-
Search HogPro
BOOKS!
Recent Conversation
- Marielle on Mockingjay Discussion 7: Gale Hawthorne
- Hunger Games « halfbakedideas101 on Unlocking ‘The Hunger Games’: The Surface, Moral, Allegorical, and Sublime Meanings
- Luxa on Three Good Reasons to Read Suzanne Collins’ Five Underland Chronicles: Gregor the Overlander Meets Harry and Katniss
- Mary L. on Unlocking ‘The Hunger Games’: The Surface, Moral, Allegorical, and Sublime Meanings
- jesspapalaliberte on Unlocking ‘The Hunger Games’: The Surface, Moral, Allegorical, and Sublime Meanings
Categories
Blogroll
Meta
-
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
{ 70 comments… read them below or add one }
Next Comments →
John,
My response to the revelation was:
Hmmm, I missed the boat on that one. Of course, I had not spent much time contemplating Dumbledore’s love life or lack thereof. The most was an inchoate idea that perhaps he and Minerva McGonagall had a covert relationship. I considered that they might be secretly married and for appearances sake, they kept it under wraps. Or they could have just been a couple but without marital ties. Guess I was wrong on that score.
Dumbledore was gay and had been in love with Gellert Grindelwald. That will stire up a lot of plot bunnies and I am sure that within a month Fiction Alley will be filled with fanfic dedicated to Dumbledore/Grindlewald scenes from their younger years as well as their infamous duel. Whether or not they were lovers at one time was not specifically stated by Rowling.
I am sure that relationship will be explored in a myriad of ways. It also adds another layer of meaning to the lines in book 7 in the Daily Prophet interview with Rita Skeeter (p. 26, Scholastic hardcover edition):
“Very dirty business indeed. All I’ll say is don’t be so sure that there really was the spectacular duel of legend. After they’ve read my book, people may be foreced to conclude that Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and came quietly!”
I predict that there will also be Dumbledore/Doge fanfic soon flooding the internet.
Honestly, there were only three characters that I really considered as showing outwardly gay characteristics in the series.
First was Gilderoy Lockhart with his shocking pink robes, penchant for using peacock quills, and a stated fondness for the color lilac. Then again, possibly Lockhart only had eyes for himself. Ye old Lockhart/Lockhart ship.
Second was Professor Grubbly-Plank. With her pipe smoking ways and her brush cut, it seemed to be waving a rainbow colored flag to say, “she’s a lesbian.”
Third was Rita Skeeter. Although I cannot say exactly what her sexuality was – because the idea of Skeeter engaged in any sexual activity is not something I wish to consider at all. However, with her “thick fingers” “heavy-jawed face,” “surprisingly strong grip”(all from page 303 Scholastic paperback edition) and “large mannish hands” (p. 307) I was led to believe “That’s a man, baby!”
Linda
Excellent commentary, John.
I went back and re-read Dr. Amy’s report on the event and realized that the media once again missed the jab at them when JKR said: “…In the end, the message to readers is this: “Question authority. You shouldn’t assume the regime or the press is telling you all of the truth.” ”
The press, what a bunch of idiots.
Earl
Beautiful post, John!
One more little thing. . . Notice Rowling’s exactly words: “I always thought he was gay.” She doesn’t say “I wrote him as gay” or “I intended him as gay.” Writers of fiction–and I speak from experience–often discover that characters take on a life of their own and do/become things beyond the author’s conscious intent. Perhaps Dumbledore’s sexual orientation is something that emerged from the role that Rowling wanted him to play in her story rather than a feature she had mapped out for him in a character list. It could have happened either way.
Given the historic prevalence of homosexuality in British boarding schools and academe, it shows restraint on Rowlings’ part not to have shown more of that element.
Given that Dumbledore seems to have been chaste all his long adult life, what’s the problem? Surely we all have run across or heard of Christians in that situation? Some people have reacted as if this means Dumbledore is routinely frolicking in leather bars or whatever.
Rita Skeeter a trannie? Now that’s an interesting angle.
Thank you for not dissapointing or offending me with your response to this news. I think you’re kind of wonderful and I love everything you write.
Now that the initial surprise of the thing has had the chance to leech away, I’m not nearly so frustrated by this as I had assumed I’d be, and, in fact, am almost and unaccountably pleased by it.
John’s post is an excellent summation of the matter, and it hits upon some of the things I’d probably say about it myself if asked. As many have said, this revelation is not entirely unexpected, or, more accurately, not entirely unsupported by the books themselves. Adding it as a sort of afterthought like this is not really all that problematic, at least for the casual reader. It’s going to be a bombshell in the academy, though, particularly in the tension it will create between those who work in Queer Theory and those who have been trying for so many years to eradicate authorial intent, especially as they’re very often the same people.
Still, the statement has likely launched a thousand articles, and many a relieved grad student will now be able to finally put his or her grant to good use.
More seriously, however, this revelation has done some wonderful things (yes, really) for the story itself, although they aren’t especially happy things. The duel with Grindelwald in ’45, already an epic and heartbreaking affair (whatever Ms. Skeeter might say) takes on an almost unbearable pathos, now, and I’m grateful for that. Why, exactly, I am again uncertain, but there it is.
Anyway, inasmuch as we can look upon this as at worst a neutral thing and at best a guarded positive one, there will be, as the mainstream media no doubt hopes and intends, a great many Christian critics who will fall upon this utterance with particular zeal. I’ll be interested to see what the most notable anti-Potter voices do with it.
We had a marvelous time. I asked a bunch of folks outside the theatre and answers were uniformly enthusiastic and postive. Also, I’ve got to tell you, other groups at the school (we have a big $$ group that just brings in speakers all the time), I’ve not heard folks have such a fun time, even at bigger crowds. And you were a hell of a lot more interesting and a better speaker (in my opinion) than Gen. Wesley Clark last spring (brought in for the opening of our Mock Convention). Everyone really loved it, I was impressed with the smaller group that stayed the extra two hours, and it was a total pleasure, the highlight of my week, certainly, and, even as an ‘organiser’, a breath of fresh air in a week that was otherwise quite busy and difficult. Thank you so much.
—————-
after much thought, going back and forth, etc., I think I have come to a few reasonable conclusions. despite my wish that sexuality be always treated with the greatest discretion, that is out and there’s nothing for it.
1. The fact that Rowling considers Dumbledore gay, and that it, and all other sexual information, was absent (except for Bellatrix’s fawning and that Voldemort obviously thinks of sex in terms of lust (his comment re: Snape’s love of Lily)) means that the value of the books remains intact. That is, while I would the information remain tacet, the books don’t even hint at it– if movie people had to be told, I think it’s fair to say it’s far from obvious (and I hate when people read into things based on stereotypes– straight men can knit, too– and are probably more likely in the wizarding world, given that the can have needles do it for the). The books aren’t about homosexuality; they’re about the battle between good and evil, about sacrificial love (far beyond typical romantic love), and have powerful lessons about faith, the nature of sin, and the obligation not merely not to aid evil, but to actively resist it.
2. I think Rowling has many great ideas and believe her to genuinely be a person of faith. I don’t have to agree with her on everything, and realistically, I probably don’t, whether that includes homosexuality or not. None of this, again, affects the quality of her work. Tennessee Williams was himself a homosexual, and while his plays are not among my favorites, I recognise his talent and skill. Ultimately, we have the responsibility to speak the truth as well as the obligation to act in love towards everyone, especially those we disagree with, or whom we believe to support or engage in acts of grave sin. I have never seen a shouting match do anything other than hurt people– it rarely convinces them. As a Roman Catholic, I have a firm stance on sexual morality (and not just for homosexuals, either)– but I consider it part of my mission to demonstrate that opposition to some sins is not a facet of religious extremism, and that people who oppose those actions aren’t all shouters, picketers, cruel, etc.
