Much to do about the sexual inclinations of a fictional character in the most successful (and I still think, despite the lack of editorial control, one of the classic) children's stories. PZ Mungle has this to say:
I really, honestly, truly do not give a good goddamn if Dumbledore is gay. He's a fictional character, the author is getting a little too freakily obsessive over her characters, and it doesn't affect me one way or the other how the character swings. So Rowling says he's gay. Eh. Move on.
Now it is my considered opinion that the only time a person's sexual inclinations are of any interest is when you intend to get them into bed. But this time I disagree with the mighty PZ.
It is very relevant that Dumbedore is gay, although I suspect that Rowling might have been what we Australians call "stirring the possum". What is not important about the fact that the person who has nothing but concern for the well-being of his charges, who sacrifices himself in a fight against total evil, and who sees clearly what the issues are when the "mainstream" fails to, is gay? It's a major blow for normalisation of homosexuality.
It evades and revises the stereotypes against gays - they are not child abusers, they are socially aware and concerned and, hey, they are as brave as anyone can be in the face of evil. I say, good on Rowling.
- Log in to post comments
I say that whatever the reason for Rowling to reveal Dumbledore as gay, she is entitled to declare him whatever she wills. It's her character, after all.
Good point John. What's happening here is akin to what has happened many time in the past when the loony right wants to discredit someone. Everything gets taken out of context and mangled so as to "prove" a point.
One of the most prominent threads I've been seeing is one that accuses her of sensationalism to re-boost sales.
What few address is that JKR first let it slip he was gay in a script meeting to a writer in order to correct a plot line for movie 6 that would have been incorrect. She left it at that until asked point blankly, by an audience member at a reading of Deathly Hallows, about his love interests.
So what was she to do, lie? Gosh now that would be so moral of here wouldn't it.
People forget, or simply don't know, what an author (or at least a good author and JKR is that) goes through when creating a character. If a tenth of the character development they do makes it into their story it's a miracle. To get completely into a character's head the author has to 'flesh' that character out completely. The more prominent a role in the story the more pre-writing development that needs to take place.
For JKR, Dumbledore was always gay and that's all that really matters. That she portrayed him as a beacon of good and righteousness, nevertheless with all too human flaws (his failure towards his sister for example), is what really p*sses off the right wing and the loony magical sky creature types with this revelation.
There is a philosophical point here: some philosophers of aesthetics deny that the author has a privileged position wrt to their characters. Obviously they have privilege with regard to what they write, but not what it means, or - at least arguably - to what happens offstage or in the privacy of their fictional characters fictional heads. This is sometimes thought to be a continental view, dating back to Barthes in the 1960s. But in fact it was Wimsatt and Beardsley who first identified it, under the name "the intentional fallacy". Certainly there must be limits to authorial privilege: JK can't declare that Harry was Cthulu all along, but everyone was too polite to mention his tentacles.
Doc Miors is maybe not so right here. Unfortunately, there exists the preconception of the gay teacher/school administrator as bad (fill in the blank as to the specifics). For Rowling to reveal that a character already widely admired is nothing like the [your stereotype here] is a positive thing.
I don't think Rowling was stirring at all. This was a question and answer session, and she was explicitly asked whether there had ever been a love of Dumbledore's life. Since the answer is (apparently) that he had an unrequited crush on some Big Bad Evil Wizard when he was younger, answering that question necessitated revealing his sexuality.
Frankly, I think she's done very well in showing (a) heroes can be gay, and (b) so what?
Let's be clear about what's really going on here. The whole point is that some people want "the children" to be protected from that eye-opening moment that comes when someone you know and love turns out to be (gasp!) gay. They don't want kids wondering how Dumbledore can be awful, sinful, yucky, perverted, and/or damned - because they know the kids will get it.
Kudos to Rowling for doing it this way.
Anyone who wants to moan about what Rowling is doing best look at JRR Tolkien. Here's a man who created vast and elaborate (and sadly largely uncompleted backstories). He was a volumnuous letter writer, who often would expand upon the origins and motivations of various characters from his mythos.
I still think Rowling is tweaking the noses of the religious social conservatives, who already have condemned her books anyways for equally ludicrous reasons.
Quite frankly the woman ought to be given the highest possible praise for getting a generation of video-game couch potatoes to put down their controller pads and actually open a book. That she's doing her bit to upgrade the social consciousness is really just icing on the cake.
"PZ Mungle"...what is "Mungle" ? The only explanations I found didn't fit or were quite...erm...not so nice.