That's the part that didn't work for me, so in the end she just seemed crazy (which she may well have been, but it didn't make me sympathetic to her character, and I think I was supposed to be). I guess I just didn't buy into it emotionally.
I bring you this at great personal risk, but the latest intel says that
the sky is blue.
Please use this information wisely and discreetly. I don't know what would happen if they were to find out I had leaked this.
Thank you for this very important information. I will now place this information in a folder marked "Secret" because everyone knows that is the best way of securing things.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to terrify people who are only trying to help and fight robots from the future. FREELANCER POWERS, ACTIVATE!
Thank you for this very important information. I will now place this information in a folder marked "Secret" because everyone knows that is the best way of securing things.
For extra security, place it in a locked box with a big red button labeled, "WARNING: DO NOT PRESS."
Okay, what the actual hell, Guru. First you refuse to look into Evil Dead/Army of Darkness ever, then you go and watch an Army of Darkness style Oz movie by the director of Evil Dead/Army of Darkness.
Excuse me while I just
Might I suggest that we kidnap him and "reeducate" him, clockwork Orange style!
That's the part that didn't work for me, so in the end she just seemed crazy (which she may well have been, but it didn't make me sympathetic to her character, and I think I was supposed to be). I guess I just didn't buy into it emotionally.
Ahhh that makes sense!
Eh. I buy into it. Sometimes girls get reaaaaaally clingy after sex.
Or else why Ash?
If they couldn't get Bruce, in a game centered around voices, they hopefully would have chosen a character who's actor they could get.
Sex doesn't exist in Disney movies! I'm sure that beneath their underthings they're all like Ken and Barbie dolls.
See, that's where I am on the issue of JK Rowling telling someone that Dumbledore is gay.
Now, I mean no offense to gay people when I say this, but Harry Potter is a children's/family story, and while there is romance between characters, sex itself in no way enters into the reader's mind while reading it. The very nature of singling a character out for their sexual orientation, when the story makes no mention of it whatsoever, and when it in no way changes the character's motives in the story, is ludicrous and nothing more than pandering to the gay community.
Again, this isn't a bash on gays; this is my complaint about injecting the topic of sex (gay sex in this instance) where to do so makes no benefit whatsoever to the story and also doesn't fit considering the sensitivity and mature nature of raising such a topic when the target audience is supposed to be kids.
It's like discussing racial equality with regard to the story by saying Lavender Brown is supposed to be black or something, when who the hell cares and what difference does it make to even bring it up?
EDIT: I'm not saying that someone being gay bothers me. I'm saying that my opinion on difference in race is "Who cares? You're a person same as me so it doesn't matter." And for me it's the same with being gay: If someone is black, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it? If someone is gay, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it?
I'm just sick of people injecting the topic into a discussion where it's not warranted, necessary, nor applicable--merely pandering.
So Rowling thought that some character in her children's novels loved men.
Where's the instantaneous connection to sex here?
Secret:
Nowhere.
Romance in a family oriented franchise is not always limited to boy + girl and hasn't been for, what, decades now. "Gay" doesn't mean "gay sex". For all we know, this random character in Rowling's perfectly irrelevant books could have been completely chaste for 80 years and STILL adore the male figure more than the female. It's deplorable how much of a fuzz the author's comment generates because it shows that we're still years behind where we should be. "Dumbledore is gay" should have elicited interested nods on the side of the audience, not deafening applause. This is NORMAL. In literature in any case.
Did I just read Chyron compare race to sexual orientation, then say it doesn't matter if someone is black? Look, races are different and should take pride in their culture and race, and not in the white pride way. White knighting the issue while saying you don't want to hear about it or acknowledge those differences is almost always a sneaky ploy to be against a race or sexual orientation without having to feel bigoted for it, because you're hiding behind a fake defense of the thing you fear while your defense falls apart on itself. The problem is equating race or sexual preference with one's status as a human being when race and love are separate from that status. Trying to make the race gay titles go away is looking at it from the wrong perspective, skirting it so you don't have to show it the respect it deserves.
The hour long special of 'Life's Too Short' (shown on BBC2 earlier) was a damp squib. Of course, some would argue that the series in general was a washout but I happened to enjoy it (even if it's nowhere near as brilliant as 'The Office' and 'Extras').
It was quite frankly bizarre. Warwick Davis was sidelined, to make room for the 'Les, Keith & Shawn' show!
