Well, that is the reaction of at least one homosexual, journalist John Cloud, who wrote in Time Magazine (excerpt):
Rowling said at Carnegie Hall that in her conception of his character, Dumbledore had fallen in love long ago with Gellert Grindelwald when the two were just teenagers. But Grindelwald turned out to be evil, which apparently broke Dumbledore's heart. (Quite evil: Grindelwald is Rowling's Hitler figure, opening a camp called "Nurmengard" for political enemies in the 1940s. Dumbledore/Churchill eventually defeats Grindelwald/Hitler in a 1945 duel.)
But as far as we know, Dumbledore had not a single fully realized romance in 115 years of life. That's pathetic, and a little creepy. It's also a throwback to an era of pop culture when the only gay characters were those who committed suicide or were murdered. As Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1981) points out, in film after film of the mid-century—Rebel Without a Cause; Rebecca; Suddenly, Last Summer—the gay characters must pay for their existence with death. Like a lisping weakling, Dumbledore is a painfully selfless, celibate, dead gay man, so forgive me if I don't see Rowling's revelation as great progress.
That bit about Grindelwald turning out to be some sort of proto-Nazi (thanks, Publius!) is key. Dumbledore's youthful fling with Grindelwald cost him the life of his sister. So deep was his remorse that he apparently remained celibate the rest of his life. A gay character in a book who remains celibate out of penance for a youthful indescretion? I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it is very heroic. I have no way of knowing if that was Rowling's intent, but as she chose to open this can of worms, I will pull out whatever worms I choose.
As a preview, the editorial in Gilbert Magazine's December issue will deal with this. I may post it here once it's published -- if I can figure out how to make partial posts, with a link to the remainder. Help, someone!
Meanwhile, here is the last sentence:
Harry Potter is not the Gospel. But it is a great gaudy diary of souls: saints and sinners, and sinners struggling to be saints. In short, it is about us.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Rowling: "Dumbledore is gay!" Drive-by media: "Wheeeeeeee!!!" Anti-Potterites: "We told you so!!" Homosexuals: "Give us a break."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Everyone keeps saying Rowling is brave for announcing that Dumbledore is gay. She isn't heroic, she's a coward. If she really wanted to make Dumbledore gay she would have written it into the story but she didn't. Taking a true stand on an issue is tough and I understand that making Dumbledore gay in the Potter series may have effected book sales, but if she's going to take a stand then take a stand. Making the statement that Dumbledore is gay without even writing the smallest hint doesn't cut it. All she's doing by making the statement now is lowering her credibility as a writer and insulting the gay community.
Did she do it to be heroic? I don't think so....
Sean, right on target as usual.
LOVE that last sentence of the editorial.
Only three comments? Not sure if folks are just tired of it, are stunned by it, or think it's a non issue... or any combination of the above (along with other factors).
But... I want to say I don't think Rowling is a coward, I think she's who she always was, and she answered a question asked, about how she regarded the character when writing him.
She obviously was using a very complex character to champion any cause (and she mocked a bit, the championing of some causes with SPEW in the books... not that SPEW was a bad 'cause' just that Hermione got a bit silly with it).
Her character is who he is.. .who he is in the book, defined in part by how she viewed him when writing. And she told, when asked, how she viewed him when writing.
I think the brouhaha from nearly every quarter is gosh darn silly. Of course, some will think the sort of analysis of characters I love (I'm of the John Granger school, cept he's a lot smarter than me) is a bit silly.
One thing to note, Monica, is that this has forced almost no one to change sides, so far as I can tell. Harry haters hate him all the more, and are further convinced they don't need to read the books to understand them. Fans, whether secular or Catholic, are still fans and have something to allow for a deeper understanding in additional readings of the books.
Jensen, I don't know of Rowling is heroic, but I think it is going too far to call her a coward. She is probably like most of us: she does the best she can with what limited gifts she has. She may come to regret outing dumbledore like this, but it would have come out anyway.
