the Muslims on all the faggots and they'll rid the world of the scourge.

She says, btw in the speach that his affair gone bad, never discussed in any of the books, was dumbledore's great trajedy. What a work of genious to have created so deep a character IMO.
Click to expand...


I am tired of everything being politicized, now Rawlings does it with Dumblebore. Nothing in DIJ's post was phobic or disagreeable in the slightest. People can disagree with homosexual behavior without being labelled "homophobic".

It's been my experience that if you have a good counterpoint, you can make it, or you can just resort to name calling. Choose the latter, and you just lost the argument, which you did.
 
Sodak, I don't think Andy had issue with Danny's stance on the issue. It was the fact that he wanted to bring in the Islamic extremists to take care of her;) I have much respect for both Andy and Danny (as I know that they have the same respect for each other). I don't agree with Danny's stance either. However, I know that Danny's responses tend to get a bit heated at times. No big deal. After 5 years, you get the feel for how a guy posts:D

I can tell you for a fact that Andy is one of our more conservative posters. He's not challenging Danny on his view of homosexuality. He's telling him that he (Danny) is better than his post indicates....and Andy is right.

We're all friends here.:thumbup::)
 
People can disagree with homosexual behavior without being labelled "homophobic".
Click to expand...
In the USA -- but not in present day Britain, where even polite (and non-extreme) expression of dissent has already led to police action, or people losing their jobs / getting demoted or sent on indoctrination courses if in public employ.
In the last month, "homophobia" was made a crime carrying a punishment of up to seven years in jail.
While motiveless murderers get off with two.....
The government is forcing this country into ever more political correctness; commonsense is abolished while society and law-and-order fall apart.
 
sodak said:
I am tired of everything being politicized, now Rawlings does it with Dumblebore. Nothing in DIJ's post was phobic or disagreeable in the slightest. People can disagree with homosexual behavior without being labelled "homophobic".
Click to expand...

DannyinJapan said:
Now she is telling kids that dumbledore the wizard is a homosexual.

-snip-

Is that the kind of excited reading you want in an elementary school?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the defiling the koran was absurdist humor, wich inherently implies extreme sarcasm - meaning no serious intent behind it.

however. the line between a to b is the portion that is in bad taste. not homophobic, just in bad taste. were the opinion fleshed out a little more, it may not have felt like as much of a slap in the face of the subject at hand.

quite frankly I don't care if my kids read about gay characters in the manner of dumbledore. they're going to learn about it in daily life and society at that age anyways - and quite frankly dumbledore is one hell of a good example to be set for gays in general, for any orientation, gender or creed for that matter.

the statement made by danny could potentially be read to imply several things. that rowling is trying to sexualized her characters in the eyes of her child readers, something that is morally unpleasant and should be avoided. that homosexuality has no place in children's stories - regardless of whether it is scance verbal reference or detailed pornographic explanation. that kids should never be excited about any store that features a gay character.

maybe danny did not mean to imply any of that. but with so little explanation behind the statements, and with so little "absurdism" to them, one can only infer logical conclusions, and assume that they are said in some level of seriousness.

if the opnion is fleshed out a little, maybe such hurt feelings will be dispelled.



in the harry potter series, little to nothing is said about dumbledore concerning romances. everything that is stated about his relationship to... whatever his name is, the wizard he dueled with in the (30's? 40's?) - was kept on a social and intellectual level. one could just as easily assume that they were intellectual freinds as much as they could assume that they were gay lovers. there isn't a single word regarding any kind of physical attraction held by dumbledore towards that man.



however! there may be some extended explanation about such things if she ever comes out with the harry potter omnibus. something I'm looking forward too :D as far as something being "unimportant enough" to put in the books - editors will try to cut things down to a minimum as much as they can. certain points and story lines may not effect the main characters directly, but the flesh out the world and the side characters which can be pleasant for the extensive reader. the lord of the rings series has the 10 some odd history books behind it for those readers who want as extensive of a knowledge of the world those characters inhabit as possible. to include all the historical information within the lord of the rings books themselves would have made for some pretty horrendous reading.
 
sodak said:
I am tired of everything being politicized, now Rawlings does it with Dumblebore. Nothing in DIJ's post was phobic or disagreeable in the slightest. People can disagree with homosexual behavior without being labelled "homophobic".

It's been my experience that if you have a good counterpoint, you can make it, or you can just resort to name calling. Choose the latter, and you just lost the argument, which you did.
Click to expand...

Listen sodak, Danny and I are friends, as Jake has said perfectly above. We've been through more ups and downs in the last year than can even be sniffed at by our disagreement over these books. I'm going to shoot straight with him. I'm going be honest with him when I support and concur with his belief in UFO's. I'm going to continue to pray with him over his problems, and I hope like hell to have his prayers during mine. But I will shoot straight with him, and I think he'll appreciate that.

To suggest that the works are diminished because a fully fleshed out and intricately planned character happens to be gay and that because of that maybe we shoud have terrorists kill the author is a deplorable thing to say. And it does reek of homophobia. If you cannot get that, then you just can't. I don't post here to educate you, or believe myself better than you in any way. But I also don't need your coaching on my posts either. So thanks for your concern, but I'm disregarding your guidance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top