3. We have I believe two possibilities for interpreting Rowling’s statement(s):
a. she supports a homosexual agenda or atleast does not oppose it; Dumbledore may have been chosen specifically as gay such that she could have a character folks know and love already and then turns out to be attracted to persons of the same gender– basically, to personalise homosexuality– or it could simply be he rather evolved that way. Either way, apply Occam’s razor: the simplest answer is the most likely to be true– Jo Rowling has no objections to homosexuality.
b. ZoeRose has done a marvelous job of putting the comment in context– and even if it is option a, Dumbledore is not a poster-child for homosexuality. I shall attempt to briefly sum up how I also saw it in the same light. Rowling responds to a question about ‘true love’ basically in the negative. It was unrequited, it was for a bad person, it was connected with powerlust and selfishness– Dumbledore himself seems to feel that he was a very selfish person, particularly at that time. He forswears everything else from that time in his life, with brief interludes (examining James’ invisibility cloak, putting on the resurrection stone); I do not think it unreasonable he would forswear romantic love of any sort entirely. Moreover, it was ‘unrequited’ and a great ‘tragedy.’ While option a is certainly possible, it is well-supported by the text of the interview also that Rowling may not believe homosexual sexual activity is acceptable (note the distinction: being attracted to a person of the same sex is not sinful). An additional note is that of her surprise at the support for the comment (admittedly, she could’ve been expecting a frosty reception, but it may just be as likely that she believes it to be a disordered attraction and thus was surprised at the support).
4. Homosexual persons can be great models of faith. Being attracted to someone of the same sex doesn’t turn someone into an animal, destroy their self-control, etc. God calls all of us, of all sexualities and vocations, to chastity. Oddly enough, my interpretation is that Dumbledore is similar to a Michael O’Brien character, Pawel of Sofia House– a disordered sexual experience (albeit very different ones), and a life of self-denial. We already know Dumbledore denied his basest desires for power, etc., for, what, a century? O’Brien dedicated his book to those whose ‘sacrifices are known only to God’– to those who deny their basest desires to honor God, and, in the context of the novel, specifically to people of same-sex attraction who live chastely.
regardless, again, HP has a lot to offer, and isn’t, as others have said, a gateway to witchcraft or homosexuality. I wish it hadn’t come up (leaving everything to the individual’s interpretation, whatever that may be), but it’s not.. devastating.. it’s also not clear at all where Rowling is on it, or what she’s saying with Dumbledore’s character.
~Nzie
I would like to ask the HogPros to read afresh the truth and confession of Albus Dumbledore in the DH King’s Cross chapter, from the end of(Scholastic) pg. 712, beginning with the paragraph “The Deathly Hallows…”
to mid-page 720.
On page 713 we learn from Dumbledore that “I have no secrets from you [Harry] anymore…
On page 714 that …looking for the Hallows is the one thing, above all, that drew us together [Dumbledore and Grindelwald]
On page 715 Dumbledore confesses love for parents, brother and sister, but I [Dumbledore] was selfish…felt trapped with Ariana after his mother’s death.
Then he [Grindelwald] came…how his ideas caught me…muggles forced into subservience…glorious leaders of the revolution.
Did I know in my heart of hearts what Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes…at the heart of our schemes the Deathly Hallows!
Invincible, Masters of death….Grindelwald and Dumbledore (p.717)
TWO MONTHS of insanity, of cruel dreams and neglect of the only two members of my family left to me…
Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered brother. I did not want to hear the truth shoutedatme…thatI couldnot setforth to seek Hallows with a fragle and unstable sister in tow…
The argument became a fight…Grindelwald lost control. That which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now sprung into being….Ariana…dead on the floor….
Grindelwald fled…vanished…he ran while I was left to bury my sister,,,,(and after the infamous duel)…They say he showed remorse in later years, alone in his cell at Nurmengard. I hope that is true. I would like to think he did feel the horror and shame of what he had done…(pg.719)
I find NO reference here to any gay relationship when reading the entire text in context. Where is it? And for two months?? It just doesn’t fit.
John, thanks for this very thoughtful analysis. It helps enormously. I had two reactions of frustration upon first hearing the news. The first synopsis I read (I can’t recall which newspaper account) really did make it sound as though Rowling was dropping this news as a kind of bombshell. So it seemed like a bit of a publicity stunt. That didn’t sound like her (though we’re all human and the hunger for and delight in publicity on some level is probably just a fact for all of us) and I am very glad to have the context explained further. I was also helped by going over to the Leaky Cauldron last night and reading the full transcript (at least as they had hastily transcribed it thus far). Although Ms. Sturgis’ additional insights about the evening add even more, even just reading the whole transcript versus the bits that had been excerpted in the initial news releases gave the discussion more nuance. You’d think we’d HP readers would be more savvy about the tendency of the media to whip out those quick quill quotes…my initial naivete feels a bit embarrassing in retrospect!
My second reaction, upon pondering it further, was frustration that this was going to sidetrack potential readers. Because the issue of homosexuality is such a flashpoint in the “culture wars” right now, news of this nature about a beloved character in a very popular series might serve to take away a bit from the rich complexity that Rowling had brought to bear on his character. In other words, people would hear the laden word “gay” and, depending on which side of the issue one falls, try to turn Dumbledore into a mere symbol or token, either to celebrate or decry.
That would be a real shame. My husband and I have spent a good bit of time, since reading DH, discussing just how rich Dumbledore’s back story turned out to be…I think it was one of the most surprising aspects of the book. Rowling really “humanized” a character who could all too easily have fallen into a stereotype: the wise old mentor wizard (Merlin, Gandalf, Obi Wan…). Dumbledore is that, but his frailties and failings help him transcend the stereotype too, which makes him more interesting. It’s also fascinating to consider how his own struggles shaped his decisions in what to share and what to reveal to Harry as he tried to help prepare him to answer his calling and fulfill his destiny.
I felt more peaceful last evening after another long talk my husband and I had about similar sorts of observations brought up here today about the painfully obsessive nature of Dumbledore’s young relationship with Grindelwald: what remains important is that the love and admiration he felt for Grindelwald was crippling and unhealthy and bordered on the idolatrous. It makes Dumbledore’s fleeing the temptation to power (an overtly stated struggle in the book) even more interesting when one considers now that he was also likely fleeing other temptations as well.
I could write more, but this has gotten too long as it is. I’ll look forward to revisiting the board and hearing more thoughts from others.
I must admit the first news of this had taken me aback somewhat. However, to view this revelation as confirmation of Ms. Rowling having some sort of agenda seems far-fetched at best. Considering all of the other relationships portrayed, there was nothing in the series that indicated she promoted anything but a traditional family structure. There were no homosexual couples portrayed, no unwed mothers, and no common-law relationships. If she thought of Dumbledore as homosexual, she certainly did not use him in any way to promote the “gay agenda.” If anyone could have dug up this kind of dirt on him Rita Skeeter certainly could and would have, but she didn’t. In the absence of any evidence of homosexual activity by Dumbledore in the text, we can assume he lead a chaste life. As such, he represents a shining example to any Christian with a same sex attraction. The Roman Catholic Church, to which I belong, as do the Harry-critics I most correspond with, says that homosexuals and lesbians are welcomed in the Church as members of the Body of Christ. However each of us are called to chastity according to our station in life, therefore people with same sex attractions would be forbidden to physically act on them (much like heterosexuals outside of marriage). Barring any follow-up revelations by Ms. Rowling that she imagined Dumbledore to be the type to have frequent romps in gay bars and bath houses, Dumbledore further demonstrates her apparent commitment to Christian values and shows her willingness to explore complexities in character that would be rare among secular writers. What secular writer would bother to include a gay character that was chaste?
