Volume 10?

[Ambi Valent]

I think writers sometimes sneak in a tribute to other stuff without making it too obvious. In case of SHnY, I'm unsure if "Haruhi no dan" and "SOS" are such references. It's just too obscure in Japan. (Otherwise, everything fits: aliens, espers, time travellers and an extremely strong willed and ruthless female character - everything in an SF setting, not a school setting, of course)

(If by reading this you got curious about "SOS from outer space" - if you see this movie, run into the other direction, because compared to it, Highlander II is a supreme work of art. Why the hell would anyone first buy SF movie rights and then place the characters in a gangster movie?)

[Rectifier]

Irregardless, other writers, like Stephen King, outright say in JK Rowling's defense that she's one of the best writers of the modern era. Stephen King > Orson Scott Card imo.

Uh-huh.

I don't trust Stephen King's or Orson Scott Card's opinions on the matter, I look at the facts and analyze her series to form my own opinion.

I think the deal buster is that Rowling decided to side comment that Dumbledore was gay at a book signing. Clearly that character was not written as gay, so why bother announcing that? Attention seeking of course. I've read books about gay characters, Harry Potter has no literary elements or themes that even imply homosexuality within the series. So tell me why I should respect somebody as a writer who does that? I don't. I don't respect her because she isn't honest within her own writing.

[AuraTwilight]

Really? You didn't see ANY hints of Dumbledore's homosexuality? I thought it was pretty obvious, especially given his whole thing with protecting and helping the smaller minorities and such, like Muggle-born, Squibs, etc. He's not any of the following; he comes from a very high and noble wizarding family and it'd be even worse writing to have him be such a cool and nice guy for the sake of itself. But given that it was already implied that Black, Lupine, etc. had atleast homosexual flings, and Dumbledore was a close associate of them, it was pretty obvious in retrospect.


Besides, even if she didn't make it obvious, can you really blame her, considering the controversy her books get from Moral Guardians? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Kaisos Erranon]

But given that it was already implied that Black, Lupine, etc. had atleast homosexual flings

When was this implied?

What made it obvious that Dumbledore was gay in retrospect, however, was that he was a wee bit too obsessed with whatshisname... the wizard he was friends with when he was little.

[Rectifier]

Really? You didn't see ANY hints of Dumbledore's homosexuality? I thought it was pretty obvious, especially given his whole thing with protecting and helping the smaller minorities and such, like Muggle-born, Squibs, etc. He's not any of the following; he comes from a very high and noble wizarding family and it'd be even worse writing to have him be such a cool and nice guy for the sake of itself.

So wait...one reason you think he's a homosexual is because he isn't a racist? If anything, this just means that Dumbledore is a symbol for the good in humanity, not in being a liberal or gay person. I'm probably misunderstanding this so I'm moving on.

Like I said before, if the author has to say something in public to identify a characterization in her book for people to notice it, then it is poor handwriting, regardless of if she meant that characterization or not.

Imagine writing a long essay where nobody knows a particular theme in it until you point out one or two sentences, seemingly at random, that establish it after the fact. What do you think their initial reaction would be? Imagine what a professor's reaction would be? I know. "I had no idea you meant for that to be an important part in your essay because only one or two sentences talk about it in the middle your five paragraph essay..."

I've read a book where one of the main themes is the inner conflict one of the characters has with his homosexuality, it is hinted at from nearly the first few pages of the book all the way to him accepting himself two thirds through the book.

With Dumbledore's case, in all seven books, there are perhaps one to two sentences per book, and several in the last book that can implicate homosexuality, a pittance compared to the hundreds of lines spent on Dumbledore's character development.

I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion of the character, I'm just sharing my own thoughts on the subject.
Of course I'm biased, but I try to make myself a little impartial.

[Kaisos Erranon]

...Er, maybe because a) He's not in denial about it, and b) It's NOT the major focus or the point of his character?