Honestly, when I heard about Dumbledore... it just kinda made sense. I mean the fact that there's not a Mrs. Dumbledore said to me that there was some long lost love in there somewhere, who either wasn't alive or wasn't available. And when Dumbledore lied about seeing a pair of socks in the Mirror of Erised, well, just makes a ton of sense why he was lying when you know that it was probably Grindlewald that he saw in that mirror. I mean, it wouldn't do to have the greatest good wizard of all time telling The Boy that Lived that he used to (and still does) have a thing for the greatest Dark wizard before Voldemort.
However, pushing all this aside, and while I don't really think it matters one way or another, not once is the subject really touched on in the context of the book. It makes sense, yes, in that context, but fearing for the kiddy-winks is kinda pointless because a kid would just read through the book and probably never notice it. Or if they did notice it, they'd probably just accept it as a thing that is in the story and move on without it adversely affecting anything.
Makes me think of that dealio with ParaNorman. It just isn't a huge deal. I mean, why didn't anyone complain when that Prince Charming woke up Sleeping Beauty with a kiss? I mean, that is a blatant sexual thing... and she was asleep in a bed! I mean, talk about nonconsensual! And who knows what happened afterwards!
Makes me think of that dealio with ParaNorman. It just isn't a huge deal. I mean, why didn't anyone complain when that Prince Charming woke up Sleeping Beauty with a kiss? I mean, that is a blatant sexual thing... and she was asleep in a bed! I mean, talk about nonconsensual! And who knows what happened afterwards!
Doesn't work, at least not the Disney version. There's an early scene between Aurora and prince Phillip, and they instantly fall in love apparently. It is why he's bent on freeing Aurora from her sleep prison thingy.
If you're talking about the original Sleeping Beauty, there's two versions, one where yes, the prince basically rapes the princess, and her infant son sucks the poison out of her finger tips, and the other where the prince doesn't even do so much as kneel in front of her, causing the curse to be broken. Sure there might be one or two versions where she's saved with a kiss, but the previous two are the more common ones.
See, that's where I am on the issue of JK Rowling telling someone that Dumbledore is gay.
Now, I mean no offense to gay people when I say this, but Harry Potter is a children's/family story, and while there is romance between characters, sex itself in no way enters into the reader's mind while reading it. The very nature of singling a character out for their sexual orientation, when the story makes no mention of it whatsoever, and when it in no way changes the character's motives in the story, is ludicrous and nothing more than pandering to the gay community.
Again, this isn't a bash on gays; this is my complaint about injecting the topic of sex (gay sex in this instance) where to do so makes no benefit whatsoever to the story and also doesn't fit considering the sensitivity and mature nature of raising such a topic when the target audience is supposed to be kids.
It's like discussing racial equality with regard to the story by saying Lavender Brown is supposed to be black or something, when who the hell cares and what difference does it make to even bring it up?
EDIT: I'm not saying that someone being gay bothers me. I'm saying that my opinion on difference in race is "Who cares? You're a person same as me so it doesn't matter." And for me it's the same with being gay: If someone is black, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it? If someone is gay, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it?
I'm just sick of people injecting the topic into a discussion where it's not warranted, necessary, nor applicable--merely pandering.
I have to say, I thought it was a needless addition. I think she only said it to create publicity. It is kind of cool that he is, it gives kids a role model of sorts. When you are around the age those books are intended for (9-15) and gay, having the most respected and powerful person in your favourite book being gay would do wonders for self confidence. At that age, you fear rejection from people finding out about the way you are. But given that it's not exactly explicit in the book (loosely implied), that that reasoning falls on its face. It was an after thought, with no hinting at it before the last book.
I don't think it's anymore out of place (sex wise) then the Ron/Lavender relationship. It also raises the question, do wizards get sex education?
Comments
That's the part that didn't work for me, so in the end she just seemed crazy (which she may well have been, but it didn't make me sympathetic to her character, and I think I was supposed to be). I guess I just didn't buy into it emotionally.
Ahhh that makes sense!
Thank you for this very important information. I will now place this information in a folder marked "Secret" because everyone knows that is the best way of securing things.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to terrify people who are only trying to help and fight robots from the future. FREELANCER POWERS, ACTIVATE!
For extra security, place it in a locked box with a big red button labeled, "WARNING: DO NOT PRESS."
Might I suggest that we kidnap him and "reeducate" him, clockwork Orange style!
Eh. I buy into it. Sometimes girls get reaaaaaally clingy after sex.
Sex doesn't exist in Disney movies! I'm sure that beneath their underthings they're all like Ken and Barbie dolls.
