|
|
Post by Sixteen on Oct 22, 2007 14:53:26 GMT -5
I don’t think JK can write romance, she’s a ton better at subetext. Like Remus and Sirius or Ron and Hermione. All the little subtle hints about Ron and Hermione and their cute interactions were so much better than all the drama they went through in the 6th book. I completely agree. The problem is that there wasn't even any subtext for the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship. It seems so out-of-the-blue. |
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Oct 22, 2007 15:20:42 GMT -5
I've only read the 7th book once but I didn't really see any evidence towards Dumbledore/Grindelwald either. After the book I saw people shipping them but these days any HP characters get shipped for any reason. I've seen Blaise Zabini/everyone else just because he had a cool name. From what I remember they were described as really good friends, but I think they talked about how cool Grindelwald was alot or something. I dont know I kind of remember thinking his characterization was weird because he was supposed to be evil and he wasn't always described that way. I'd look it up but I didn't bring the books here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dismay on Oct 22, 2007 15:38:41 GMT -5
Hmmm... I don't think it has changed my perspectives on the books at all....
I remember reading the seven book and thinking that Dumbledore admired Grindlewald, similar to the way Ifghar admires Bylyric in that part of the Ga'Hoolian Guide... but I digress... I thought it was a deep admiration... not really romantic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fancy on Oct 22, 2007 15:39:12 GMT -5
I hate how she said stuff about Hannah Abbott but not Luna. Everyone cares more about Luna. ;-; But she did say stuff about Luna! She became a Wizarding Naturalist and married the grandson of Newt Scamander. Dumbledore wore high heels in the first book. I didn't think anything of it... |
|
|
|
Post by Nicky on Oct 22, 2007 16:53:05 GMT -5
Dumbledore wore high heels in the first book? When?
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Oct 22, 2007 17:48:51 GMT -5
I'm sure Dumbledore's dress robes were pretty long so the important question is, when wasn't Dumbledore wearing high heels?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Oct 22, 2007 18:52:04 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure I'd remember a reference to Dumbledore wearing high heels and I remember no such reference.
Yeah it does seem just forced. There was no subtext, Dumbledore and Grindelwald just interacted the way great minds would, feeding off each other and developing ideas and schoolboy schemes, there was no hint of any sort of romantic feeling in book 7 between them. Besides, Rita Skeeter was clearly out for dirt on Dumbledore, I'm pretty sure that would have gotten mentioned somehow or other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dear Dairy on Oct 22, 2007 19:51:25 GMT -5
The whole thing is just so pointless. I'm not anti-gay by any means, but it seems every work of literature/TV show/movie has to have token random gay characters in order to be "cool." Why can't we let everyone's private lives - including those of fictional characters - BE private? Since, as someone else pointed out, the series is not about Dumbledore, just let him be Dumbledore without adding information about sexuality that does not advance the plot OR the enhance the understanding of the character OR affect the theme of the overall work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fancy on Oct 22, 2007 20:11:12 GMT -5
Dumbledore wore high heels in the first book? When? The first description of Dumbledore: "He was wearing long robes, a purple cloak that swept the ground, and high-heeled, buckled boots." |
|
|
|
Post by Dear Dairy on Oct 22, 2007 21:54:32 GMT -5
Obviously, high heeled boots and what people normally think of as "high heels" are two different things!
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Oct 22, 2007 22:10:51 GMT -5
I think it counts.
On anther note, I hate Meerkat Manor. I can't watch a show where all the characters actually die at the end. We have a poster of it up in our common room and we all signed our names above one and each of our respective meerkats are probably dead right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dear Dairy on Oct 23, 2007 11:59:55 GMT -5
Well, they don't all actually die. There are 50 members of the Whiskers clan. While it's true that many of my favorites have died or disappeared, there are always others to get involved with. Besides, the beginning of every show says that these are the real, life and DEATH adventures of the clan. It's nature, for Pete's sake!
Which one has your name above it?
(OK, off topic, but I have to defend my meerkat buddies.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Charles Vane on Oct 23, 2007 12:42:22 GMT -5
I don't even know who I am, whoever the shortest one is on the poster. While I get that the concept of nature, I don't think its true to life if its being filmed. They're still there, they interfere to a degree and I'm just not a fan of watching animals die. I have an even bigger problem with real newscasts. I mean if something terrible is happening go and make a difference don't sit there filming it. I mean especially with the episode I saw, if you can prevent them for starving and dying miserably for atleast a while then you should do it. There are times when the Prime Directive has to be violated. And assuming the show goes on enough then they will all die, atleast the 50 members that are alive now. And poor little Mozart is all alone and its just depressing and shes probably dead by now anyway.
And for the topic of this thread: I wonder if Dumbledore knew about Sirius and Remus being gay also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Triangle Eyes on Oct 23, 2007 13:30:53 GMT -5
At school we joking about how, in order for JKR to make Dumbledore come out of the closet, she would have to have gone in it, either to push or pull him out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacques the Environmentalist on Oct 23, 2007 23:08:05 GMT -5
Hahaha.
And guys, try to keep to the topic of the thread.
|
|