He's gay. So what? Lots of people are gay and you can't even tell.

[Rectifier]

My original point was that Rowling has little literary skill, it's not about whether Dumbledore actually is gay or not, it's about whether she actually intended to write him to be seen as that way or simply claimed that it was hidden in her writing in order to gain public attention and academic speculation (and eventually academic praise, which did not happen).

When considering that point and reading how poorly written her other characters are in the series, especially in the seventh book, it becomes obvious that she did not mean for Dumbledore to be written like that; it is merely a self serving action in an attempt to gain respect.

[AuraTwilight]

So wait...one reason you think he's a homosexual is because he isn't a racist? If anything, this just means that Dumbledore is a symbol for the good in humanity, not in being a liberal or gay person. I'm probably misunderstanding this so I'm moving on.

Not just a supporter of lesser races, but lesser idealologies, lesser political factions, lesser everything. I'm saying that this makes perfect sense with his homosexuality, as it gives him a very personal reason for him to be such a caring, sympathetic individual, and thus not an asspull. Personally, I always theorized he had SOME sort of secret, like "Oh, he's probably something that gets a lot of discrimination, like he's secretly gay, or part Muggle, or a relative of Voldemort or something. Or Harry Potter from the future."

Like I said before, if the author has to say something in public to identify a characterization in her book for people to notice it, then it is poor handwriting, regardless of if she meant that characterization or not.

A google search will show you that people were theorizing on Dumbledore being a possible homosexual as early as the fifth book.

With Dumbledore's case, in all seven books, there are perhaps one to two sentences per book, and several in the last book that can implicate homosexuality, a pittance compared to the hundreds of lines spent on Dumbledore's character development.

Because his being gay wasn't really all that important to the story? Assuming JK Rowling didn't make a single reference in the text to his sexuality (which she did), it's not really something worth the focus. JK Rowling didn't say "Oh, he's gay" she said "I always sort of imagined he was probably gay." Markedly different? Yessir.

...Er, maybe because a) He's not in denial about it, and b) It's NOT the major focus or the point of his character?

He's gay. So what? Lots of people are gay and you can't even tell.

Exactly. We never see things form Dumbledore's point of view, so how is JK going to tell us this element? "Hi, Harry, I'm dying from a wound Snape gave me. Oh, and I'm gay." Dies.

My original point was that Rowling has little literary skill, it's not about whether Dumbledore actually is gay or not, it's about whether she actually intended to write him to be seen as that way or simply claimed that it was hidden in her writing in order to gain public attention and academic speculation (and eventually academic praise, which did not happen).

As she said herself, his sexuality was mostly an afterthought that she didn't put a lot of conscious development on. You're ragging her in the same way I could rag on Orson Scott Card for not establishing Ender's favorite genre of literature, which he gave in an interview in the early nineties as including "lost, historical classics" like the Illiad.

When considering that point and reading how poorly written her other characters are in the series, especially in the seventh book, it becomes obvious that she did not mean for Dumbledore to be written like that; it is merely a self serving action in an attempt to gain respect.

I'm not getting the impression of any of her major characters being poorly written. You seem to have this image that a writer has to incorporate every goddamned fact into the space of their text, and if they ever hypothetically extend on it outside of the text in conversation, they're a BAD WRITUR. I'll remember this next time Tanigawa mentions Tsuruya in an interview.

[Rectifier]

Some of my "lolbadwriting" gripes encompass the ending chapters of her last book. I'm sorry, but when Harry suddenly "understood" everything without any notion of him puzzling it out just made no sense.

