Good to know

good to know

Attached: Untitled.jpg (620x656, 94K)

She didn't retcon or reveal any new information. She said the two were gay like a decade ago and had a turbulent relationship, and now just very slightly clarified on it and you people are acting as if she announced that you the reader are gay. Does it really upset you so much that she dislikes Corbyn and doesn't believe men in dresses are women to obsess over her this much? Not even liberals care about Harry Potter and Rowling as much as you people do.

Why do people give a shit about this? I know it was superimposed into the book for purposes of inclusivity (there's a case to be made for this being a good thing), but people are now acting as if she's committing treason against her own work. It's her world; let her do whatever the fuck she wants with it.

I'd like to have an intense sexual relationship with J.K. Rowling, if you know what I mean.

If she doesn't write a book about the homo-adventures of gandalf then she's a hack and a fraud. Human scum. Come at me rowling, I know you're reading this you stuck up hypocritical hag fad who can't actually write books anymore becuase you're old and a has been, your hair is greying you pompeos twat, you tremendous pseud of biblical proportions.

I highly doubt that she had been waiting for nearly two decades to release this information about central characters of the story. It's disingenuous hackery meant to capitalize on today's political trends.

Rowling has a nice titties. Just google it!

>May 2019
>oh btw everyone, Voldemort's muggle name and muggle form is Donald John Trump

LOL

Do you know Tolkien decried 'allegory and topical reference' in the foreword to the Lord of the Rings before declaring it a 'Catholic work' many years later? Is it your position that a work should only be interpreted through the lens of the author's INITIAL intent? Was Tolkien then wrong about LOTR being Catholic? Or was he a disingenuous hack trying to sell books to Catholic parents?

Dumbledore has that sweet bussy. Also, Nymphadora Tonks was born a man

Yeah I'm sure the late 20th century featured Catholic cultural hegemony.

Kys my dude for missing the point this hard.

>HARRY DID YOU PUT YOUR PHALLUS IN THE BACKSIDE OF GRINDLEWALD

Attached: Angry-Dumbledore.jpg (500x282, 15K)

>Yeah I'm sure the late 20th century featured Catholic cultural hegemony.
So apply the same logic. J.K. Rowling is a lefty progressive. It makes sense that she would want to include this in her work. Just like Tolkien, as a Catholic, included Catholic elements in his works.

She literally doesn't include it in her works though unless you think tweets count

I don't think even lefty progressives were thinking about this shit 20 years ago. You forget how quickly social changes have been accelerating. We went from DOMA to Obergefell v. Hodges in less than 20 years. Hell, we went from bipartisan barrier on the US-Mexico border to border security is racist in less than 10 years.

It's naked opportunism, pure and simple. There is an astronomically low chance that J. K. Rowling is capable of thinking that far ahead.

>tfw you go back to the seventh book and try changing all the passages containing the word "wang" into "wand"

Without a moment's hesitation, Dumbledore thrust his wand into Grindelwald's hand. It was warm to the touch and seemed to pulsate to the beat of Dumbledore's own heart. "Your wand is magnificent, Dumbledore," Grindelwald said, brushing his fingers against Dumbledore's wand, playfully diddling the tip. Immediately he knew Dumbledore's wand to have perfect heft, an ideal balance of length and girth. Dumbledore's wand was meant to be held in these hands, to become as much a part of Gellert Grindelwald as it was a part of Dumbledore. Dumbledore's wand smelled faintly of pine and elderberry.

Attached: 433.jpg (2988x1680, 421K)

Again, neither did Tolkien. He may have done it subconsciously but he explicitly denounces such interpretations of his work in the foreword. Applying your logic:
>Tolkien never included Catholic elements in his works unless you count the subsequent comments he made on it in a letter.

i wonder what she pleasures herself to at night, the ships she comes up with in her head, the fan fics she makes head cannon after reading, or the blue balls and popped forhead veins of the witchcraft and degeneracy camps.

IIRC he claims in the foreword that he dislikes intentional (read forced) allegory, not allegorical interpretations which arise organically.

But there's Christian theology peppered everywhere in his works. You cannot know his background and still see this. With Rowling you get that maybe Nazis and ethnic cleansings are bad and nothing else.

Authors intent have no particular relevance whatsoever.

The book is what is written and its interpretations. J.K. Rowling's commentaries about character's sexuality doesn't follow anywhere from the story, nor it is relevant in any way.

"Revealing" aka retconning a lot of convenient PC things after the fact eh. How come she doesn't reveal something not currently PC

>The book is what is written and its interpretations
What is written(and by extension the interpretations) is informed by the author's intent

This is the most pseud statement I've ever read. Go back to your rose emoji twitter group or try actually reading a book ever lol.

Rowling, Joanne. A favorite between the ages of 8 and 14, but no longer. Clumsy and vulgar, a prophet. Essentially a writer for very young people. Bogus in the large sense.

So is hogwarts a den of homosexual debauchery or is it as portrayed originally? Will she ever reveal that Harry is actually is closet racist?

The interpretations follow from what is written, but the author has no more authority on the text interpretation than the academic.
And the interepretation must follow from an analysis of the text. Rowling's rambings follow nowhere from what she has written.

Except when the author has more followers on Twitter than all of academia put together.

In which case her retcons actually become patchnotes, like for software. New facts out of nothing.

>they were super duper gay! They constantly fucked each other up the ass and sucked each other off and went to gay bars and did other super gay things!
>*doesn't show any of this in either the books or the films*
This is the definition of virtue signaling. Either put your money where your mouth is and show their homosexuality or shut up.

P.S. Lmao at the person who is trying to defend her by bringing up the fact that Tolkien once elaborated on the deeper meaning of his work. There's a huge difference between a pre-internet author talking about his work and an attention-hungry hack retconning her garbage for twitter brownie points. The Lord of the Rings is full of Catholic subtext, whereas Harry Potter never ever explores homosexuality. What makes Rowling all the more contemptible is the Fantastic Beasts flicks have given her an opportunity to explore Dumbledore's sexuality, but she hasn't done this and I bet she never will.

>whereas Harry Potter never ever explores homosexuality
Ummm... Malfoy and Harry??? did u even read the books????

Damn, you've just reminded me of My Immortal.

>the author has no more authority on the text interpretation than the academic.
They do though, if they tell you it was about something then that's what it was about, and you're just misreading it.

That's plainly not what JK is doing here, she's just lying. JK from the period when she wrote it would have been able to tell you the actual purpose

There are two options here: 1. Rowling is telling the truth, she always envisioned Dumbledore as being gay. However, if this is true, then she really fucked up with hinting this to the audience. Only people who were desperately searching for gay context would've suspected Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwand had a sexual element to it. Throughout the entire series, she never touched upon Dumbledore's sexuality. 2. Rowling is full of shit.

I'm pretty sure option 2 is the correct option.

It's the fruit of virtue-signaling on a biased platform. She'll say anything for more fame. It's classic behavior of sell-out artists.

Attached: 1552121937331.jpg (622x809, 83K)