Jk Rowling is twisted! How dare she make a gay character out of her series that is aimed at children. Whethere adults read it or not, it is still a children’s series and a character’s sexual orientation has no place in a fantasy world aimed at children! Ive lost total respect for this woman!
41 comments
OH NOES! NOT TEH GHEYZ!!!
TEH SATANIC GHEY AGENDA GOT THEM INTO BOOKS NOW!!!
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!
cool cats imitation of a hysterical fundie.
Go hide under a rock hysterical fundie.
And for that matter, we'd better not have any Jews, blacks, women, dancers, poor people, scientists, or lefties in children's literature, either.
BECAUSE IT'S HER OWN GODDAMNED WORLD DO WITH WHAT SHE WANTS, FUCKFACE.
Also, agreeing with Osiris.
Oh no, how dare she retrospectively raise the issue of homosexuality in a children's series that has quite a few descriptive accounts of passionate kisses between characters and deals with the concepts of death and evil. Clearly, though sexuality is totally okay for children, homo sexuality is a step too far. It's this that makes the series unsuitable for children, not the accounts of murder and torture in the book.
Get a fucking grip. The target audience of the Harry Potter series is well equipped with the mental faculties to deal with any homosexual themes in the book; implicit or otherwise. If they don't, they probably shouldn't be reading in the first place.
I don't have much respect for her either, but that's because she's a copyright abuser.
But I'm surprised how many people assume it was either a joke or a publicity stunt. Is there any reason to think it wasn't a real honest answer? (She was asked in he ever found love.)
It's not unusual for authors to make up detailed back-stories that don't get directly mentioned in their books.
"...a character’s sexual orientation has no place in a fantasy world aimed at children!..."
I'd think that she agrees with you seeing as she never mentioned anything explicitly sexual in any of the books aimed at a younger audience. There began to be explicitly heterosexual passages in the later books, but aside from her specifically saying it in person (not in the books) there's no indication of any character being homosexual.
a character’s sexual orientation has no place in a fantasy world aimed at children!
Okay, take out all the dating, crushes, kisses and weddings in the book. None of that garbage about the characters' heterosexuality should be in there.
You know what's funny? JK rowling has given hundreds of interviews, she has often stated things about the series that never appear in the books and most people don't know virtually anything of this info. The reason now everyone knows about this is because fudies went into bitchy puritan mode and started screaming everywhere that Dumbledore was gay. While criticising that children would read about a gay character, they made sure they found out about it.
"a character’s sexual orientation has no place in a fantasy world aimed at children!" ... but the fact that the books showed boy characters being attracted to girls doesn't count!
(Dammit, #340856 beat me to it)
Uh. Okay. I'll make sure and pull Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Shrek, Rapunzel, and like everything else except Pat the Bunny from the Kids' section.
Oh, wait, you don't actually mean "sexual orientation" do you? Just the gay kind.
question: Why does a person's orientation matter?
If they never went out of their way to mention it, you would go right along treating them like everyone else. Why does that suddenly stop when you people learn something new about a person that they never saw fit to even mention because it doesn't freaking matter?
There is a strong allusion to the characters' sexuality since the beginning of the series. James and Lily had a son, ergo they must have had sex. But ok, maybe the reader is a kid, maybe he thinks they had children by way of storks, or praying, or magic. Then there's Percy's girlfriend, mentioned at least since the second book. The boys' dormitories are separated from the girls', for an implicit reason. Harry "falls in love" with Cho in the fourth book, ACTUALLY DATES her in the fifth. Meanwhile most secondary characters are involved in romantic relations.
The problem here is not that REW has a problem with sexuality in his novels, but just with one specific kind of sexuality. And considering JK never said anything about a love interest for Dumbledore, you can't even assume he had any sex whatsoever, or at least not any more than you can about the characters that HAVE CHILDREN before the book is over.
Spoiler alert!
Doesn't Ms Rowling say somewhere that the first book is aimed at 11-year-olds and up, the second at 12-year-olds, etc?
REW, have you even read the books? I'd think it's much more traumatizing for children that Sirius Black and Fred Weasley (among others) die.
The potential sexual relations of a very old man is not anything children bother themselves with.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
