"Harry Potter and the Lavender Brigade" by Doug Phillips

[Guest Anonymous]

Um, you're confusing Grindelwald with Olivander, the wandmaker. Dumbledore killed Grindelwald in 1945. Maybe there was something between Dumbledore and Olivander, though . . .

Back to the subject of Christians who disapprove of the HP series: I wonder how many of them ever even found out about the plot of the seventh book, where someone

sacrifices his life for his friends, dies, and comes back to life.

Hmmm, where have I heard a story like that before?

No. Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in an epic wand duel, but imprisoned instead of killing him. Gellert Grindelwald was killed by Lord Voldemort, who wanted to find out who had the Elder Wand after Grinddelwald.

[Linnea]

No. Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in an epic wand duel, but imprisoned instead of killing him. Gellert Grindelwald was killed by Lord Voldemort, who wanted to find out who had the Elder Wand after Grinddelwald.

Oops. My mistake.

[Antigone]

I loved the backlash from JK's announcement that Dumbledore was gay. I'm hoping for more gay/lesbian characters, as well as more 'alternate' lifetstyles, since it IS the wizarding world after all- an entirely different world than our own. I think that is one thing that fundies do not like about the Harry Potter series- the diversity and how the wizarding world does things differently (I'd imagine the fundies would support Voldemort- it seems up their alley in some odd way if you subsitute mudbloods for heathens and purebloods for devoted christians).

I agree with most of the posters in this thread Re: Tonnks and Remus and how she changed. It wasn't something I really was satisfied about, but at least it wasn't as annoying as twilight, and she only showed up a few times.

[Deleted12]

The thing that bugged me about Tonks/Lupin is how she wound up totally assassinating Lupin's character.

Very few people made it out of the series with their integrity intact. (Yes, Ron, I am *so* looking in your direction!)

I got Tonks/Lupin and Hermione/Ron better than i got Ginny/Harry. I think it's because we "know" so many characters better than we know Ginny. For example, we don't have to be told that Fred and George are attractive, their personalities shine in every chapter they're in. With Ginny, I felt like Rowling took the "She's hot because I say so" route, which seemed like a rare moment of laziness in the series.

To bring the conversation back around to the fundies, I don't think they like books where you're left to draw your own conclusions about the morality of different characters. Harry Potter definitely encourages you to weigh the actions of different characters and reach your own conclusions.

[mythoughtis]

I agree that Lupin loved Tonks. He just didn't want her saddled with a werewolf for a husband, and was also a lot older than she was. But he loved her. Tonks was a strong woman, and it was one of JKs few bad decisions to make her weak with love. But she was a little spacecase from day 1 though.

I didn't like how JK said Dumbledore was gay, but it made sense since she was all about showing up discrimination thru the use of her stories. But it did kind of ruin it for me because she waited so long to just toss that fact in. After all, she was pretty explicit in the book about Alberfore and his 'love' for goats. Another oddity in a 'child's tale... but again one most children wouldn't catch. My son loved the books... but he was 9 when the first one came out.

[Shina]

Grrr.

I am still in post-Deathly Hallows joy mode. I want to revel in my Harry Potter obsession. Therefore, Dougie's douchebaggery pisses me off more than usual.

[debrand]

Sometimes writers have information about their characters that the pacing of the story makes it impossible to share with the reader. A writer should know everything about his or her character. It's very possible that Rowling always considered Dumbledore gay and just found no way to work that into the story.

I've don't understand why people get upset with what Rowling said in a interview. The books are fiction and are written in such a way that a reader can ignore that Dumbledore was homosexual. For me, it just led a layer of depth to his character.

[Eponine]

I believe she said it just wasn't really relevant to the story so wasn't made explicit. Dumbledore's sexuality has very little to do with the plot.

I found this whole write-up particularly amusing because there is so little sexuality in the books - sure Ron moons about after getting the love potion, and he makes out with Lavender a bunch in the sixth book but really? It's mostly just teenage, fluttery, fuzzy feelings (and making people jealous) and very tangential to everything else.

I get that he has an axe to grind but this is just silly. Even for him.

[Hane]

I forced myself to plod through the sludge that is Dougie's long-drawn-out (and center-justified :angry-screaming: ) screed in order to get to this:

Confession

Okay, so there is no Harry Potter and the Lavender Brigade. I made it up.

Oh, go bite me so hard, Dougie.

[Witsec6]

Pretty sure that HP infuriates fundies because 1. It was written by a women 2. she got filthy stinkin' rich (and good for her) 3. It's easy pickings 4. It's fun (thus bad) 5. Doesn't promote "good family values" because Harry isn't best friends with his 14 billion brothers and sisters (never mind that he's an orphan and that his family is dysfunctional; he should have submitted to his uncle and stayed in the closet!) 6. It's not something that they personally enjoy, so their kids shouldn't either. If daddy likes having 6 hour theology discussions, by golly, 7 year old Timmy should too!

(I've read all the HP books and liked them, but I'm not a rabid fan...that said, of course my hypothetical kid could read them! they're fun! No big deal)

Later in the article he states that Tolkien and Lewis were both geniuses, but that Rowling wrote her fantasy novel in a "lawless" fashion.

[Patsy]

I believe she said it just wasn't really relevant to the story so wasn't made explicit. Dumbledore's sexuality has very little to do with the plot.

I don't buy it. Dumbledore was the non-threatening, friendly, flamboyant, celibate gay man. She made the story pretty obviously show that he was celibate. During an interview/behind-the-scenes thing, she was drawing up a Weasley family tree, and didn't show Charlie as having a wife or children. The person behind the camera said, "Was Charlie gay?" Her response: "Dumbledore's gay." As in, one person in this universe is gay, you already know that, why would you ask the ridiculous question of whether any other person would be. He's the quota-filler, the token minority, and did I mention he was an old, celibate gay man?