Wonderful post John. I just wish more posters over at Sword of Gryffindor took this view point. I totally agree with everything you have said. Well done, and keep up the fantastic work. A sincere fan, Michael.
John, thank you for another excellent post. I particularly wanted to say that I think you’re spot on about the ovation. It was a very honest moment, and the fact that Ms. Rowling would explain in so much detail the background of her character-building and world-building project was immensely touching. For me, several “loose ends” slid into place, and I felt I knew Albus Dumbledore in all of his three-dimensional, fictional incarnation better, and I was extremely grateful for that.
That said, the media failed to report that an equally loud and prolonged ovation followed her comment about the fact she chose Molly Weasley to be the one to defeat Bellatrix, in part because being a woman who chose to devote her life to her family didn’t mean she wasn’t a particularly powerful and talented witch (quite the contrary). I certainly haven’t seen any members of the press assume that this ovation meant that the audience members were wildly in support of women who choose to stay home in traditional roles as homemakers and mothers! Ah, selective hearing kicks in once again.
Incidentally, this was not one of the events solely for school children, like her readings in Los Angeles and New Orleans, and her earlier reading that day in New York City. There was a minimum age requirement at this event; I had to sign a legal document about my age and have it notarized, and there were clear rules about minors requiring permission from and being accompanied by adults. I’m in my thirties; the winner sitting to my left was in her fifties or sixties. You can see the complete list of winners and their ages here at the Scholastic Books site.
She didn’t have to tell us anything; she could have signed books and left, and everyone still would have been happy. But she made herself open to the moment and available to readers. I just regret that her honesty has made her the center of so much controversy.
Thank you, Amy, for sharing the information you have about what really happened at Carnegie Hall last Friday. From who was there to what was said and what the crowd applauded, we would be relatively clueless and left only with the Rita Skeeter reports of the MSM except for your notes on your blog and at HogPro. It was a happy providence for Fandom that you were among the Sweepstakes winners!
Grateful John
It seems somewhat amazing to me that most of the posters here take such a cheerful view of homosexuality, as if there is nothing wrong with casting such an important character as Dumbledore who is in such an important children’s book series as a homosexual. I’m trying to think of a way to not sound offensive here, but the question that comes to mind is–do you folks own a Bible? Do you understand that homosexuality never appears in a positive light, and homosexuals are not our role models? I have given Rowling a lot of latitude just because her work is fantasy, but this revelation about Dumbledore strikes me as being in the worst liberal Christian framework, and we are no longer talking about symbols and fantasy magic, but about real world connotations. Do you want your child’s role model to be a homosexual? Do you think that we can set aside the very serious scriptural warnings, and I’m talking the New Testament here, about homosexuality? And before you give the “do not judge” speech, do you remember the Christ said: go and sin no more ?
I own a Bible. I can’t speak for the others here but they seem a pretty well read and thoughtful bunch. My bet is they own Bibles, too.
My post above, however, was not about the right and wrong of homosexuality, about which, incidentally, no one comes to Hogwarts Professor to learn or ponder. The post concerned Ms. Rowling’s Albus Dumbledore comment Friday night. The responses, none of which I found took the “cheerful view” you claim most of them do, are also about this comment and how readers of Ms. Rowling’s novels should understand it.
I am confident there are internet sites on which you can discuss at length your understanding of scriptural prohibitions, which, I rush to assure you, many HogPro All-Pros have read and take seriously. This is a forum, however, restricted to the discussion of Harry Potter as literature and cultural phenomenon.
I am sorry that you believe I am “soft” on homosexuality and that I am unaware of scriptural references to it. You don’t know me very well and I am sure you have the best of intentions in writing what you have. In the future, though, please restrict your posts here to the subject of Harry Potter and send to my private email (the address can be found in every one of my books) any spiritual guidance you think I need.
to quote Beth from above:
“what remains important is that the love and admiration he felt for Grindelwald was crippling and unhealthy and bordered on the idolatrous. It makes Dumbledore’s fleeing the temptation to power (an overtly stated struggle in the book) even more interesting when one considers now that he was also likely fleeing other temptations as well.”
especially since it was Dumbledore who put Christian scriptures on the gravestones of his family members.
John – I can’t tell you how relieved I am to read you post today.
I only recently discovered you/your book (5 keys) / and this web site. I bought your book after finishing DH and was left wanting more. I was raised in a typical large Catholic family (youngest of 8 children, went to Catholic school). I’ve strayed from my faith in my adulthood and was really taken with how you’ve unlocked the Christianity in these books. It’s awaken an interest in my faith and religion. I smile as you and some of the people you quote on this site make it so clear why I love these books.
So I was anxious to see your reaction to the Dumbledore “outing” and was happy to see an intelligent, non bigoted, response. It’s driven me to register with this site and post my gratitude. Thank you! I will continue to enjoy your site and dig even deeper JKR’s materpieces.
Response to Skald:
1) The distinction in John’s post above between (a) «same-sex-attraction», (b) «homosexual» and (c) «gay» is very important.
2) The question was whether Dumbledore ever «fell in love», and the answer was that: Yes, he «fell in love» with same-sex-youngster Mr. Grindelwald. Which is probably best understood as describing: (a) «same-sex-attraction», that is, emotions rather than acts.
3) More important than owning a Bible is to read it. What is expressly forbidden in the Bible is same-sex-intercourse. (Then there is also the prohibition against «burning with lust» for the same.) The phrase «fall in same-sex-love» may, or may not, cover this forbidden area, as John writes.
4) On the other hand, there is no prohibition whatsoever in the Bible against living a long life «being a homosexual». The sin is in the act, in the doing, or in the lustful desire for it. But not in the «orientation».
5) Dumbledore obviously is the Bible student behind the two Scripture quotations on the gravestones. To live a life believing in the Resurrection in Christ (according to those two Scripture Quotations) he had to confess his sins to the Lord. Including possible homosexual sins. Confessing them is having them eternally and totally forgiven by the Lord.
6) Ergo: Dumbledore was all through the period of the seven books a man with forgiven sins. I (for one) have no objection at all to allow my children to have a Headmaster with that sort of a past and with all his sins forgiven.
7) Since I happen to be Norwegian, I also happen to know what the Skald in the Old Norse Mythology used to do. He was the one to compose and say forth the celebration poem. What about a poem celebrating the graceful forgiveness of all the sins of Professor Dumbledore, Mr. Skald?
Yours: Odd Sverre Hove
Bergen, Norway
Just one short addition for Mr Skald:
I think 1 Cor 6:11 seems to prove that some of the Corinthians to whom St Paul wrote had a past as homosexuals or gay people before they had their sins forgiven …
Yours: Odd Sverre Hove
Bergen, Norway
Wouldn’t it have been odder if Dumbledore was a person who had never felt the emotion of romantic love for another person? –which is, I take it, the question Rowling was answering. Book Seven is the one in which Harry truly discovers Dumbledore in all his aspects; when he reads the obituary, it occurs to him how much he didn’t really know about the man. It does help explain just why he was so taken in by Grindelwald, though I would think his sister being killed and feeling responsible for it would be enough to make any man remorseful. In other words, Dumbledore was human.