I agree. That cutaway scene with flames leaping into the air? An allusion to making butterscotch cookies.
This is on my mind.
I'm not even gonna ask.
Oh, WAN MOAHR THEENG....
I'm sure you already asked him. Y'know, when he came along to the Telltale recording studio.
Shut up. Shut. Up. No. Don't tease me. Just no. Did he really?
Or else why Ash?
If they couldn't get Bruce, in a game centered around voices, they hopefully would have chosen a character who's actor they could get.
Through rape? :eek:
Hmm...
Think about it. There are fixed voice actor names tied to EVERY ONE of the participating fictional characters. Why fail here? Makes no sense.
You're a character in Poker Night 2?
Yay!
Woo! It's like a Telltale family reunion!
Welcome back, sir.
I've signed a NDA*, so I can't possibly comment.
* NDA stands for 'none dependable association'.
The man from the Internet; he say "yay"!
Why, thank you kindly. 'Tis an absolute pleasure to be back for a brief while.
Don't get puzzlebox' hopes up there.
Hooray! Hello!
Anyone know if Sony still accepts repairs for the old units?
Howdy, you wonderful box o' puzzles, you.
I dunno how much they charge. Perhaps you should look into whether there are local repair shops who will charge less and/or take less time.
O Frabjous Day! Calloo, Callay!
See, that's where I am on the issue of JK Rowling telling someone that Dumbledore is gay.
Now, I mean no offense to gay people when I say this, but Harry Potter is a children's/family story, and while there is romance between characters, sex itself in no way enters into the reader's mind while reading it. The very nature of singling a character out for their sexual orientation, when the story makes no mention of it whatsoever, and when it in no way changes the character's motives in the story, is ludicrous and nothing more than pandering to the gay community.
Again, this isn't a bash on gays; this is my complaint about injecting the topic of sex (gay sex in this instance) where to do so makes no benefit whatsoever to the story and also doesn't fit considering the sensitivity and mature nature of raising such a topic when the target audience is supposed to be kids.
It's like discussing racial equality with regard to the story by saying Lavender Brown is supposed to be black or something, when who the hell cares and what difference does it make to even bring it up?
EDIT: I'm not saying that someone being gay bothers me. I'm saying that my opinion on difference in race is "Who cares? You're a person same as me so it doesn't matter." And for me it's the same with being gay: If someone is black, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it? If someone is gay, then they are. Big deal. Who cares. Why mention it?
I'm just sick of people injecting the topic into a discussion where it's not warranted, necessary, nor applicable--merely pandering.
Where's the instantaneous connection to sex here?
Secret:
Romance in a family oriented franchise is not always limited to boy + girl and hasn't been for, what, decades now. "Gay" doesn't mean "gay sex". For all we know, this random character in Rowling's perfectly irrelevant books could have been completely chaste for 80 years and STILL adore the male figure more than the female. It's deplorable how much of a fuzz the author's comment generates because it shows that we're still years behind where we should be. "Dumbledore is gay" should have elicited interested nods on the side of the audience, not deafening applause. This is NORMAL. In literature in any case.
It was quite frankly bizarre. Warwick Davis was sidelined, to make room for the 'Les, Keith & Shawn' show!
What a shame.
However, pushing all this aside, and while I don't really think it matters one way or another, not once is the subject really touched on in the context of the book. It makes sense, yes, in that context, but fearing for the kiddy-winks is kinda pointless because a kid would just read through the book and probably never notice it. Or if they did notice it, they'd probably just accept it as a thing that is in the story and move on without it adversely affecting anything.
Makes me think of that dealio with ParaNorman. It just isn't a huge deal. I mean, why didn't anyone complain when that Prince Charming woke up Sleeping Beauty with a kiss? I mean, that is a blatant sexual thing... and she was asleep in a bed! I mean, talk about nonconsensual! And who knows what happened afterwards!
Doesn't work, at least not the Disney version. There's an early scene between Aurora and prince Phillip, and they instantly fall in love apparently. It is why he's bent on freeing Aurora from her sleep prison thingy.
If you're talking about the original Sleeping Beauty, there's two versions, one where yes, the prince basically rapes the princess, and her infant son sucks the poison out of her finger tips, and the other where the prince doesn't even do so much as kneel in front of her, causing the curse to be broken. Sure there might be one or two versions where she's saved with a kiss, but the previous two are the more common ones.
I know, because I did research for my novel.
I don't think it's anymore out of place (sex wise) then the Ron/Lavender relationship. It also raises the question, do wizards get sex education?
Who isn't?