Were you surprised to see how much coverage of "Dumbledore Is Gay" was in newspapers and on TV over the weekend? From what I've read, some of the coverage is a result of the ebb and flow in 'events' that dictates there are 'slow times' in the news business and times when the news cycle gets shortened because so many important (real and/or perceived) items seem to chase one another for our attention (as short as it is).
Into all of this comes Dumbledore....reminding me mostly of the uproar about Murphy Brown, VP Dan Quayle and our ability as voters to confuse sizzle with steak. As if we didn't have enough folks already going to the barricades on every side of the issue in connection with Harry Potter, we can now add this.
As a middle-aged, married guy, I get awkward with discussions about, or with, real people and their sexuality. My need to NOT know is greater than anyone's need to tell me. Not sure why I would want to borrow trouble and get in a discussion on the sexual orientation or preference of an imaginary person. Dumbledore is make-believe, right?
Sometimes I get him confused with the Vice President of the USA, who is real, as I understand it, but quite often is in an "undisclosed location."
Imaginary people have disquieted me since my invisible childhood friend, "Marty", stopped talking to my evil twin, Skippy. In the lifetime since that happened, it doesn't look like it's been a cakewalk for anybody else, either.
Perhaps Dumbledore could help OJ look for the 'real killers' or assist Lindsay in drying out.
Now, even less-than-real people get 15 minutes of fame.
-bill kenny
No comments:
Post a Comment