I was pleased that her “gay” character wasn’t one of the ones often assumed in fanfiction because of stereotypes. For example, that Neville is gay because he is gentle, with the undertone that he is a “sissy” (not after Book Seven), Lupin is gay because he’s a werewolf ( I never really followed the logic there.) Dumbledore doesn’t really fit any stereotypes except for the “confirmed bachelor,” and since we never learn about any romantic relationships of Hogwarts professors, that’s not much of an issue, either.
I teach *Harry Potter* at the college level and I will have to think about how I will handle this. Since I teach future teachers, I probably ought to mention the controversy without giving any personal opinions; it seems only fair to assist teachers who are deciding what and what not to teach. Perhaps I will wait to see if any students mention it first; if not, I probably won’t mention it at all until *after* students have read the entire book. It’s not actually *in* the book; I don’t know that it’s even subtext, simply one of the facts Rowling “knows” about her myriads of characters. I’m concerned that the book might be read as “about” Dumbledore’s sexuality, which it most certainly is not, and overwhelm other issues such as construction and literary allusion.
I would love to know what other teachers on the college level think of this or are preparing to do.
~~moonyprof
Friend from Norway, I agree with your post – forgiveness and redemption is what it is all about…along with the found piece of Lily Potter’s torn handwritten letter that spoke about Bathilda’s revelations on Dumbledore’s exploits and whether Lily believed them all since her mind’s going….”I cannot believe that Dumbledore could ever have been friends with Gellert Grindelwald.”
John -
Thank you for prefacing your response to the media’s reporting of JKR’s Carnegie Hall revelation by sharing your weekend events. Talk about a “narrative misdirection!” I’ve been eagerly awaiting your insights; as I began reading your account I thought you were setting us up to share in your disappointment over Rowling’s Dumbledore statement. Thank you for proving me wrong and dispelling the angst that has plagued me since Saturday morning! Your informed, academic overview (and reminder) of Rowling’s work presented in today’s post is a blessing. I am ashamed to say that I’ve still not read *Unlocking Harry Potter…*, but be assured it will be on my Christmas list this year!!!
Not to discount the contributions of other All-Pros; I am truly honored to be able to access other’s thoughts and thereby am richer for the experience. In fact, today on our regional 50,000-watt midwest radio station the morning talkshow host wanted listeners to respond to the “Dumbledore is Gay” headline…and being the invested fan that I am, I called and got through! Yes, I said that I was saddened to have heard the news (I didn’t elaborate why as not to distract from what I really wanted to say). My intention was to encourage interested listeners to search out internet sites such as The Leaky Cauldron (this was for you, AHS), Mugglenet, and HogWartsProfessor.com to read the discussions and become informed readers as well. So that’s what I did…gave a shout-out to all of you who provide reasoned, supported discourse for those of us less academically inclined. If I can begin to see the intertwining of Rowling’s Christian themes with postmodern storytelling because I take the time to follow HogPro posts…then others should be told so they can learn, too!
I certainly agree that homosexual behavior is disordered and sinful. But that doesn’t mean homosexuals cannot be role models. As a Catholic, I am happy to point to Courage as a group of persons with same sex attraction who are incredible role models of faith– what can be a better model than such a struggle against temptation within the fiber of one’s identity? These folks prove that all things are opportunities for virtue, especially when working against such an intrinsic part of their own make-up (whether one believes it to be biological or environmental is immaterial at that point). Dumbledore seems to model chastity among his vast exercise of self-denial for so many years.
I hope Rowling doesn’t support a gay rights agenda, but regardless, we can and should appreciate her efforts as an author, and be able to judge Dumbledore’s merits as a character (as well as his flaws). The FBI had tapes of ML King, Jr., having affairs– but look at the good he accomplished for African Americans. One doesn’t excuse the other, but “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23– we can recognise virtues and vices within the same person. Abhor the sin, love the sinner. “Love means loving the unlovable, or it’s no virtue at all.” G.K. Chesterton.
anyway, I’m a bit incoherent after long days and night shifts, so I’ll close off for now.
~Nzie
This may be another topic for another day (although moonyprof alludes to this idea above): Why should we accept as “canon” any particular fact that a writer did not see fit to put into the pages of his or her books? The books stand alone on their own. Would someone reading the HP series 150 years from now (and I hope they will) ever get more than the slightest hint about Dumbledore’s private life just by reading the books? Yes, I know all about “author’s intent”, but if the Muses didn’t inspire her to put it in the books…maybe it doesn’t belong there.
Before DH, the HBP was my favorite book in the series, primarily because of the close relationship shared between Harry and Dumbledore. This latest “post-canon” revelation doesn’t spoil that for me, since I never got the slightest hint of anything unwholesome in the way that Dumbledore acted towards Harry.
Personally I’m no longer comfortable about being a fan of Potter. At least until I know more specific details about intentions, what was he like in his later years, etc. I totally understand imperfection in characters however. It bothers me in some novels when they are perfect. (I.e. you average modern Christian novel.) I say some novels, because Tolkien’s Elves are pretty perfect and it doesn’t bother me at all that they are. It’s strictly personal conviction that’s all, but I do intend to keep my mind open to new information about Potter. I don’t wish to give the impression I’ve necessarily become a Harry-Hater as a result.
Shane,
To use a well-worn phrase, *Don’t toss the baby out with the bathwater!*
Your reasoning to “know more specific details about intentions, what was he like in his later years, etc” is reminiscent of a conversation I had with my mother many years ago when discussing Scripture. At the time she was of the opinion that The Bible was incomplete because the Canon did not include the years between Jesus’ trip to the Temple and the beginning of his public ministry. Not until she was faced with her own imminent death did she decide that Christ’s backstory, while intriguing in its silence, was not as important as the story of the Cross. What she needed to know was already provided from Genesis to Revelation…and her curiosity would be appeased in due season.
I encourage you to re-read John’s thoughts and his 5-point conclusion above and examine all new information that comes down the Potter news-pike in light of what you know to be true from the HP books themselves. Don’t despair!!!!
Might this be an apropos time to consider why celibacy is either required or very strongly encouraged for all Hogwarts professors?
Everyone we know about who has chosen a life devoted to teaching at Hogwarts is unable or unwilling to commit to heterosexual marriage. No Hogwarts faculty member even “dates” or seems to have any social life at all away from school. In the case of professor Snape, life-transforming heartbreak determined the path. Sibyll Trelawney is temperamentally unsuited for partnership, and sadly, there’s really no one out there for Hagrid.
I think the books provide hints that many of the remaining professors are gay or SSA. I always thought Harry interrupts what appears to be a private moment between professors McGonagal and Grubbly-Plank when Hedwig is injured in Order of the Phoenix. And while we learn nothing about the personal lives of Madame Hooch and professors Sprout, Slughorn, and Flitwick, all are “gender outlaws,” people who live outside conventional gender-roles, whatever their orientation.
IMournForTonks,
(So do I by the way…mourn for Tonks.)
I think you have hit the main point that we HogPro’s should be focusing on: Why did Lady Joanne “feel” that she could only fit this character into the total warp and woof of the Harry Potter tapestry if she visualized him as being an homosexual? The exact quote was: “…I always *thought* of him as being gay.”
