More Dumbledore
My uncle sent me an article from the Washington Post with a paragraph I’d like to discuss:
“As to Dumbledore, it would have been disturbing if Rowling had used her final book to argue for some baldly political agenda — if the Hogwarts headmaster and professor Snape had married, for example, in a touching civil ceremony. Whatever your view of homosexual rights, this would have been an abuse of parental trust, the exploitation of an unfair advantage. But this is not what happened. Dumbledore’s sexual identity was an assumption Rowling brought to her writing, not explicit in the text itself.”
Is Gerson’s point that it’s okay that Dumbledore is gay only because his homosexuality is never explicitly expressed in the text? That’s kind of…close-minded, isn’t it? I happen to agree that it is nice that Rowling makes this aspect of Dumbledore’s character subtle so that it may be analyzed differently, and even ignored, by different readers. Children constitute a large portion of those who follow the Harry Potter series, arguably making the subtlety tactic particualrly tactful. Also, anything “gay” tends to attract excessive attention, so it makes sense that Rowling would not want anything to distract readers from the main story. But the real question here is whether Rowling should have to consider who her readers are to such an extent. Must she consider children and society’s sexual stigmas? If she had had Dumbledore marry a man in one of her books, would that truly have been “abuse of parental trust”? I don’t know if it’s fair for an author to have such a responsibility to anyone else–particularly since it seems that such pressure is only put upon Rowling due to the popularity of her books. If she had written them all decades ago and they had all only just now been discovered, how would we treat them? Do we expect her to write what we want her to write because we have lived with her and watched movies made from her books as she has lived and written? She claims to have had the characters all figured out from the start, and I am inclined to believe that she had a right to have them be however she wanted them to be. It was refreshing to have her present homosexuality as something underlying someone’s personality and at the same time not present at all in someone in that we “knew” Dumbledore without identifying that one trait of his. But she didn’t have to do it that way. Let’s say it had been more extreme: should the controversiality of being gay make any book with explicit homosexuality a book with a “political agenda”? This idea reminds me of our discussion of female writers and whether anything they write should be considered feminist. In both cases I say no. I think it would’ve been fine for Dumbledore to marry Snape or Grindewald or even Harry Potter. But that is not what Rowling wanted. Perhaps she wanted what we touched on in class when we talked about the trashy reporter Rita Skeeter. Maybe she wanted us to realize how ridiculous it is that we blow up any situation in which people act “different.” She wants everyone to have their own reading, and for us to see how unjust some responses to some readings are.Â
dayne wrote:
When I first read the articles about Dumbledore’s sexuality, I, too, was less than amazed. If Rowling intended Dumbledore to be homosexual all along, why did she wait to reveal this information after all of the books were published, her place in society’s high esteem well guaranteed? I understand the arguments that revealing this information would have been a distraction from her stories, and more importantly, that by making Dumbledore’s sexuality merely something about him and not something that completely defines him, Rowlings was promoting tolerance. However, I just see something completely commercial in her withholding this information. I guess this truly is a theoretical moment in popular culture, because as much as homosexuality is unfairly stigmatized again, America’s made tremendous progress since when the first Harry Potter books came out. This seems like a reader response moment, then, in that the author revealed something about her authorial intents without sufficient necessity. People have been pointing out how some things he says sounds sexual in retrospective analysis, but should a children’s book have such undertones? Perhaps I’m just off on my reactions, but overall, I’m just underwhelmed by this information.
Posted 28 Oct 2007 at 7:43 pm ¶
Andrew Ragni wrote:
((Small HP7 Spoilers Below))
It’s important to know that J.K. Rowling did not reveal Dumbledore’s sexuality for promotional and/or financial reasons. The Harry Potter franchise is far from dead, what with two movies in the works and a Harry Potter theme park in production. Rowling has sold well over 350 million copies, and is the second wealthiest female entertainer in the world, just behind Oprah. To claim Rowling revealed Dumbledore’s sexuality in a bid for attention/increase in sales is just silly. Rowling clearly needs neither.
Furthermore, since the publication of the final book, Rowling periodically releases information on her characters that was not explicitly stated in the books. Interestingly enough, there was no vehement outcry when Rowling revealed the murderer of Tonks in the final battle (Bellatrix Lestrange). Why was this action not criticized for “authorial fascism?” It’s the exact same circumstance–Bellatrix murdering Tonks was never mentioned in the text, but did hoards of people blast Rowling for dominating their imagination and interpretation? No, they didn’t. Dumbledore being gay is a small facet among the heaps of information Rowling has released post-publication. Exactly why people are causing such an uproar over this one tidbit is beyond me.
Lastly, it’s important to note that Rowling did not summon a press conference and state, “Thank you for coming. Dumbledore is gay. Do you have any questions?” Her outing of Dumbledore was a response to a pertinent question asked by a fan following a reading of Harry Potter 7. This revelation was not a product of a well-organized media blitz designed to strike a blow for civil rights. Rowling merely mentioned a fact about one of her characters (emphasis on the word “her”). As much as rabid fans would like to think otherwise, Dumbledore is first and foremost a creation of Rowling, and as such she has final say on everything from his jam preference (raspberry) to his sexuality (gay gay gay gay gay).
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 9:37 am ¶
alison wrote:
Well put, Andrew. I agree
Posted 29 Oct 2007 at 8:06 pm ¶
manayo wrote:
Nice post, Andrew.
If she had written them all decades ago and they had all only just now been discovered, how would we treat them? Do we expect her to write what we want her to write because we have lived with her and watched movies made from her books as she has lived and written?
I want to respond to this. You’re right. Many prominent writers and poets in today’s literary canon became critically respected posthumously. Many nuances and facets of their works may have been lost (or enhanced) because of the lack of authorial direction. Successive generations have analyzed and interpreted their works so closely that new and different readings are disregarded. Isn’t every analysis of past-century literature merely established reader-response?
In modern society, the line between the individual and the celebrity is very blurred. Once in the public eye, heart or mind, one becomes subject to their opinions, to some extent. It’s almost as if the public becomes the author, scripting (or attempting to script) the celebrity’s path and process. The shock-and-awe response to Dumbledore being gay therefore could be because Rowiling has defied or sidestepped the roles that the PUBLIC put her characters in. This is an example of reader/author authority at its best.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 11:51 am ¶
manayo wrote:
Very bad spelling of Rowling. Sorry!
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 11:52 am ¶
Jamie Goldberg wrote:
I think that the uproar over this news shows a lot about the social standards in society. Although most people would claim to be tolerant, homosexulaity is obviously something that many people are still uncomfortable with. Like Andy said Rowling has previously admitted a lot of other information that’s not in her text. If you go on her website she gives full detailed backgrounds about small supporting characters (ie. Dean Thomas) and has been very open about explaining details that were left out of book seven.
Also, people can make whatever assumptions they want from the text, but there is definitely evidence to support Dumbledore’s sexulaity if one wanted to analysis the text close enough. I think it would have been completely unnecessarry to the story, even wrong seeing as how elusive of a charcter Dumbledore is suppossed to be, for Rowling to put any emphasis on Dumbledore being gay. As the author of these characters, however, she has every right to give extra detaills about them after the fact.
Posted 30 Oct 2007 at 1:03 pm ¶