Gay Time essayist: Put Dumbledore back in the closet

[thatcrazycajun]

An openly gay writer for Time magazine says that he's not all that thrilled at author J. K. Rowling's recent announcement that Harry Potter's Hogwarts headmaster and mentor, Prof. Albus Dumbledore, was homosexual, and explains why here. Basically, he argues that the Prof is a throwback to doomed gay stereotypes of the 1950s: he never came out to his faculty or students (and provided the latter with a role model some of them no doubt desperately needed), he never got to have a canon romance, and he didn't survive the series (harking back to all those gay movie characters back last century who had to die as punishment for their "perversions").

And some on the right are now crowing (see Huffington Post article here) that Rowling's revelation vindicates the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's attacks on Hollywood's alleged promulgation of "the homosexual agenda." (Never mind that he never said word one about the books themselves; we all know fundies never let facts get in the way of a good anti-gay rant.)

Does this argument have merit? Should Rowling, who was so punctilious about having diversity in her characters otherwise, have had more gay/lesbian/transgender ones in her books? And should she not have outed Dumbledore—or should he have been more out? Your thoughts, please.

Comments

Post-Press Hawking--and I don't mean Steven!

[sodyera.livejournal.com]

TO ME, it looks like this:

"Look, Jo, sales are slumping a bit on the last book and we need a little shot in the arm, y'know? Anything'll do, love. Tell people that one of the characters is gay or something, that'll put us back on the front pages again."

"Well, now that I think of it, there was that one little red herring I'd planted a couple of books ago,"

"Great! Great! I'll ring up PR!"

[wolfette]

Snape never got a canon romance either. Nor did any of the teachers, that I recall.

In other words, Dumbledore was treated exactly the same as the other (sexuality undefined) characters. Can't get more equal than that.

[(Anonymous)]

That's my read on it as well. The sexual orientation of any teacher at Hogwarts was irrelevant to the story. Had it been relevant, I'm quite certain it would have been written in.

That said, I do have to wonder "Why bother bringing it up -now-?" The story is Over. Go home. -H...

[wolfette]

apparently someone concerned with the next movie wanted to include some back-story with a romance for young Dumbledore with a girl from his past.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

Isn't there backstory of Snape having a crush on Lily?

[wolfette]

a crush is not a romance.

As a girl I had a crush on Colonel Virginia Lake of SHADO. I'm straight. And female.

[scruffycritter.livejournal.com]

The point is it gave away (at least part of) Snape's orientation. The teachers weren't all asexual. When it came up as subject matter, Rowling clarified the issue and then got in front of it before it hit the blogosphere.

I'm not surprised the Fundies are going "HA! I KNEW IT!" because that's what they do. Falwell claimed he knew why 9/11 was allowed to happen after the fact too. They're always right because they are always right.

There are over 20 male characters in the HP universe. If one of them isn't gay, the characters aren't fully developed.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Sounds like she had the backstory created, as I'm sure she did for other characters -- and the way most good authors do for many of their characters -- and it never became relevant in the actual story.

It's all no big deal, sez I. Except for the fanfic writers whom she Jossed (which I understand was a minority of those writing romantic pairings involving Albus, anyway).

[maugorn.livejournal.com]

I think that "love blinding him" to the full extent of Grindelwalds' ambition and lack of conscience would apply even if they were just good platonic friends. Speaking from personal experience, it's a tremendous blessing to myself and my own best friend from high school that we were pretty blind to one another's faults. We weren't involved romantically, but we had a sense of loyalty and camaraderie that could easily be described in the terms Rowling used in the book, and our story would have turned out the same if one of us had actually been Evil. It's obvious that Dumbledore would not have wanted to go against someone he felt such kinship to. It's well documented that in such situations, the usual human response is to give your old, dear friend one too many chances.

I think that Rowling revealing that there was a romantic connection simply puts more depth into the whole affair.

What's more, I think that she handled it exactly right. In Rowling's world, sexual orientation is neither here nor there. And that is world we should be striving for. I think love should be celebrated, for sure, and positive role models should be highlighted. But Dumbledore is ALREADY a positive role model. What Rowling highlighted is one of the most positive things of all:
that even someone as great as Dumbledore could make some very human mistakes and, despite their gravity, learn from them.

The mere fact that Dumbledore never had another romance (that we know of, he *did* have a problem with discretion) says much more about Dumbledore as a human than about Dumbledore as a gay human.
He rarely opened up to people about anything, let alone his lovelife. Had he been so burned by a romance with a lady, he probably would have done the same things. THAT is the sense that I get from Rowling's portrayal.

If the protagonists were to discover or figure out that Dumbledore was gay, it would probably be a moment of "Wow! So THAT explains a few more things". Just like the revalation that Snape was in love with Lily all of those years. But chances are, if Rowling had written that scene, it would have featured Dumbledore's orientation as being a curiosity perhaps, but not an abomination.

Gay oriented people are only a fraction of the human population. They will always be a curiosity to those who aren't. Hence, it would make consistent sense for the characters who aren't gay to wonder about it or be surprised, especially when Dumbledore is rarely forthcoming about his personal life anyway.

I think Rowling's point is to precisely NOT make a big deal out of this, just as people in a tolerant society would not make a big deal out of discovering that you're one of the 10% of music lovers who doesn't go for Country Music like the rest of the market does.

[banjoplayinnerd.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I've never read the books and only seen about three of the movies.

Having said that, it's hard to escape Pottermania, and since not knowing what I'm talking about has never stopped me, I'll chime in here to say that even in an enlightened climate like Hogwarts, an openly gay headmaster would have trouble keeping his job. It shouldn't be that way -- I would guess that male teachers are no more likely to seduce their male students than female teachers would be -- but it is.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Given that a teacher who was outed as a lycanthrope felt he couldn't keep his job (book #3), I have a hard time disputing the probable correctness of your thesis.

[voiceofkiki.livejournal.com]

I, and many others, had always taken Remus' lycanthropy as a metaphor for Jo's stance on gay rights. I am actually a *big* supporter of the Remus/Sirius 'ship. Then she ruined it by shoving Remus into a heterosexual relationship. (Although, book 7 is filled with other "clues" that Remus could be closeted.)

[baggette.livejournal.com]

I would hope our Junior High and High School students are not postulating on the sex lives of their teachers. I would also hope that the teachers and staff would not be so transparent to the student body, as to make their preferences obvious.

I think that although it seems unnecessary to proclaim Dumbledore's sexuality, it is certainly a plausable story line and within her right to do so. I don't see how it has an relevance what so ever.
I enjoyed the books enormously and will do so again and again.

[a-phoenix-afire.livejournal.com]

Has anyone considered that she made Dumbledore a great and compassionate role model, kept faithful to the model of her storytelling style(asexuality, even in the love relationships), and now that the books have been finished and have had a chance to make their mark on their own, says to the world, "Oh, just so you know, Albus was gay. Do you see how little that changes about what you know of him?"

Rita Skeeter would have loved this tidbit, wouldn't she?