I believe it was because she had to use him symbolically as one character in a four-way byplay which is intended to cause us to examine similar byplays that occurred in the religion, history and literature of Interbellum Europe. I am thinking in particular of:
1) The Nazi Party [Gellert] in relationship with the Lutheran Church [Dumbledore] while Martin Niemoller [Aberforth] cries out “for shame” and the good German Lutheran people [Ariana], worshipers in a denomination founded by Martin Luther on the very principle of questioning authority, marched into a period of spiritual death never questioning the Church’s authority. [Spiritual byplay]
2) The Nazi Party [Gellert] in cozy, mutually beneficial relationship with the British Aristocracy [Dumbledore] while Churchill [Aberforth] futilely cried “foul”, until the good English people [Ariana] had to launch rowboats and rafts to pull their dying sons off the beach at Dunkirk, never previously having questioned the Aristocracy’s authority. [Historic byplay]
3) Friedrich Nietzsche’s [Dumbledore] relationship with Wagner[Gellert], which he ended in horror when he saw where Wagnerian ideas were leading Germany…Only to become a paralyzed and then dead Dumbledore leaving his sister Elizabeth Forster-Nietzsche [doppelganger of Aberforth] to warp his philosophies via selective editing until they seemed to support the very thing he opposed. While the entirety of the European (and American) literati never questioned the authority of her presentation despite having drafts and earlier publications that clearly contradicted the official Nazi printings. [Literary/Philosophical byplay]
In each of the above byplays, we have relationships of an highly unnatural sort involving people or groups of people that in most other circumstances should seemingly have known better; but who for a tragic interlude, fell into something evil and deluded. Small wonder if Lady Rowling could only force herself into writing Dumbledore into the Potter Saga equivalent by supposing him to be gay and blinded by an unnatural love.
And I do believe that whatever else is going on in Lady Rowling’s brain, she must be having internal hissy-fits because nobody is asking the question: “Is Ariana then guiltless in this? Was she really such a fragile reed? Or did the family Dumbledore–Father, Mother and Brothers-both–force her into a self-fulfilling martyr’s role?” I’m not saying they did, but should not someone be asking the question?
I came to this website a few hours after I got phone calls and emails from friends reporting the “news” and forwarding the news articles. At that point, John had not entered his essay and no one had posted any comments. I was upset and confused, and disappointed. But now, that I’ve had some more time to think, process, and learn from you all, just some added reflections…
*I reacted in haste to the “Did you hear??” reports. I took what the press said at face value and allowed their take on things to define my initial reaction. Shame on me. I should have known better. Thank you Dr. Amy, John, et. al. for more context.
*I felt safe expressing even my knee-jerk reactions in this forum. As a group, the people who contribute to this website are among the sharpest, most thoughtful, and most gracious people I’ve come across. Thanks for teaching.
*John – I knew you’d be there to help. Thanks.
*Beth – all I can say is “Me, too.” Your post beautifully expresses my thoughts as well. So many of you others also brought in SO many excellent points, and you have helped me a great deal. I’m glad, not only for myself, but also for the fact that lots of my friends pitch their HP questions and comments in my direction. What a relief.
Two links to this thread came in today from other web sites, one of which was edifying and challenging (if you stay clear of the catty com-boxes), the other one so bent-over-backward to mock us — I think! — that it is nigh on incoherent. You guess which is which:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#8769322148562563331
http://www.greatestjournal.com/users/waitedforyou/175803.htm
Thank you, Perelandra, HogPro All-Pro of special distinction, for your kind comments in the ever combative Catholic blogosphere! I confess to some relief that the CAEI warriors didn’t take your advice and join us for a spell.
Beth Priest wrote me with this link to a newspaper follow-up to the Dumbledore is gay story, in which the writer quotes Rita Skeeter as if she is Joanne Rowling. Check out paragraph 8:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore
Truly we live in an age beyond satire. The press is quoting Skeeter to make their point that Ms. Rowling’s Friday night comment advances the “gay agenda.” Did Christ’s parables have the intent or the effect of advancing the Samaritan agenda? Why did he tell stories that had Samaritans in them? Bob Trexler’s point here is worth a second visit:
http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=197#comment-17268
Rose Zeller said: “Might this be an apropos time to consider why celibacy is either required or very strongly encouraged for all Hogwarts professors?”
I’m not aware of any text evidence to support this. Maintaining a relationship would be difficult in most cases for Hogwarts staff, as the school is relatively isolated. Unless both members were on staff, or one lived nearby, they wouldn’t get to spend much time together. But we’ve got a counter-example: we know from the last chapter of _Deathly Hallows_ that Neville will be a professor there, and from Rowling’s talk that he’ll be married to Hannah Abbott, who’ll be running the Leaky Cauldron pub in Hogsmeade.
Shane — Dumbledore loved Grindlewald when he was a young man. We have no indication that he had *any* kind of relationship at any other time in the rest of his life. Harry’s first contact with him at school was about ninety years later and there’s no hint of anything improper in their interaction. What about Harry’s future life do you now think is in question?
The author’s intent is certainly key in understanding any writing. Even so, not everything in a story need be attributed to forethought and intention. The creative process is such that sometimes the elements of a work take on a life of their own…
1 – Dumbledore is the most powerful wizard of his generation. Why is he teaching at Hogwarts instead of running the MoM?
2 – Dumbledore is a Machiavellian figure. Although he cares about Harry and anguishes over his fate, he is willing to sacrifice Harry “for the greater good” and manipulates events to that end.
3 – Dumbledore possesses the legendary Elder Wand. Where did he get it and why doesn’t he use its power against Voldemort?
4 – Dumbledore believes in inclusiveness of all and fights against prejudicial attitudes.
I think it would be difficult to sell Dumbledore to the reader as a “family man” – a doting grandfather of numerous grandchildren who is willing to sacrifice someone else’s kid doesn’t work very well. Certainly, the Weasly’s would have been appalled if they knew what Dumbledore had in mind. Even Snape was taken back by it.
Something has to be put into Dumbledore’s past that explains why he is what he is. Hence, the story of Dumbledore and Grindewald and their quest for power. At a time when he is frustrated and bitter, Dumbledore finally meets someone who is his equal, becomes close to that person, but with tragic results. However, if Dumbledore is so smart why can’t he see Grindewald’s flaws? If Dumbledore was “blinded by love” it makes sense. In our current cultural context, that raises the question: maybe he’s gay?
Having once been blinded by love, Dumbledore’s conflicting attitudes towards Harry make sense also. He doesn’t want to see Harry hurt, but doesn’t want to let his own emotions blind him to the best strategy to rid the world of Voldemort.
Also, a flawed Dumbledore works into the plot and themes very well. Harry’s discovery that maybe Dumbledore wasn’t an all-knowing, wise and compassionate benefactor after all leads to a crisis of confidence. Harry must choose for himself. It was Dumbledore that told Harry death was the beginning of the next great adventure. Realizing that Dumbledore might have been wrong leads to an “act of faith” to continue with the plan. Consequently, his self-sacrifice becomes a voluntary act of love with uncertain results, and not the inevitable end result of Dumbledore’s manipulation.
So, I don’t see any agenda in Rowling’s remarks, just a working out of the internal logic of the character. Granted, there could have been other solutions, but the one Rowling chose works pretty well.
My response to Ms. Rowling’s announcement was extreme disappointment, to the point of tears, frankly. Not because I care that Dumbledore is gay–it immediately occurred to me that this simply humanized his character more (and there was a lot of humanizing in the seventh book) and that it added to the tremendous flaws, temptations, and sins that he had to work to overcome. It was a backstory to the character that, I’m sure, added to the pathos Rowling sensed as she wrote about Dumbledore. I get it, from a literary sense, and, as an adult, I’m not bothered by one of the principal characters being homosexual.
But adults are not the only fans. Nor are teens.
My problem was that I have shared these stories (with great enthusiam, I might add) with my two young children. From the very beginning, we have used the stories to explore elements of literature (plot, characterization, etc.), to discuss important issues of morality and social life (racism, politics, media, etc.), and, of course, we discussed our Christian faith and how it is reflected (in imperfect or incomplete ways, perhaps) in Rowling’s books. On top of all this….our entire family has laughed and cried together over these books. They are an important part of our family memories of the last few years.
