I've decided to weigh-in on the news that Dumbledore is gay. If you haven't guessed, I've got mixed feelings about this one...
On the one hand, J.K. Rowling is the author of Harry Potter and has the right to do what she wants with her characters. If this was an aspect of Albus Dumbledore she wanted him to have, that's her right.
On the other hand, I had always considered Albus Dumbledore to be asexual...or rather, above sexuality. Dumbledore was a higher being: consumed by the pursuit of knowledge and the defeat of evil. He was iconic in that way--like Gandalf in Lord of the Rings. Could you imagine Gandalf having a love interest? But Dumbledore lost that icon status around Book Five. He suddenly became human. As the series progressed you saw he wasn't all-knowing, all-powerful, or even all-good. He made mistakes. He was subject to banal passion like anger, jealousy, and pride. The Dumbledore of Book Seven was not the Dumbledore of Book One. So Rowling's current revelation that Dumbledore was once love-struck for another wizard is, really, not as earthshattering as it would once have been.
The main reason I'm disappointed with Rowling is because of when she chose to make her revelation: waiting until after the books have all been released. Was it because she didn't want to affect her book sales, or was it her little joke she pulled on everybody?
Am I being too harsh? Maybe, but think about this. She's not stupid: she had to know this would be a big deal to a lot of people. So, the question is, why...did...she...wait?
7 years ago
9 comments:
I have no idea why Rowling waited to release the info about Dumbledore - maybe she is waiting to out herself - but it sure does add new connotations to the book. I'm not terribly happy about that.
i have not read the harry potter series yet, but maybe she calculated that for a specific reason. when we're children, many of us seem to think our parents are all knowing and all seeing...they're like gods to us... they're our guides in this new world we're exploring. as we get older, however, and gain more experience, we realize our parents are not perfect... santa claus fades away...et cetera... perhaps j.k.rowlie was attempting to mirror this sequence? perhaps she began book one with a black and white polarization, and slowly pulled in the rich gray tones and chiaroscuro as she brought her story forward...
and "above sexuality?" what does that mean, exactly? why has sex been made so dirty?
ya know, i've been thinking... i think sex is best when you approach it like a "little child." we have our bodies and they're an amazing creation. when we explore respectfully and happily, without thought of what we're "supposed" to do or think or act, we find some pleasure and joy.
I found Rowling's disclosure as appropriate and timely. Appropriate b/c the book wasn't about sexuality (though I agree with Shasta's comment that sex is NOT dirty). The book was about people and relationships. Sexuality is a part of life but wasn't a part of the story of Harry Potter. Dumbledore just was gay. But that wasn't what the story was about. I think the disclosure is timely because, had Rowling disclosed this fact about Dumbledore in the books or publicly while writing the series, then certainly the books would have been about sexuality (due to the likelihood of Jared's prediction that the public would be outraged) - distracting from the focus of the story. If 10% of the population is gay, then certainly there were other characters in Harry Potter that were gay as well. What if Goyle or Sirus Black were gay? Does it really matter? Does it change the story? Does it change the person?
Dumbledore was certainly iconic. I don't think that has changed.
By "above sexuality" I meant it in the way the ascetics do: pursuing higher enlightenment by eschewing the needs of the body. Another example would be if Dumbledore was always gnawing on a turkey leg. Does this character need to eat? Yes. But if the author links the character with eating it adds or takes away something.
His sexual preference aside, I had always thought it below Dumbledore's character to have sexual appetite of any sort.
Well said Phee. However, that is exactly why I think his sexuality was never discussed in the books. The books are written and JK says at an interview, Dumbledore loves turkey legs. There would not be any comment from the public. No shock about his appetite for turkey. JK never made him sexual - or less ascetic, just more human.
I don't buy it, and I will tell you why in two words: doing gender. You will never convince me that he is, the character that was played out in the books (and films to date) do not qualify per my two word qualification above. I encourage all interested to look into what these two words entail. If this is truly what Rowling intended all along then she "wrote poorly". You might rebuttal that there is not enough evidence one way or the other, and I will agree with that, there isn't enough evidence so begin reading my post from the beginning before rebutting with said line of logic.
Sorry all, I'm out of town for the next week (up in pristine Minnesota)...so no updates for a while!
Back shortly!
Well, there is a lot of information about many of the characters that Rowling would have liked to put in the book but couldn't. It just didn't have a place. This tidbit about Dumbledore is much like the others, it's just that the nature of it tends to evoke a bit more of a reaction.
While I understand that your view of Dumbledore was ascetic, I don't think that the fact that he is gay detracts from that. The only love interest we hear of during his whole life was Grindelwald when he was 16 or 17. He can certainly be forgiven for not being totally mature at that age. How many ascetics are exactly the same as teenagers as they are when they're older?
As for the timing of the revelation.... that came out (no pun intended!) when she was asked in public by a reader. So it wasn't like she thought to herself "Oh, I've released all of the books so it's not going to hurt sales, so I'll just randomly spill the beans now."
And while, yes, I have been known to draw numerous Gandalf-Dumbledore parallels myself, I don't think it's totally appropriate in this case. Tolkien's books are almost embarassingly G-rated whereas Rowling is more, say PG. The types of romantic love depicted in the worlds the two created are totally different. We hardly ever see Aragorn and Arwen together or hear about their thoughts about each other and apparently couples like Celeborn and Galadriel or Elrond and Celebrian don't mind being separated for hundreds or thousands of years. The way Tolkien writes about love is almost like "yes, it's technically there but everyone is totally indifferent to it." Rowling on the other hand uses love as the central theme in her books. We watch as the characters discover all kinds of love (romantic, fraternal, familial) as they grow up, so I don't think this type of revelation was inappropriate or out of place, even from Dumbledore.
I went to an all women's college where the lesbian population was 30%-70% depending on the day and the time of year. I am not beyond believing that Dumbledore may have experienced with homosexuality in his youth while discovering who he was and wanted to be. I also to a degree understand why he was attracted to Grindlewald because he had finally found an intellectual and talented equal. However, I don't buy it that Dumbledore continued with that sexual preference into his old age. Some of the biggest dykes on campus (their choice of word, not mine) ended up marrying nice men and having large families. They all moved past their youthful indiscretions, why can't Dumbledore?
hem hem... update?
Post a Comment