Here's what I think about the Great Wizard Sexuality Brouhaha of 'Aught-Seven.
Part 1I read an article from
Time this morning called "
Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet." The article is written by a gay man whose basic argument is that the way Dumbledore's sexuality was (non-)presented in the Harry Potter books is a worse representation of homosexuals than if Jo had left the Harry Potter world gay-free (as it seemed to be). As he writes:
Shouldn't I be happy to learn he's gay? Yes, except: Why couldn't he tell us himself? The Potter books add up to more than 800,000 words before Dumbledore dies in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and yet Rowling couldn't spare two of those words—"I'm gay"—to help define a central character's emotional identity? We can only conclude that Dumbledore saw his homosexuality as shameful and inappropriate to mention among his colleagues and students. His silence suggests a lack of personal integrity that is completely out of character.At first glance, this seems to be a good point. However, when you look at it in the context of the Harry Potter series, particularly Harry's relationship to Dumbledore, it's frankly nonsense.
First of all, one of the refrains of Book 7 is Harry's complaint that Dumbledore never told Harry anything about himself. If Dumbledore never told Harry about his little sister, about his imprisoned father, about the brother
Harry had met, why in the world should we be insulted, much less surprised, that Dumbledore never told Harry he was gay?
Now, consider this: Hagrid is straight. Snape is straight. . . . Other than that (the latter of which was unconfirmed until page 663 of Book 7), there is no mention of the romantic leanings or entanglements of any of the adults Harry knows at Hogwarts. Does Professor MacGonagall have a husband? A boyfriend? A life partner? A vow of celibacy? Who knows? There's not so much as a hint in the books. By and large, the lives of his teachers are just not something that impinges on the story of Harry.
Similarly, how do we
know, as the article author states, that Dumbledore had no love life and "remained celibate" the entire rest of his life? How do we even know Dumbledore didn't tell his colleagues? Maybe he and Sybill Trelawney banter about boys all the time. We, the readers, are usually only privy to knowledge Harry himself has access to. Sure, he picks up stray bits and pieces of teacher-only conversation, thanks to the handy invisibility cloak, but those usually relate to--you know--the
plot of the
book.Which brings me to another point--where was Dumbledore's sexuality supposed to fit in? I ask you, my readers: where would it have made sense to slip in this bit of information? As far as I can see, it's just not relevant to the story. Why would it matter to Harry that Dumbledore is gay? How would that change anything?
The only place it even kinda-sorta comes up is Dumbledore's "friendship" with the dark wizard Grindelwald. But in that respect, the Dumbledore-Grindelwald fight is not parallel to the Harry-Voldemort fight that Dumbledore tries to prepare Harry for. If it were Ginny or Ron that Harry had to take down to save the world, then maybe some cautionary words from Dumbledore about love blinding you to the truth that even cute people can be evil . . . then maybe. But as it stands, it's one of the least important things Dumbledore could have bothered to impart to his young apprentice.
Part 2In response to
my initial post about this topic, MacKenzie made a good point (better, really, than the one the guy from
Time did).
I don't think [J. K.] gets how writing a book works. You write it, include what you want then ...LET IT GO. One of my favorite parts of books is that I get to use my imagination and add to the story myself, once the story ends, it is up to ME and now she is all up in my face telling me that this person does this and this person is like that.This, I think, raises a question less about content than about storytelling itself. With science fiction/fantasy franchises, you hear a lot about "canon." Canon is what's official, what's "real," in any particular fictional universe. Anything in the
Star Wars films is canon; anything in
Star Wars comic books or novels (or *shudder* fan fiction) is not--it's only as "true" as any particular reader wants it to be at the time. This means, unfortunately, that the much cooler version of how Luke came to be raised by Owen and Beru Lars from the novelization of
Return of the Jedi has been overridden by the WEAK explanation of Episodes II and III. It's sad, but them's the breaks.
So the question is--are things that J.K. Rowling says now, after all over her words have been committed to the paper of a million trees, considered canon? Is Dumbledore gay, on the plane of Harry Potter reality, because she mentioned it at a couple of book signings?
This is tricky for two reasons. The first is that, allegedly, someday she's going to write some kind of Harry Potter appendix/encyclopedia/something. If she writes it down in there, does that count?
The second and more complicated question is, are the answers that J. K. Rowling is now giving to eager audiences . . . fan fiction? Is what she's doing just a better publicized version of me sitting in front of my computer telling you that I think Neville and Luna will get married and have a bunch of spaced-out babies?
I think there are two possible answers: 1) No, of course not--she created these characters, so she put a whole bunch of thought into them that we never saw on paper. There's background there, informing what all the characters are doing; she just didn't have space to write it all in. 2) Yes, because if it's not printed, if it wasn't important enough to make its way onto the page, then we as readers can't be held accountable for believing it. If she didn't care enough about some of her ideas to make them "fact" by
publishing them, then they remain ideas; they remain opinion.
So the question becomes: are J. K. Rowling's opinions about her characters more important than mine or yours? I think that's something each reader can decide for him- or herself. I, for instance, like knowing more about Jo's thought processes. After all, I liked the stuff she imagined and put into the books--I'm all for being able to find more of that same product. At the same time, MacKenzie is right that she's not always consistent about these things. That shows that the contents of Things She Says is just not of as high a quality as Things She Wrote.
I like knowing extra tidbits of what J. K. Rowling thinks about the characters she created. But where I disagree with her, I'm perfectly happy to stick with my decision that Neville and Luna live happily ever after.
Part 3I'm glad Jo announced that she has always thought of Dumbledore as gay.
I think it's interesting. It gives him, and particularly his Grindelwald storyline, more depth. Even though it went hideously, hideously wrong (and Jo hasn't said, for one thing, whether Grindelwald felt the same way about Dumbledore), I prefer characters I like to find romance rather than, well, not to.
As for whether this is some great social stride, I'd have to say it isn't much of one. After all, it's not in the books; as the novels get read over and over, through the march of time, a post-publication revelation is going to have a much shorter shelf life, a much shallower cache, than what is actually printed on the pages. Still, I can't see how it's a bad thing, either for gay bashers or advocates--Dumbledore's gay, take it or leave it, but it's more important for Harry Potter that he's a good wizard, a good teacher, and a good person.
Click here to read more . . .
If it were getting good reviews, I--for instance--would totally go see it. Sure, the author is some sort of atheist, but any atheists who decided to boycott The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe missed out on a pretty sweet movie.