If a rumored "Potter Encyclopedia" is indeed in the works, then we would have found out anyway eventually. That, or enough people would have seen her "Dumbledore is gay" note on the script for the sixth movie and blabbed it.
Diana: thank you. :-)
I've stayed away from threads on HP for precisely the same reason Sean pointed out - there is no vast undecided mass out there to engage. The lines are very clear on this one and you either love, hate, or don't care about HP. There isn't that elusive category of "could be interested but can't decide how to repond."
I prefer to let the art breathe on its own - and HP is a wonderful escape for me and my family. I'm very grateful for her contribution to our bookshelves. To trash the whole series based on Dumbledore's outing is remarkably shallow and stupid. The books are very clear in the revelation of Dumbledore as a flawed, yet humble, character. That Dumbledore blackens the books by his mere presence as a homosexual is tantamount to my little duplex being a dark house of sin because my neighbor is gay. These are people we're talking about, not morality personified. The flaws and the struggles are the source of beauty - God forbid I should accurately portray humanity when and if I ever decide to write an engaging little story down the road.
This is media hype and cultural politics, pure and simple. My kids will still read the books as they grow up and my precious little eldest daughter will still romp the neighborhood this Halloween proudly dressed as Hermione, as it should be.
Bravo Matt! Excellent observations!! :-)
Or as my gay hairdresser said yesterday, "Who gives a rat's patootie?"
I guess what troubles me still in all this, and why I still defend the books (I do pause to reflect, pray, and reconsider, when argument against them is made, but I seem to end up in the same "these books are Good" spot), is that its' a matter of Truth.
It's the distortions that just get to me... and not as much from the secular press, because I expect that. But from Christians, especially my fellow Catholic Christians.
People's reputations are what is often called into question, rather than the books. That's just wrong (no matter what 'side' is doing it).
And we are supposed to be a people standing for the Truth. When Christians, with all good intent, pass along erroneous or distorted information, we discredit ourselves when we speak for Christ. (the most extreme HP related incident is when folks passed on that Onion Article as though it was real).
To me, the problem is not this particular book, but a broader problem ... making sure, especially when people's reputations are in question, or when BIG ALARMS are sounded... that our facts are correct. Not for the sake of these books, but for the sake of Truth.
Get back to me in about 50 years or so, after this (or any book) has withstood the test of a significant amount of time.
That's not to discount all recently written tomes, nor is it an endorsement of all things from of old. It's just a way of sifting out passing fads, like leisure suits, pet rocks and cabbage patch kids.
*shrug*
Tolkien had one of his Heroes marry his sister in the Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin! Consummated even! Oh the scandal, Christians all around the world will ban LOTR!
Oh sorry, I forgot that never got into the press.
Funny where the devil puts his focus. Ever notice how he pushes the wonders of marriage to homosexuals and the wonders of bachelorhood to heterosexuals?
Why do we let the devil distract us so much?
Someone needs to put up a webpage warning Christians about this Tolkien stuff NOW! Before it's TOO LATE!
y'know, it seems so obvious to me that this stuff is a diabolical attack on something Good... am I deluded? The virtues in HP, the joy of a large family, the love rewarded (disordered love always ends in tragedy, but True love- and in the case of Snape, a disordered love was tranformed into True... is always somehow victorious). This is so wonderful to see written...
50 years, eh? I think the books will still be here, that they will stand the test of time. But all this stuff now.. it's such a shame.
Imagine the furor of Christopher Tolkien, at a public reading of The Sil, had said that his father "had always seen Turin as digging his sister."
ROFL! Oh dang... this just BEGS for a parody web site.
The only problem is folks would really pass it around as "true"!
