Dumbledore is Gay!!!

[a mere housewife]

Reading any amount of literature involves reading about a great deal of immorality: the Greeks worship idols, glorify homosexual love, make human sacrifices, commit adultery and whatnot: Shakespeare has people resorting to seers, sleeping around, murdering one another, and so on. The authors of great literature have often been very immoral people. I don't think Harry Potter is great literature, but its enjoyable reading with a redeemably profound plot, and as for homosexuality it is simply irrelevant to the books. The author being a sinner in need of saving grace just like the author of Brave New World (except that <Brave New World is great literature), and saying ridiculous and unnecessary sinful things, doesn't change that.

The Bible is talking about real witchcraft. Not waving a magic wand and fighting three headed dogs. Or changing Cinderella's old dress into a new one. Tolkien also writes about wizards. For that matter A. A. Milne writes about talking stuffed animals. Where does Piglet get the power?

If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

My thoughts from the post above are more or less confirmed by this article on Fox News:

"Jo Rowling calling any Harry Potter character gay would make wonderful strides in tolerance toward homosexuality," Melissa Anelli, Webmaster of the fan site The Leaky Cauldron: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (book 7), Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (movie 5) news, images, videos, podcast and more, told The Associated Press. "By dubbing someone so respected, so talented and so kind, as someone who just happens to be also homosexual, she's reinforcing the idea that a person's gayness is not something of which they should be ashamed."

"'DUMBLEDORE IS GAY' is quite a headline to stumble upon on a Friday evening, and it's certainly not what I expected," added Potter fan Patrick Ross, of Rutherford, N.J. "(But) a gay character in the most popular series in the world is a big step for Jo Rowling and for gay rights."


Found here.

 

[panta dokimazete]

If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.

Hmm, I am skeptical of this logic - where the author has explicity and knowingly called offense to the people of Christ and to the law of God - I would say that is a discriminating issue.

 

[DMcFadden]

Rowling has taken quite a bit of flak from Christians for the occultic overtones of her magical world of Harry Potter. Sticking it to them (us) one more time with the gay comment will simultaneously endear her to the socio-left and make a martyr out of her when she gets attacked by religious conservatives. Sounds like a pretty shrewd move by her.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

Eh, children are being indoctrinated about homosexuality and this is just another step to blowing the door wide open on the issue, this may be her shrewd way of insuring her books become required reading in Western classrooms, on account to their socially active stances and "diversity" naturally.

 

[Davidius]

If it offends conscience it is certainly sin to read and much more pleasing to God to have nothing to do with her work. I just don't think a case can be made for how HP ought to offend everybody's conscience.

Hmm, I am skeptical of this logic - where the author has explicity and knowingly called offense to the people of Christ and to the law of God - I would say that is a discriminating issue.

Like Paul said, to disassociate with those who profane God's law we would have to go out of the world. We can't do that. I don't see how her attitude toward Christ has anything to do with our reception of her literature.

 

[a mere housewife]

JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.

 

[No Longer A Libertine]

It is obvious that Rowling simply wanted to be mentioned on the Puritanboard so she did what she could to make here, she craves our attention, perhaps even our prayer.

 

[fredtgreco]

JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.

This is a very good point, Heidi, and we Christians should not reject all non-Christian literature.

That said, the difference between those authors you cite and Rowling is that they could write, whereas she cannot.

 

[a mere housewife]

(smiles) Actually, I haven't been able to read her in print, though I've tried. I really enjoy her on audiobook while doing something else; but I don't find her writing -- rewarding enough for the concentration of reading. But then my husband who's every bit the schnob I am can more than stand to read her in print (my brother in law has nicknamed me a 'Harry Potter widow') even though he recognizes she isn't the next Milton....

 

[RamistThomist]

Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.

 

[fredtgreco]

Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.

Actually, no. And to be better than 90% of fantasy literature, is like saying cardboard tastes better than 90% of inedible food.

 

[RamistThomist]

Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.

Actually, no. And to be better than 90% of fantasy literature, is like saying cardboard tastes better than 90% of inedible food.

I used to want to write Fantasy simply because I knew it would be better than most. I never got around to it, though. I was 15 or so. Still think I could have pulled it off.

 

[panta dokimazete]

JD, all authors who live in opposition to Scripture do the same, some more openly than others: Tacitus was openly hostile to Christians. George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, E. Nesbitt, Ivan Turgenev, George Orwell, Rupert Brooks within recent literature were all to varying degrees antagonistically godless. If you give thanks in your abstinence from all such literature it is certainly none of my business and I praise God for your determination and your freedom to live before Him with a clean conscience and would not wish to tempt you to do at all otherwise; but I have not seen a case made from Scripture or reason that all believers ought to do the same: indeed if they did, there would be practically no place for Christians in the arts or fields like philosophy. Paul quoted pagan literature in Scripture, though he paints as black a picture of the pagans as ever could be painted of Rowling.

Heidi, I certainly understand your point - I have read and enjoyed authors such as Issac Asimov, Piers Anthony, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein - all of which excited my young imagination, yet as their writings integrated more and more references to the things that God calls abomination, I laid them aside. Today, I find myself with a son that has an appetite for SciFi/Fantasy, just as I did, so I am able to use that experience to guide him through the "minefield" of pagan literature - to the degree I have influence on him. I dunno, it just seems that there are too many caveats associated with this woman and her writings for me to feel comfortable introducing them into my family. Too much risk for so little reward, In my humble opinion. (Emphasis on the O)

 

[a mere housewife]

JD I sincerely respect your conscientiousness. Right now I don't have kids to worry about.

I think her plot and characters, and her sense of humor are what she had going for her story, that made it a good story in spite of the quality of the writing. Certainly she doesn't compete with Lewis, T. H. White, Chesterton, Nesbitt, Charles Williams -- who isn't so much a good writer but still manages to be an amazing one; with Stephen R. Donaldson more contemporaneously -- somewhat the same; and Tolkien (though I think Tolkien's translations of early English poetry may be better than his fantasy: "Pearl" is really beautiful and very intricate). I haven't read much more fantasy.... Except Madeleine L'Engle and some Raold Dahl, both of whom were better writers, again, though not top tier.

 

[panta dokimazete]

ah! Donaldson - I couldn't even look at white gold for years without getting depressed...

 

[a mere housewife]

I couldn't read it for a few years after we had it, it was so painful.

 

[panta dokimazete]

...exquisite, in a way...I don't think I could reread it.

Do you really consider Rowling to be on his par?

 

[a mere housewife]

No no no. No. No.

(edit: no. She doesn't compete with the other fantasy authors I've read, even Engle or Dahl as a writer; and Donaldson is way out of her class -- yes rather exquisite as you say. Sort of like something set precariously sideways: you keep wondering if it will fall and break -- how can he write so well[i/] and not better? I haven't read I suppose enough bad fantasy because she's actually at the bottom percentage of what I've read.)

 

[panta dokimazete]

oh, ok - was really starting to feel like I had missed out!

thank you for clarifying!

 

[Poimen]

Time magazine has an interesting take here:

Outing Dumbledore - TIME

Though (presumably) writing from a secular the author points out that none of this 'startling' revelation makes any sense with regards to the character as we have known him from the beginning.

 

[Archlute]

Is it world-class literature? No. Is it better than 90% of the fantasy literature out there? Obviously so. There is absolutely NO sex in the book. The violence is there, but is rather tame.

Actually, no. And to be better than 90% of fantasy literature, is like saying cardboard tastes better than 90% of inedible food.

That was great (and my wife and I actually like the first several Potter movies...for eye candy)