One of the hugest sub-plots of the seventh book was his back-story; she made a CHOICE not to ever say 'Oh and Dumbledore was in love with him'. Add that to the fact that Hagrid, Snape and Lupin got their romantic side-stories, 'he's just a teacher!/a secondary character' doesn't cut it for me.

I mean, I love the books, but JK thinks she's a hell of a lot more liberal than she is, and electing to mention that Dumbledore's gay (but in an old-fashioned writing trope way, and never canonically) is like her mentioning that half the Hogwarts heads and half the Ministers for Magic have been female. Yeah, okay, but more than half of the ones we see in the books have been male (three MoMs: Fudge, Scrimgeour, Thicknesse, (and in interviews, Shacklebolt) and four heads: Dippett, Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, who btw JK said in an interview didn't stay long because she was 'too old' - 70s is too old for a woman but 120 isn't too old for a man) doesn't that say something?

I forced myself to plod through the sludge that is Dougie's long-drawn-out (and center-justified :angry-screaming: ) screed in order to get to this:Oh, go bite me so hard, Dougie.

It is artless parody, and his reveal is equally styleless. I commented earlier that the fact it's meant to be parody, and what it's meant to be pointing out, is easier to understand if you read the whole thing, but I actually think I misspoke. When I originally read it, it was quoted on a fundie blog, and I think it was the young woman's commentary that followed that made the message clearer.

[Shirley MacLaine]

is like her mentioning that half the Hogwarts heads and half the Ministers for Magic have been female.

The shitty half of Hogwarts heads.

[urban explorer]

I tried to read that he kept going on and on, never really understood his point, but proud that I converted mom to the dark side HAHAHA

[JesusFightClub]

Is it sad I still desperately wish this book had been written?

[lilwriter85]

I have seen plenty of fundies hate on HP. They will hate on type of media that features sorcery. I would love for fundies to see Wicked on Broadway then blog about it.

[nutella addict]

We're forgetting that other fun couple, Bellatrix LeStrange and Voldemort. The vibe I got from Bellatrix is that she would have been only too happy to jump Voldemort's bones. I think Voldemort was asexual, as he didn't seem to be respond to either sex.

...I loved Voldemort/Quirrell in A Very Potter Musical. Brilliant and perfectly hilarious.

I also loved the debate over who loves Zefron the most.

I thought Lupin/Tonks made sense although I did wish that Tonks hadn't been so depressed about it, but I'm a pretty darn happy person and all that, and if my boyfriend said we couldn't get married because then I'd be a werewolf's wife and we'd have weird hybrid children and we'd be shunned...I'd be pretty upset myself, because I love him enough to put up with those things. Not sure if that made sense since of course my boyfriend isn't a werewolf, but it's late, and I'm sure you're all smart enough to figure out what I tried to say there.

[jan9206]

DOUG PHILLIPS IS A TOOL!

[DifferentGurl]

Maybe the Lavender Brigade is an army of evil Lavender Brown clones? :/

[Wandering]

Is it sad that I would be all over this if actually published?

[justlurking]

Maybe the Lavender Brigade is an army of evil Lavender Brown clones? :/

+1

[Mela99]

I am so confused right now . . .

[lilwriter85]

Pretty sure that HP infuriates fundies because 1. It was written by a women 2. she got filthy stinkin' rich (and good for her) 3. It's easy pickings 4. It's fun (thus bad) 5. Doesn't promote "good family values" because Harry isn't best friends with his 14 billion brothers and sisters (never mind that he's an orphan and that his family is dysfunctional; he should have submitted to his uncle and stayed in the closet!) 6. It's not something that they personally enjoy, so their kids shouldn't either. If daddy likes having 6 hour theology discussions, by golly, 7 year old Timmy should too!

(I've read all the HP books and liked them, but I'm not a rabid fan...that said, of course my hypothetical kid could read them! they're fun! No big deal)

Yup that really pisses off fundies. It reminds me of a black televangelist, I think it was Creflo Dollar who was pissed about how Stephen King became rich off writing horror books.

[acheronbeach]

I bet there are ten thousand fan fictions with this very plotline.

OMG, you just made me laugh so hard my colleague came into my office to check up on me.

[Sunnichick31]

Well, if Hogwarts is a place for gay witches and wizards, then I guess that explains why Moaning Myrtle is always moaning.

[Gil]

I don't buy it. Dumbledore was the non-threatening, friendly, flamboyant, celibate gay man. She made the story pretty obviously show that he was celibate. During an interview/behind-the-scenes thing, she was drawing up a Weasley family tree, and didn't show Charlie as having a wife or children. The person behind the camera said, "Was Charlie gay?" Her response: "Dumbledore's gay." As in, one person in this universe is gay, you already know that, why would you ask the ridiculous question of whether any other person would be. He's the quota-filler, the token minority, and did I mention he was an old, celibate gay man?

One of the hugest sub-plots of the seventh book was his back-story; she made a CHOICE not to ever say 'Oh and Dumbledore was in love with him'. Add that to the fact that Hagrid, Snape and Lupin got their romantic side-stories, 'he's just a teacher!/a secondary character' doesn't cut it for me.

This. The whole Dumbledore thing pisses me off -- either you represent us in your book or you don't. Don't try and shoehorn in how accepting you are in the way that is least likely to affect sales. Dumbledore's 'outing,' to me, has always felt gimmicky and insincere.