I finished the Harry Potter series back around the end of August — I meant to write a nice long entry about the experience and my reactions to the whole Potter phenom, but, as you may have noticed, I haven’t been able to write many nice long entries lately; the short version is that I liked these books, far more than I ever anticipated — and I’ve got to admit, it never occurred to me that Dumbledore was gay. His sexuality never entered into my conception of him at all, actually, just as I never really wondered what kind of trouble Gandalf got himself up to after smoking a big old bowlful of, ahem, “hobbit leaf,” or whether crazy old Ben Kenobi occasionally liked to visit the famous “Bantha Ranch” House of Hospitality in Anchorhead’s red-light district. The respective texts simply don’t provide — nor do the stories require — this level of characterization for these guys, who we all know are little more than archetypal mentor figures, no matter that we love them so much. But hey, if Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, then so be it. She would know better than us, and it doesn’t trouble me in the least if he is. It’s just not anything I imagined, and I personally don’t see any hard evidence for it within the story. (I will grant that Dumbledore is probably the best fleshed-out of the three mentors, in terms of having a detailed backstory that the reader is allowed to experience as part of the book’s main plot, but there’s still nothing there that suggested any kind of a sex life, gay or straight, in my opinion.)
That doesn’t mean, of course, that other people won’t see whatever they want to see now that the idea has been planted. I imagine this will only add fuel to the fire for those busybody whackjobs who are already down on the Potter books because they’ve got our kids thinking about that evil, nasty witchcraft. Um, yeah… and all the other beloved classic stories that people have been exposing their kids to for generations, from the Brothers Grimm to The Wizard of Oz to, yes, Star Wars, have absolutely nothing to do with magic or the supernatural…
First . . . [prolonged clapping]. Nothing defeats bigotry like having people with persecuted characteristics show up in ordinary roles (ordinary being relative in a book about wizards).
I agree that there is nothing in the book to suggest that Dumbledore is gay, but I’m not too bothered by that. It’s the non-issue of his being gay that demystifies it. If Rowling wants to keep filling in details after the books are written, it’s the author’s privilege. Tolkien did this all the time, often in personal letters to fans that only came to light after his death.
But, speaking of Tolkien, I do have to speak up on the issue of pipe-weed. At least two references in Tolkien’s canon make it quite clear that it’s tobacco. From The Hobbit: “Bilbo . . . handed him the tobacco-jar.” From the Prologue to The Lord of the Rings: “Hobbits . . . inhaled . . . the burning leaves of a herb, which they call pipe-weed or leaf, a variety probably of Nicotiana.” Sorry to be a total dork about this, but it’s Personal Mission #312 to correct this error wherever I see it.
Robert, how did I know you would take issue with my pipe-weed reference? 🙂
(Incidentally, I know full-well that the “weed” was specified to be tobacco; I was embellishing for the sake of humor. I really must stop that…)
As to Dumbledore, I wonder how much demystification can really occur if his identity is not more explicit in the first place. In other words, if his homosexuality is such a non-issue as to be utterly invisible, how can any sort of point about bigotry and ordinariness really be made?
I know there are fanatics who will examine every single one of Rowling’s words and take them to heart, just as you’ve familiarized yourself with Tolkien’s letters and I have a pretty good grasp of George Lucas’ and Gene Roddenberry’s off-screen comments, but the vast, vast majority of her readers will pay attention only to the primary texts — the novels. So how are they to know that Dumbledore is gay and thus learn that it’s okay that he is?
I guess this comes back to one of the central arguments I recall from my lit-study days: do we have to consider historical context and an author’s own intentions, or is the primary text the end-all, be-all?
I meant to blog about this too, but since you brought it up – here’s was my reaction: Yeah, makes sense…
I don’t know that I agree with you that it’s completely outside of the storyline in this case (like it would be for SW or LOTR). Knowing it now & looking back, I think it adds an additional layer of complexity to the subplot about Dumbledore and Grindelwald, the role Grindelwald played in helping to raise Dumbledore’s sister, and the betrayal that Dumbledore felt when Grindelwald turned out to be very different than Dumbledore thought.
My other reaction was this: Rowling is a genius.
She’s created a character that everyone loves, and fleshed out his story so well that people feel like they know him well – like everybody’s step-grandfather.
Then, she tells them all that he was gay, and provides more backstory (his former love, his heartbreak, etc.). People who are still ignorant enough to be walking around with blind dislike/hatred of gay people suddenly have to admit that they “know” at least one gay person that they’ve grown to like, and will now have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise.
Also, she’s a genius because she’s already collected her millions and the books/movies are already pop-culture staples. So no amount of boycotting or bad press is going to stop the Harry Potter train now.
He’s gay and we all like him. And it has nothing to do with his sexuality. Deal with it!
Genius. Pure genius…
Oh, and by the way, congrats on creating the first LOLCAT poster that actually made me laugh.
I still don’t understand the big deal about those things…
He’s gay and we all like him. And it has nothing to do with his sexuality. Deal with it
I like it, Brian… somebody oughta put that on a T-shirt!