But now the author of these fine works has added an element to them that she did not choose to actually place explicitly in the art itself. I have been prepared to deal with so many issues as my kidsread these books…I read the books before they did and girded myself for their questions about so many things… But nothing in the books suggested that I needed to be prepared for this issue. Nothing that my kids would pick up on…
Ah…but now I do need to be prepared, and I feel betrayed by the artist. Why add an element to the art which was not there on its own? –particularly one which is handled by families in different ways at different ages.
We in our family are careful about this because I never want to be forced to be simplistic–some discussions are nuanced enough (Is Snape a hero?) that they need to wait until children are discerning enough to gain something from the conversation. So….my youngest boy has not yet read the sixth or seventh book, and my oldest did so chapter-by-chapter while discussing his reactions and thoughts with me.
But now I’ll to have a conversation that wasn’t planned. It’s not as if my boys won’t hear it now…it is all over the news. So what shall I say when they ask?
This is what I’ve decided–this is a chance to speak of Dumbledore as a flawed character who contended with a tremendous burden of temptation–parallel, perhaps, to the adultery of David, the faithlessness of Peter, and the “thorn in the side” of Peter. I’ll have to speak of what it is to live with such a temptation to sin and what God’s grace can impart to such a person (and I’ll point out that such a person is “me, and Daddy, and you”–we all will live only by God’s grace). I think this can be effective…but I’d love your feedback. What will you say/have you said to your children?
Now if only Ms. Rowling would stop talking…I love her work, no question, but I feel betrayed by her apparent inability to allow families to think about her literature as it stands, in the context of their own faith and family dynamics. I was going to have a conversation with my children about homosexuality at some point…but it wasn’t going to be yet and there was nothing in Rowling’s work to suggest that it needed to be.
(I posted over at SwordofGryffindor, but don’t know if my comment went through.)
ProfJackson really put into words what I’ve been thinking. I’m not a parent (I’m 17), but I feel exactly the same way. I really put a lot of faith in these books, and quite frankly, looked up to Ms. Rowling as a role model in writing. However, I think I’ve lost a lot of respect for her because of this irrelevant piece of information she threw in our face. The news blind-sided me, and upset my entire weekend.
I want to thank John for his insightful posts on this tough issue (and every other brilliant person who comments here). You all really helped me to come into terms with this, and though I’m still a little bit upset by it, I’ve accepted that I alone can interpret these books how I would like to without the words of the author influencing how I see Dumbledore. But it’s going to be a great deal harder to debate the issue with my Harry-hating friends…
I found ZoeRose’s post (on the previous thread) to be especially interesting, and it struck me, as well. I was wondering if John could elaborate on what he thinks about this too. Is Ms. Rowling necessarily presenting homosexuality as a positive thing? Considering the nature and context of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship (as ZoeRose effectively described for us), is Ms. Rowling presenting it as “destructive”? One of the main points of Deathly Hallows (at least to me) was the fact that Harry was forced to lose faith and respect in someone he trusted and looked up to, because of the “surfacing” of Dumbledore’s faults and sins. Is his homosexuality in line with the rest of his sins: We find out he was a lying, power-hungry, almost-Nazi (all of which I believe he repented of) …and a homosexual (at one point?)? What do you think about this, John?
To Professor Jackson: you seem to have a very clear idea of what you want to share with your children about homosexuality and a life of faith and a time and place to share if these news reports raise this question. It would be way out of line for me on this Harry Potter as literature forum to say much more than that.
To Morgan: I have tried to address your question about how to figure if Ms. Rowling is thumbs up or thumbs down on ASA/Homosexual/gay behaviors in the post above this one. Short answer: don’t bother. As Professor Reynolds at Biola/Torrey wrote in the Scriptorium Daily, the writer doesn’t keep writing the work; the text is as it is, not as amended endlessly in interviews and encyclopedias and Silmarillions. Homosexuality appears nowhere in the books. That’s how important Ms. Rowling thinks it was for her story to work: not at all.
Ms. Rowling said today the characters are hers and she can do what she wants with them. Not really. Harry may be an alchemical hermaphrodite but she cannot tell us tomorrow he was transsexual in books three to five. Back story by definition is not even secondary text; it’s scholastic curiosity, “stuff the author chose not to share in the story told.” She can do what she wants with these characters in her sandbox at home but she cannot affix new meaning or change the reader’s focus in considering characters without violating our trust that writers tell us what they want us to know between the covers of their books.
Let’s return to ‘the story told,’ shall we?
Bunsen points out that news of Neville’s future marriage to Hannah Abbot is evidence that Hogwarts faculty are now free to marry. Perhaps in the post-Dumbledore era the restrictions (or de facto customs) have been somewhat relaxed. It occurs to me that perhaps it was Dumbledore’s own experience that influenced his decision to discourage, if not forbid, personal attachments for teachers.
Or maybe Neville will resign from Hogwarts before marrying. He’s a great herbologist, but his talents suit him more to research than teaching. I know he showed great courage at the Battle of Hogwarts, but it takes another kind of courage to face a class full of teenagers; a courage even greater than that required to decapitate a giant serpent.
Am I exaggerating, John?
In Richard Abanes’s extremely immature (aka typical) response to the “Dumbledore is Gay” story, he was quoted as saying:
“Good luck John, and all you ‘Christian’ Harry Potter worshipers — you’ll need it.”
It’s funny how all of us on this board aren’t Christians, but merely “Christians.” Supposedly Rowling isn’t a Christian either. Gay people aren’t either, as made obvious by Abanes’s most recent blog. I’m beginning to wonder if Abanes is the only true Christian he knows.
I feel really blessed to have John here to help us sort this kind of stuff out. Never get discouraged by the immaturity of others, John. I truly believe you are doing God’s work, and are a blessing to Christians everywhere. Thank you so much.
Also, for anyone who feels upset about this revelation about Dumbledore, and about Rowling’s possible beliefs about homosexuality, I suggest you visit the link below, which may give you a better idea where Rowling (and many other Christians) is coming from.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
John, you write, “Ms. Rowling said today the characters are hers and she can do what she wants with them. Not really. Harry may be an alchemical hermaphrodite but she cannot tell us tomorrow he was transsexual in books three to five. Back story by definition is not even secondary text; it’s scholastic curiosity, “stuff the author chose not to share in the story told.” She can do what she wants with these characters in her sandbox at home but she cannot affix new meaning or change the reader’s focus in considering characters without violating our trust that writers tell us what they want us to know between the covers of their books.”
I hope that you address the issue of *backstory as secondary text vs. scholastic curiosity* in your book(s) revisions. I believe this is a very key element in helping the novice reader become a more serious reader in light of the Skeeter-media moments plaguing HP at this time.
…Especially for HP fans who are toying with the idea of setting the books aside to avoid the controversies altogether. We all need to be informed and empowered.
Prof. Jackson, you captured my feelings exactly. As the father of three girls ages 7, 4 and 2 I have loved sharing the first 4 books with my oldest and look forward to sharing them with the two younger ones. But I do feel betrayed by the artist’s decision to add an element that isn’t in the work itself, an element that will to some extent be part of my children’s understanding of the books now, whether I want it to be or not. She has made the decision for tens of thousands of parents that now is the time and this is the context for them to have (or begin) that discussion with their children, whether they would have chosen it to be so or not. With the way kids talk among their peers, many of whom have older siblings, there is no way this news won’t reach the ears of most of even the youngest HP fans, whether they have ever heard of the term “gay” or not. Saying “well the gathering at which she made the revelation was not a gathering of children, and the questioner was an adult” is a cop-out. Sure, in the moment that was better than if she dropped the news to a roomfull of first graders. But Rowling understands the media well enough to know that her answer to that question would be worldwide news the next morning, and that kids were as much a part of the “audience” who would hear that answer as the original questioner.