Hmm... anyone know the staff on the Onion? They could do a parody on this and surely no one would pass their stuff around as 'true' :)
There are extreme Fundamentalist sites that do castigate Tolkien and Lewis as fervently as they do HP. Why, JRRT and CSL were initiates into the Ordo Templi Orientalis and Aliester Crowley was an Inkling! Fortunately, none that I've seen noticed Turin and Nienor.
In THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE EARTH, Tolkien has one version of the story in which Turin and Nienor are turned into Maiar. At the end of time, Turin will slay Morgoth "so that he and all men might be avenged."
Sandra Miesel
|A gay character in a book who remains celibate out of penance for a youthful indescretion? I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it is very heroic.|
You forget that black is white, up is down and 2+2=5.
It's apparently not enough to be Gay in private, anymore. Now one must walk around in public with his "magic wand" hanging out (Folsom County Fair), or at the very least blame society for his needing to stay closeted. For this reason, even though Dubledore was a leader, protector of his students and fighter, John Cloud yet likens him to a "lisping weakling".
Hi E! I realize that John Cloud has an agenda and thus take much of what he says with a grain of salt. He may have wanted Dumbledore to be Out and Proud. My whole point, however, was that, contrary to how the drive-by media acted, many homosexuals will not see this as a great boon to their cause -- as Cloud clearly demonstrates.
And I think you have a point too: Dumbledore clearly wanted his SSA to be private. Rowling should have respected that.
But that still does not change my essential point: that Dumbledore's example is, basically, a gay character in a book who remains celibate out of penance for a youthful indescretion. As I said, I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it is very heroic.
That may not have been Rowling's intent. But if she doesn't like how I interpret what is (to me) the very clear meaning of her text, she should have kept Dumbledore firmly in the closet.
Sandra, that is fascinating. I have the HOME series, but haven't really read much from them.
mbntm: LOL! Um, let's not give the Onion any ideas tho. ;-)
"That bit about Grindelwald turning out to be some sort of proto-Nazi (thanks, Publius!) is key. Dumbledore's youthful fling with Grindelwald cost him the life of his sister. So deep was his remorse that he apparently remained celibate the rest of his life."
Uh, the celibate thing is a stretch to say the least. Let's face it. We've been had.
Here's why what J. K. Rowling did this past week was insidious--we're all here talking about homosexuality. And parents all across the country are talking to their kids about homosexuality. And experts are advising people to use this as a "teachable moment" to instruct kids about how heroic homosexuals can be.
If that's not the work of the devil, I don't know what is.
Unfortunately, folks have been urging parents to teach grand things about homosexual behavior for awhile before the books. My own children, homeschooled though they are, have friends who are (or think they are) homosexuals. We've definately talked about it. My one daughter talks regularly to her spiritual director about it, because of how much of it is out there.
The questions is, how do we talk about it? What terms to we put this in?
And again, is it in the story? (it's not, and in time, I think this aspect will be forgotten, while what is Good and True will stand).
I don't think we've been "had". I wasn't surprised by the author's comments on the backstory, nor her views as they *appear* to be in the press, and I certainly am not surprised at the field day the press is having with this (anymore than I'm surprised that they ignored the Christian theme content). My impression of the author has always been that she's a relatively liberal Christian (this may not be true, but it's the impression I've gotten from the few bits she's discussed over the years). If what is in the press is accurate (even partly) it fits with a liberal main line protestant view.
I'm kinda surprised that folks are surprised. I'd have prefered the author not have revealed this backstory just because of the way this will be used and because kids will be asking questions parents might have wanted to deal with at another time in another way... but part of how it's "used" is up to us. The material in the books is not glorifying homosexual acts- in any way (even with the backstory revealed).
I also have always said the books are not for young children. I've never felt that.. they are too complex, too deep, dealing with serious matters of the soul. Bambi, this is not.
But none of that diminishes the good in here. The Devil will try to twist things... always. Especially if there is good there. Let's not fall for that one. Don't give him this book... there is too much in there that can lead folks to the Truth. Don't let it be clouded out by this silly trick.
Post a Comment