As for the lolcats, I guess it’s like The Three Stooges — they either work for you or they don’t. I myself have much the same reaction to them that I do to South Park; three of every four episodes is so damn dumb that I wonder why I’m wasting my time. Ah, but that fourth one is pure gold…
(Incidentally, I must be honest: I didn’t create this one. I just ganked it from I Can Has Cheezeburger.)
I have to say I personally am disapointed about the whole Dumbledore being gay, for a couple of reasons. In my opinion it does affect the story line and I see the last volume in a totally different way. It changes his whole character (to me anyway). It’s kind-of like you thought you knew someone and you find out you really didn’t know them at all. Also, I know a lot of adults that are into the Harry Potter series, but I don’t agree with brining up this political agenda in a children’s story, especially after the fact. And lastly, I think it’s very interesting that she chooses now to come out with the gay “secret”. Why didn’t she write this into the last volume if that is what her true idea of Dumbledore’s identity was the whole time? Was she worried that she might not sell as many copies? Just a thought. Some people will be very disapointed like me, some people will think she is a genius. To each his own.
Tiff, my thinking on this subject keeps evolving. I’ve been intending to write another entry on the subject, but just haven’t gotten around to it.
Basically, my thinking is this:
I’ve got no problem with Dumbledore being gay. I don’t think it affects the storyline at all, aside from adding to the books’ overall theme of accepting those who are different, whether you define “different” as wizard, Muggle, werewolf… or homosexual.
However, Rowling’s revelation does strike me as a case of what comic geeks call “retconning,” i.e., changing the backstory after the fact. I’m not convinced that she really did imagine Dumbledore as gay while she was writing, just as I’ve never believed that G. Lucas really thought Luke and Leia were siblings when he wrote the original Star Wars. It’s difficult to say for sure, though, since we weren’t in her head with her during the writing process.
As for why she’d choose to voice the idea now, well, her motives are her own. Perhaps she merely wanted to shock people, or to keep folks talking about her creation for just a little while longer. (It worked, didn’t it?) Perhaps she really does have a social agenda and she’s chosen to advance it in this way. Maybe someone said something to her recently that made her realize her carefully constructed message of acceptance and diversity was missing one particular minority. Again, difficult to say.
The one thing that I can say with certainty, though, it that no one is required to accept anything that isn’t part of the actual text. Rowling has also said recently that Harry and Ron become Aurors, but you’re not required to think of them as turning out that way if you have another vision you prefer. I myself refuse to accept that anything that happened on Star Trek: Enterprise was the actual “history” behind the original Star Trek, even though Enterprise was supposed to be a prequel. I know people who reject the entire sixth season of Highlander because they don’t like the direction the series took towards the end of Season Five (they call themselves “Clan Denial”). Readers and viewers have that power; if it’s not on the page, it doesn’t have to be “real” to you.
What’s going to be really interesting is what happens in a few years when the controversy over this is going to die down (although I’m not sure there is much of a controversy going on, to be honest), and a whole new generation will be picking up these stories for the first time. Will the idea that Dumbledore is gay be so firmly entrenched in the culture that they’ll “know” it before they read the books? Or will they be free to draw their own conclusions based on what’s actually on the page? I’m betting on the latter, myself…
Very interesting question. I am very curious to see if and how this will affect the movie version of the story a couple years from now. If the controversy does die down before then, I’m sure it will be brought to light again.
Ah, good point… I hadn’t considered the movies.
I would imagine that if they stay with the current actor, he’ll probably continue to play Dumbledore the way he has up to this point, with no hint as to the character’s sexuality. And depending on how the screenplays adapt the stories, Dumbledore’s backstory may get cut or drastically revised anyhow…
Well, if you believe JK Rowling, she had them remove a reference by Dumbledore to his feelings towards a girl when he was younger (she says she wrote a note in the margin for the director that Dumbledore was gay), then she probably was thinking this way all along.
Tiff – I wonder why you consider his sexuality to be a political statement? Rowling said nothing about her feelings toward homosexuals (except that she thinks the books are generally about tolerance, which I think is obvious regardless of this discussion).
Finally, as I said above, I think this fact enhances Dumbledore’s backstory, as opposed to changing it. The whole the with Grindelwald, the fact that they raised a child (Dumbledore’s sister) together, and the fact that he remained alone for the rest of his life after being betrayed by his “partner” have a whole additional layer of context now, given this fact.
Nothing else about the character has any sexuality to it at all – and I think that’s still valid, even if he’s gay. Put it this way: is McGonnogal gay? How about Professor Sprout? Flitwick? None of it matters, right? Why should it matter for Dumbledore?
Okay, Brian, so my question, once again is this – if Rowling really did feel this way about this character all along, then why didn’t she write it into the actual text? Of course, no one can really answer this because no one can speak for Rowling. But one can certainly guess.
As I stated before, this is a matter of opinion and to each his own. I can see how you see the history of Dumbledore is enhanced. To me, I always pictured Dumbledore to be an extremly compassionate person, and the fact that he raised a child with his best friend, planned a future with him, and ultimately had to battle him, and how much that hurt him, already spoke volumes to me about their relationship, whether it was sexual or not. So, you’re right. Why should it matter? It shouldn’t, so why make it an issue?