In answer to Skald above, and not denigrating you, brother, yes I do own and know my Bible–a long story of man in which Abraham handed off his wife to Pharoah twice because he was afraid for himself, righteous people committed murder and genocide and David, after getting his lover pregnant, murders her husband by proxy, yet is still seen by God as “a man after God’s own heart.”
As a young Christian in the 70s I was friends with several homosexuals (and thanks, John, for teasing out terms). These young people were almost all from intact, healthy Christian and missionary familes. Their pain and suffering over their desires and conflict with Biblical mandates–I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. One attempted suicide by slashing his wrists. And their suffering and anxiety over their condition within the church body and trying to “pass” was agony.
One beloved friend, Barbara from my Jesus Movement days in So. CA, was a beacon of role modeling. She gave up her lover and persevered to live righteously, suffering much in the process. She longed, futilely, to have her desires taken away. What an example she was of faithfulness.
I’ve come to believe that most homosexuals are born that way. I’ve only known one that did it for kicks (a la Romans 1). What really swayed me to this veiw was what I observed and heard, and also contemplation about hermaphrodites.
Nevertheless, we are all born fallen and flawed. Including Mr. Abanes. I read a couple of his books around Y2K; I saw he apparently has arrogance issues. Since I also struggle with this, I cast no stones. Perhaps, in good fellowship, Mr. Abanes would like to drop his, too.
And, I’d like to point out that in the various “lists” of the Bible of those not fit to enter the kingdom, homosexuality never tops the list. Nor is it in the OT passage (loosely translated), “These six things the Lord hates, seven are an abomination to him: arrogance, lying, murder, chasing after evil, an evil heart, slander and troublemaking among believers.” Also, throughout much of the NT condemning believers’ sinning, the verb tense is ongoing and habitual.
As my husband says, we all desire perfect role models. We’re bound to be disappointed as the only one we have is Jesus. And we all want perfect daddies and daddy figures. Well, a good deal of us don’t get them either.
Once outside a grocery store, a heavy woman walked by me. The woman behind her, thin as a wisp, asided to me as she passed, “I’ll never eat another candy bar again.” I was so appalled I could say nothing, coldly walking past her, but if I’d had my wits about me, I’d have said back, “I’d rather be fat than have such a mean and wizened heart.”
There are many homosexuals who just wish to lead quiet lives. They aren’t out marching in the gay pride parades and flaunting themselves. They’re working alongside you. They’re in your church, hiding their pain, suffering diatribes as the cost of faithfully being in Christian fellowship. At least, you should be hoping they’re in your church. The conservative church has been literally throwing homosexuals away for years, not heeding Jesus’ warning about “the least of these.”
Kitties, of course, would never consider themselves least of anything…
I have just learned that Zossima Press is re-issuing their book, “Who Killed Albus Dumbledore?,” with the new sub-title, “And Was it a Hate Crime?”
John, you’re a hoot. Thanks for the great laugh!
Even the kitties are giggling…
I may be missing the point of this blog, because it seems very clinical and almost detached from popular culture. It reminds me of discussions about Gansta rap and the “N-word.” Most artists who start out don’t think they work will have an impact, but it does. I do not believe the majority of Harry Potter readers are going to be astute academics who will read and research Rowlings intentions beyond what the popular media has to say. To my knowledge it is the first gay character in a children’s book and I think it should be seen as a serious cultural and moral landmark in our country’s history, just as “Gone With the Wind” was. Not every child who reads these books are in a home where identity issues and answers about the occult or homosexuality can be properly dealt with. What this book does is force parents to be even more vigilant. As a parent who loves these books, it is absolutely irritating that I can’t simply enjoy something with my kids without wondering am I exposing them to sin. Has it also been considered how this book will be taught in public schools ? I believe they are in a catch 22. If they don’t mention Dumbledore’s sexuality that is being intolerant ? If they do discuss Dumbledore’s sexuality it raises a lot of questions. This book was not written in a vacuum. A part of Satan’s effectiveness is that he does use half truths. When he tempted Jesus, he used scripture. Likewise just because Rowlings throws a bunch of scriptures in her book, it doesn’t make it any less of a potent weapon for Satan.
DrWahoo,
You indeed raise a very cogent point here: “A part of Satan’s effectiveness is that he does use half truths. When he tempted Jesus, he used scripture. Likewise just because Rowlings throws a bunch of scriptures in her book, it doesn’t make it any less of a potent weapon for Satan.”
Throughout time, Satan has never found a writing of man to be as useful to his purposes as the Holy Scriptures have been. So how should we look on those Writings? Are they too dangerous for children to be exposed to?
Or should we be diligent to follow up on what our children read there and give our counsel and guidance as they encounter the many hard, scary and potentially misleading places that abound within the arc of Genesis to Revelation?
I chose the latter route, but I never felt that I was adequate to the task, or that my children were old enough to be ready to deal with the issues they found there. Somehow, my children turned out alright despite my inadequacies, or the dangerous Book I let them read.
DrWahoo, I don’t believe Dumbledore is the first gay character in children’s fiction. There have been gay characters for a couple decades in youth lit; and don’t forget the controversial 1990 young children’s book “Heather Has Two Mommies,” promoting understanding and tolerance of gay-relationship parenting. There has been a huge push to promote homosexual awareness and acceptablity among children.
What I find so surprising from fellow commenters on this site is how many have children who don’t know what “gay” is. I’m not a parent and haven’t had to deal with it. I think it’s wonderful, really, that so many kids still have innocence about sexuality, especially darker sexual matters and may they keep it as long as possible. Kudos to the parents for being able to protect them thus far. I sympathize with their upset feelings about having to now explain things they feel aren’t age appropriate and had hoped to put off.
You’re right that most Potter readers won’t be academically inclined in their reading of the series. But at HogPro, we really do care about these things–the deeper meanings, the structure and symbolism, the literary influences. John has opened up for us a wonderful conversation about such things and, through this blog and his books, has added immensely to our appreciation of Rowling’s work. There has to be some place for us eggheads to go and we’ve found a home here.
Please stay with us. Just because we minutely study and dissect a frog, its habits and environment, doesn’t mean we don’t also enjoy and aren’t moved by the same frog in a pond leaping around, ribbeting into the moonlit night.
Little Flako tried scooping out a tadpole and fell in the pond; a drenched kitty–pathetic and hilarious…
Hi John!
I absolutely agree with your No.1 conclusion. About No.2: i think that just like you, I’m appalled by the media reaction, but for different reasons. Personally, I’m quite disappointed to see news anchors and reporters acting like kids when presenting this ‘news’ (for example, the guy who interviewed Emerson Spartz from mugglenet to discuss this subject), and it’s sad to see even 15-year olds in hp forums respond and discuss this subject more maturely.
“The anguished and disappointed response of many Christian readers to these reports was also according to Culture War formula and in keeping with a hyperextended understanding of the word “gay;”
In my very modest opinion, and from the anguished and disappointed answers I’ve seen, they were caused just by what “gay”, literally, means: someone who is mostly attracted to people from his/her same sex. I agree with you that the fact that ‘gay’ to some people means that the person makes his sexual orientation the most important part of their lives makes them even more repelled to the news of Dumbledore’s sexuality, but i disagree about pointing this the main cause of such reactions, or as the most problematic aspect of this news to some readers.