Relationships played an extremely important role in determining the plot.
Portraying Dumbledore as a seemingly normal or neutral character in terms of relationships and then declaring him as homosexual seems childish and stupid when she described his relationships with male wizards as more of companionship or friendship than anything sexual. Think about Frodo and Sam, I'm sure Tolkien didn't think it was homosexual at all to have close male friends, so he wrote it that way; yet clearly the elements for homosexuality are there for people who do not interpret it the same way. Why should we interpret Dumbledore as having gay relationships rather than simply as a close friends?
It's easy to make ambiguous relationships clear with dialogue, but she chose not to, and avoided the issue until after the majority of sales were over. By avoiding it, I mean she didn't write about it seriously. Why bother writing about an interesting character's relationships ambiguously? She was afraid that writing about a gay character would hurt sales or her reputation, so she chose to say it instead. I don't think that shows writing integrity on her part.

[Kaisos Erranon]

Some of my "lolbadwriting" gripes encompass the ending chapters of her last book. I'm sorry, but when Harry suddenly "understood" everything without any notion of him puzzling it out just made no sense.

Yes, the last part of that book was rushed. However, you can't deny that the army of angry house-elves wielding kitchen implements, Neville cutting off the snake's head, and "NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU B'ITCH!" weren't awesome.

Besides, the same kind of complaint can be leveled at almost anything. It's just that popular things seem to be more of an acceptable target for some people.

Relationships played an extremely important role in determining the plot.
Portraying Dumbledore as a seemingly normal or neutral character in terms of relationships and then declaring him as homosexual seems childish and stupid when she described his relationships with male wizards as more of companionship or friendship than anything sexual. Think about Frodo and Sam, I'm sure Tolkien didn't think it was homosexual at all to have close male friends, so he wrote it that way; yet clearly the elements for homosexuality are there for people who do not interpret it the same way. Why should we interpret Dumbledore as having gay relationships rather than simply as a close friends?

I haven't really read much of LotR, so I don't know how the book portrayed it, but I do know that in the movie they acted SO TOTALLY GAY for each other.

It wasn't just "close male friendship" it was "uncomfortably close male friendship". The final scenes in Mordor honestly felt like they were confessing their deep, passionate love for one another.

And as to why we should interpret Dumbledore as being gay? (Not having 'gay relationships', I doubt his feelings were ever reciprocated.) Because he only had close male friendships, and there has never been any evidence of him having any sort of close relationship with a woman (other than his sister) outside of that required by his job.

This, interestingly, is why Rowling said he was gay in the first place. The filmmakers wanted to introduce some element of Dumbledore having a past relationship with some woman, and she wrote "Dumbledore is gay"on the script. I think.

At least Sam had Rosie...

It's easy to make ambiguous relationships clear with dialogue, but she chose not to, and avoided the issue until after the majority of sales were over. By avoiding it, I mean she didn't write about it seriously. Why bother writing about an interesting character's relationships ambiguously? She was afraid that writing about a gay character would hurt sales or her reputation, so she chose to say it instead. I don't think that shows writing integrity on her part.

Uh, no. Again, Dumbledore's sexual orientation isn't the point of his character. It wasn't brought up at all in the books because it doesn't really matter.

It's just a side note on the character, nothing more, nothing less.

[quigonkenny]

So wait...one reason you think he's a homosexual is because he isn't a racist? If anything, this just means that Dumbledore is a symbol for the good in humanity, not in being a liberal or gay person. I'm probably misunderstanding this so I'm moving on.

Not just a supporter of lesser races, but lesser idealologies, lesser political factions, lesser everything. I'm saying that this makes perfect sense with his homosexuality, as it gives him a very personal reason for him to be such a caring, sympathetic individual, and thus not an asspull. Personally, I always theorized he had SOME sort of secret, like "Oh, he's probably something that gets a lot of discrimination, like he's secretly gay, or part Muggle, or a relative of Voldemort or something. Or Harry Potter from the future."

I still don't get how supporting "the underdog" means you have to be some kind of underdog yourself. That's just the same old liberal "you can't understand me because you aren't like me" claptrap that has always just struck me as a cheap way to try to weasel out of a losing argument.

Like I said before, if the author has to say something in public to identify a characterization in her book for people to notice it, then it is poor handwriting, regardless of if she meant that characterization or not.

