http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:39:37 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/27/082425.php#comment-646343 He's a faux celebutard who, I think, fancies himself the new Louella Parsons. He likes having pictures taken of himself with real celebutards, in incriminating circumstances if possible. At least, that's my impression. 646343@blogcritics.org Tue, 30 Oct 2007 02:39:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/27/082425.php#comment-646125 Who's Perez Hilton? And why should I give a damn what he says about Dumbledore? Ah, never mind. Don't bother answering that. There isn't any answer that could persuade me to care what such a person might say, even if he's President Bush's astrologer or whatever. 646125@blogcritics.org Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:14:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/27/082425.php#comment-645953 Nice article. I'm surprised Perez Hilton hasn't shown pictures of Dumbledore with white stuff coming out of his mouth? Or has he? 645953@blogcritics.org Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:54:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/27/082425.php#comment-645646 Kati, If the "re-reading" of the Harry Potter series occurs as seriously as you suspect it might, then it will prove to Joanne Rowling that some things remain better left unsaid. The wisdom that she puts in Dumbledore's mouth is profound. If society demeans it all by making a stink over something that never even appeared in the novels, it will be shame. But, this is is a generation of dogs, reversals whose upbringing is not in them, so it will not be surprising if this "re-reading" of Harry Potter you predict occurs. This brings up one point that I occasionally bring up with my kids, though. That is the general orientation of the books, an orientation which is not too visible, but is clear to anyone with open eyes. Rowling's agenda in her books is diversity and multi-culturalism and plugging its virtues. She uses elves, centaurs and wizards, and the relationships between them to make her points, but she makes the points nevertheless. Perhaps, her comments about Dumbeldore were made in the same spirit. 645646@blogcritics.org Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:03:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/10/27/082425.php#comment-645584 When I started reading this article I thought it was going to be a load of the same jackassery I've been seeing all over the net. Glad to see it wasn't. I understand your concerns. The most vocal people about the "Dumbledore Issue" have been the fundie christians (who KNEW he was evil all along, being a wizard. Now its even WORSE), and the fundie gay activists (why wasn't he GAY in the books?!) For me, Dumbledore's past love for Grindlewald just added another facet to the complexity of an interesting, lovable and deeply complicated person. But the fundie christians have never read the books anyway, and the fundie activists live in a bizarre narrow little world where everything and everyone is either gay or not-gay. But the people who have read and love the books are legion, and these are the people who are going to appreciate the whole picture. People cheered when Rowling answered the question about Dumbledore's love-life, revealing that Dumbledore was gay. Was the entire group at Carnegie Hall gay? Were they all thinking, "Yay, another gay to add to our list!" No, they were Harry Potter fans, and I think they cheered because their understanding of a beloved character had just expanded a bit. So take heart. There are PLENTY of us out here who love Dumbledore, the whole Dumbledore, and aren't going to forget his kindness, his bravery, and his wisdom. 645584@blogcritics.org Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:58:37 EDT