On No.4, i think you’re spot on
on this..
“Whatever SSA he feels, he has not shared these feelings with others that we know of, and, if it had been even the subject of speculation among witches and wizards, it would have been in Rita Skeeter’s expose, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore”
About others knowing about albus’ orientation: there’s probably no way of knowing that, given that the books are almost entirely written from Harry’s perspective. And quoting a blogger: “Frankly? If Harry, being so incredibly clue-challenged, actually could have figured it out on his own, it would have skeeved me, because that would have meant Dumbledore was probably (note: I said probably) acting in an inappropriate way. Explicit expressions of sexuality — straight and gay — are inappropriate in a school setting, IMO. So. The only place it could possibly have fit into canon, again IMO, is in Rita’s Skeeter’s book, and Harry and Hermione only read one chapter of it. Who’s to say it wouldn’t have been mentioned elsewhere?”
More about Rita’s book: keep in mind that jkrowling knew about Dumbledore’s orientation when writing this and read this paragraph
““Oh yes,” says Skeeter, nodding briskly, “I devote an entire chapter to the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship. It’s been called unhealthy, even sinister. Again, your readers will have to buy my book for the whole story, but there is no question that Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go. Whether that was really in the boy’s best interests—well, we’ll see. It’s certainly an open secret that Potter has had a most troubled adolescence.””
That strikes me as exactly something that a person like Skeeter would say if knowing about Dumbledore’s orientation
One last thing: “As of last Friday night’s revelations, we now know that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald and regretted the consequences of this unrequited love his entire life”
From reading the book, i hardly think that’s the case. What i got was that Dumbledore regretted his irrational ambition, xenophobia, and what he did to his family.
“The Headmaster’s SSA as a young man and his remorse set him apart as much as his talents did and completes Ms. Rowling’s Hall of Heroes, in which Dumbledore had been the “odd man out” for not being a “freak” in the eyes of the world.”
Again in my opinion, this had already been done in the Deathly Hallows book itself, and DD’s remorse wasn’t because he loved a man, but because of the mistakes listed above. But well, i suppose it’s a matter of interpretation?
Sorry for the very long comment, but i found your post really interesting and was really looking forward to your thoughts on this matter
Alas
ps: i saw you are posting articles and opinions about what’s on books and what’s not, authors intentions, etc: here (http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2007/10/flowers-of-romance.html) are author Neil Gaiman’s opinions on these matters (he was specifically asked about the Dumbledore’s case)
John,
My concern is not so much for Christian children in well parented homes, but for the least of these. I believe in cooperate and individual punishment by God. Are we as Christians responding to the changes in our culture in manner that is consistent with standing in the gap for our nation ? Are we being the watchmen God has called us to be ? This is a threshold moment, just like prayer in schools in the 60s. I’m sure you have heard the story about the frog in the pot. As long as you gradually turn up the heat, the frog will happily fry itself. Are we as a nation being fried up ? I think so.
We can sit back and say oh my kids are fine, but I believe the world we are sending them out into is becoming increasingly dangerous. There were a lot of Christian kids killed in Columbine and at Virginia Tech.
Finally viewing homosexuality its self. Yes sin is sin, but no other group of sinners are trying to receive special status in our legal system and in our culture. Other sins are not fervently trying to gain a mainstream acceptance and promote themselves to young children. Even the Bible is clear that all sin is unrighteous but not all have the same consequences (See 1 John 5:15-17).
ZoeRoses comment about looking carefully at this gift, is interesting because I was sent the following http://elphaba-of-oz.livejournal.com/329705.html from a homosexual blogger who is not pleased with this news. Interesting read, it confirms everything ZoeRose said.
Chrysanthemum, the link you were sent is kind of echoed in the Time piece recommending that Dumbledore go back in the closet: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674550-1,00.html
What I thought particularly eye-catching were these quotes:
“His [Dumbledore's] silence suggests a lack of personal integrity that is completely out of character. ” and
“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.”
Talk about applying current cultural standards retroactively! When Dumbledore was growing up as a young wizard, it would have been the standards of late-Victorian muggle culture that would have been seen as dangerously modern and racy. And the idea of announcing one’s sexuality, of whatever variety, to one’s coworkers and to children under one’s care would have been seen as anything but exemplary of integrity.
And the idea that never actually having sexual relations is “pathetic” and “creepy” is scarcely one that is valid for all times and places either.
This, IMHO, is the big problem with JKR’s having “outed” Dumbledore, with nary a hint in the books: the idea of principled celibacy is so utterly foreign to most of the voices that manage to get themselves heard in popular culture. Instead of being seen as a deeply difficult but honorable choice, it’s seen as highly improbable and a sign of sickness.
I’m beginning to see HP as one of those cases where the book is not only to be taken more seriously than the author, but also, in an odd way, as one of those cases where the work, in some regards, is wiser than the author. We’ve all read of cases where an author complains because his or her characters, once created, refused to do what he or she wanted them to do… well, once JKR started building her story, and her characters, around an alchemical framework, it may be that they settled themselves into a pattern of greater traditional wisdom than she herself consciously espouses.
A “say it loud, I’m out and proud” sort of Dumbledore would not only never have fit with a Dumbledore born while Victoria was queen, it would never, ever have fit with Dumbledore the alchemist. If, as John has been saying all along, the traditional alchemist saw his manipulations of mercury, sulfur, etc., as both metaphor and means for fostering his own spiritual growth, then it seems to me very likely that Dumbledore came to see his experience with Grindelwald and Ariana as his own personal Nigredo. By the time we meet him, not only his name but his character and his life experience have made him emblematic of the Albedo, of purification and of male and female elements held in harmony within himself.
By the way, I think the same thing holds true of Snape, although I don’t know that we have any evidence suggesting he was a student of alchemy. He was not only a Nigredo figure in Harry’s life, he was living through his own personal Nigredo as well. Over the course of seven books, he lost everything– his chance for an Order of Merlin, his love, his mentor and his position and respect in the wizarding world (such as it was). He even lost his chosen work of atonement as protector of Harry for Lily’s sake, when he found out, as he believed, that Voldemort’s defeat would require Harry’s death. Lastly, he lost his own chance for a death that was something other than ignominious. Rowling emphasizes what a nasty person he was… but if Harry had died during OOTP, wouldn’t he have seemed very nearly as unappealing, with his rages and his sulks?
Helen, I love what you wrote (I most often do!). You’re absolutely correct about applying current cultural standards to earlier times.
In the ’80s I read three or four biographies of Louisa May Alcott. One was written with a definite feminist slant, criticizing Alcott for not being more agressive, etc. What a disgrace. Alcott was a trailblazer in her day; she could not have possibly conformed to today’s (or should I say “80′s”) feminist standards. How anachronistic. If she had done so, she would have been locked up in one of her potboiler mental institutions.
I agree with you about DD’s negrido, also Snape’s. Other losses Snape experienced were within his family–the losses caused by abuse, neglect and lack of love. He also lost his chance for glory and recognition for his many and great sacrifices on behalf of WizWorld in his lifetime, dying (as you say) an ignominious death. It’s tragic that Snape was never able to pass beyond his negrido stage–although perhaps for a moment in passing on to Harry so many key memories at his death.
Thanks for these eloquent points.
As for glory, kitties would rather have a good treat…
I think Dumbledore is gay for a reason. But that reason is not support of a gay agenda. If you go listen to JKR’s exact words at the Paper award ceremony, they are somewhat cryptic. I think there is deeper mystery here.
Next Comments →
{ 2 trackbacks }