Politrukk said:
But you are suddenly changing the dynamic because what was written for 7 books does not include the "gay parents" it very specifically specifies that Lily is a woman and that James is a man and that Severus Snape vied for Lily's affections leading him to become the character he is.
A lot in Harry Potter actually IS tied to classic gender roles.
The problem is that JK Rowling basically invokes Death of the author upon herself both with Black Hermoine,Non Ginger Ron and Gay Dumbledore.
As in the Author JK Rowling that wrote the original 7 books is apparently dead because despite her expressive writing style and the character design choices that she made with the movies coming out.
JK Rowling as an author and in the original books is a very expressive writer she takes every pain and detail to show us that the Weasleys are Ginger that Draco Malfoy is blonde (Actually the entire Mud-blood thing could be interpreted as a race issue where someone like Malfoy fits the blond hair blue eyes stereotype and these others are called MUD-blood mud=brown to my knowledge).
She shows us that Lupin loves Tonks, that Ginny loves Harry,That Fleur loves her Weasley, that Severus loves Lily,etc.
She shows us very clear features for many characters.
Both Hermoine suddenly being black and Dumbledore being gay within her writing style would have featured prominently it is impossible to take how the books were written and then claim from that source alone we should have interpreted it as such.
Rowling is re-interpreting her own work which means she should either amend it:
1 She could write a "Rita Skeeter Article" about Dumbledore's diary being found or something of the kind in which he expresses that he's gay and adding that as "canon" (although this is a bit sketchy).
2 If it's so damn important she could write a pre-quel written from Dumbledores perspective where we actually see him identifying as a gay man.
3 She could re-write the books to suit these new changes (very bad choice to my opinion).
Rowling currently seems to be either A badly and falsely using controversial topics to draw attention back to her work B To be abusing her own writing with bad re-interpretations and additions to illustrate her current opinion on sociopolitical issues.
Back on topic:
I wholeheartedly agree with your view on Abrams's comments.
In our modern society explicitly stating that you're including a gay or a black person just feels like you're doing it for the attention.
Why not cast 5 gays 2 blacks 5 women and then let us see the movie and find out?
Drawing attention to either the character being played being gay or the actor playing the character being gay is doing it for the attention.
Ser Loras Tyrell is uncontroversially gay, Renly Baratheon is uncontroversially gay and Jim Parsons is a gay man that uncontroversially plays a socially awkward straight man in Sheldon Cooper.
There's no reason to point out every gay character in GoT because there are many and it is acceptable.
I think we may be in agreement on the Potter thing. My point was that the detail of Dumbledore's sexuality was one that had no baring on the character in any effective capacity, and thus it seems odd so many people latched onto it like they had, trumpeting the trait when in relation to the story, it had no impact or effect, nor even gave any explored character depth. The addition of the trait after the books were out seems like something tacked on for the sake of it, and given the points you raise about how defining traits were actively mentioned and used predominantly, how relationships were great plot motivators, and how there were already themes being explored that could have very easily taken the character trait and ran with it, well, it all goes back into people looking at the idea of a gay Dumbledore questionably. Not because the character is gay, but rather, why it matters at all to mention it, let alone try to pretend the character is some great victory in one way or another. The trait of sexuality tacked onto him feels like a change made for audience reason and reaction and comes off as cheap with how all the other traits of the characters that define those characters have been used in the series.
The idea of brown Hermione being another example of that sort of thing, where traits are added for the sake of it after the fact and in an attempt to appear more inclusive or progressive, it actually comes off as patronizing and pandering. Hell, it seems a little insulting almost that these characters are suppose to represent minorities in such a fashion, yet in a story covering topics of prejudice, hate, bigotry along with a good versus evil story, the lack of mention of them or exploration of them is telling about the extent of the investment those traits are into those characters. And when those traits mean nothing to the story, characters or themes, are never mentioned in the series, do nothing to give actual depth to the characters and seem to exist entirely for the reaction society and audience have to the concept, it is sort of sad. Now Dumbledore being gay could have had some interesting impact on the story in his motivations and his relationships, and if explored or hinted at, it could have given the depth to the character some people claim him being gay gives automatically. Sadly though, the stories never make use of the trait if it was intended to be there from the beginning. And the lack of certainty on that fact is probably the biggest complaint people have about that whole thing. It is "han shot first" with a different trait this time around. Sadly some wish to believe that because the trait is sexuality, rejection or dislike of how it is handled is a sign of homophobia or other such nonsense. Though, I suppose, if many of those same people weren't trying to play up the reveal of Dumbledore having that trait like some great win, fewer people would probably be complaining about the poor way it was done in the first place.
Tying that all to the Star wars topic and the examples you mentioned, it does feel there is a difference between characters that are gay as part of their character, and characters that get that trait tacked on after the fact for the effect it has on other people. And I think that second is what the star wars one will end up being, much to its detriment.