A google search will show you that people were theorizing on Dumbledore being a possible homosexual as early as the fifth book.

You can't be seriously using this as an argument... I defy you to find one major character in the Harry Potter series—hell, any major book series, Haruhi included—that a Google Search won't turn up theories on their latent (or not so latent) homosexuality. An entire genre of fanfic (some would say the entirety of fanfic) is built around this!! Any "oppressed minority", be it gays, blacks, geeks, women, white anglo-saxon Protestant males, otaku, etc., is going to look for parallels to characters in literature (or film, or television, but it's easier when you can't actually see the character) in order to help their ego, whether it's to assuage their perceived inferiority or feed their inner persecution complex. It's human nature.

With Dumbledore's case, in all seven books, there are perhaps one to two sentences per book, and several in the last book that can implicate homosexuality, a pittance compared to the hundreds of lines spent on Dumbledore's character development.

Because his being gay wasn't really all that important to the story? Assuming JK Rowling didn't make a single reference in the text to his sexuality (which she did), it's not really something worth the focus. JK Rowling didn't say "Oh, he's gay" she said "I always sort of imagined he was probably gay." Markedly different? Yessir.

Yes, it gives greater credence to the idea that she didn't actually write him as gay, but instead decided after the fact (perhaps after seeing a few too many Frodo-Sam parallels in her writing) to suggest he might be gay to make herself look more "progressive" and drive more attention away from her plotless monster of a last book and inability to write anything other than thinly veiled allegory of Ender's Game, which is the whole point of the "gay" argument.

Well, maybe not the Ender's Game bit. That was just hella funny... ^_^

Are you for real? Her writing ability and her actions show that she doesn't deserve any respect from the literary community and from honest human beings.

http://www.linearpublishing.com/RhinoStory.html
^ Case in Point

I don't see what JK Rowling's character as a person has to do with the quality of her writing.

A solid point. Should have stuck to that argument rather than try to defend her "after-the-fact" characterizations as if they were something they obviously weren't or bring up Card's religious views like that should automatically win you the argument...

[Kaisos Erranon]

Yes, it gives greater credence to the idea that she didn't actually write him as gay, but instead decided after the fact (perhaps after seeing a few too many Frodo-Sam parallels in her writing) to suggest he might be gay to make herself look more "progressive" and drive more attention away from her plotless monster of a last book and inability to write anything other than thinly veiled allegory of Ender's Game, which is the whole point of the "gay" argument.

Hey, I liked the last book. Broke out of the tired formula of the past 6 (for the most part) and, you know, actually concluded most of the major plot threads.

And Ender's Game was original? You can see parallels to plenty of other books and stories before and after it. It's just the whole Hero's Journey thing, tried and true.

Rowling's work only gets bitched about because it's popular, I've said it before. Plenty of other works have the same pacing and plot issues. Harry Potter just happens to be an acceptable target because everyone who reads 'literature' and considers themselves 'above' such mainstream works insults it.

It wasn't that bad. The Inheritance 'Cycle' and Twilight are way worse.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if Dumbledore's gay or not. I think the story makes a bit more sense if he is, but Dumbledore's sexuality never mattered, and so why should it now?

Rowling may be an ugly attention whore but that shouldn't affect how we view her books.

Also Dumbledore is gay because his creator said he is. And that's all that should matter.

[onizuka-gto]

ok, enough of the Larry-wut?-Potty stuff,


back on topic please.

[b0mb3r]

ok, enough of the Larry-wut?-Potty stuff,


back on topic please.

um.

when is it coming out lol? answer: unknown

could be unrelated but the new wii game of haruhi shown a some characters i haven't seen. here's a clip if you want:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/46938.html

some reason i think the pigtail girl at 3:06 is the slider. i mean i feel like games on haruhi is an excuse to use sliders on why the game works (not mechanically)

[Kaisos Erranon]

That's actually very interesting.

What's the plot like, or does anyone know?