Here's a link to a brief story about the revalation
Newsweek article with comments and discussion here
Now. Though I'm poking a little fun in the top paragraph, I've enjoyed all the Potter books. And I adore Dumbledore. I'm first and foremost a Mithrandir man (That's Gandalf in the Common Tongue), but Albus is my second favorite wizard. And as I contemplate my reaction to the news, I have to say that I don't care about him being gay at all. And I really like that I don't care. Even better would be if I didn't care that I didn't care--does that make sense? I'm thinking about one of the comments (from a 13 year-old) on the Newsweek story, about how much homophobia there is in middle school. When I got punched in the face for calling my scoutmaster's son a faggot, my dad told me what I had said (I'd had no idea what the word meant). But beyond the message that this epithet might get me punched in the face, and a pretty much non-judgemental definition, there were not a lot of messages out there telling me that love is just love. And there were a lot of messages teaching me to despise anyone who was "queer", including myself if I might have any queerness in me.
Back to the big ''news": the way Dumbledore rolls doesn't change anything about the way I feel about this beloved character, though it does make me sad to learn about his heartbreak. Too, I think this might further illuminate his empathy for Snape. Although Snape's heart was hurt in a different way, both of them lost in love.
What I'm wondering is: does anyone else think it's unusual for a writer to reveal backstory in this way? Or is it just unusual for people to notice? For it to be "news"?
In any case, as Roxy says:
3 comments:
I think it would be one thing if she'd called a news conference just to announce this. As it was, she was responding to a question asked by a reader in a public forum. The question wasn't a plant. I doubt she woke up that day and decided to jar the world with this revelation. It came up, she responded. She has released TONS of backstory information via her Web site and post-story information after the last book came out. So is this unusual for her to reveal it this way? Not in the least. Of course, if she'd revealed he loved to garden, it wouldn't have made CNN either.
Being gay and having an amount of celebrity is still a news item. Witness the comings out of Messrs Neil Patrick Harris and T. R. Knight. We're ten years after Ellen's big outing and it's still considered a novelty. There is still debate as to whether audiences will buy the performance of an actor they know to be gay if he's playing a straight character (a debate that keeps many actors from discussing their sexuality...and, of course, as soon as you decline to discuss it, the rumors begin).
If this has a significance, it is this: just as Rowling's more prominent storylines and plot devices have mirrored such things as Third Reich machinations and other "real life" problems, the fact that Dumbledore's sexuality was not spoken of within the context of the books mirrors a problem faced by gay teachers.
From about Book Four on, there have been references to people questioning Dumbledore having an "unusual" relationship with Harry. Readers assume they understand this to be people are afraid that Harry is getting preferential treatment as a student. Indeed, that's how it's essentially played out in the books.
The problem encountered by many gay male teachers (admittedly, not all) is that as soon as you're out, you're regarded as a pedophile and watched more carefully. Any kind of "special" attention a student may be given, no matter how innocent, is scrutinized.
I think Rowling has very cleverly added another layer to her text that was ignored by many (however, others have hypothesized this about Dumbledore for quite some time). Some of the more cynical people (read: right wing) are going to claim that readers will now comb the texts and try to find double entendre where it doesn't exist. But that second level--just as Nazi overtones permeate the discrimination visited upon Muggle borns and half-breeds--has always been there. For the cynical: how many other works of literature require multiple reads to distill the many layers a master writer can infuse in their work? I could take something new away from ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE every time I read it. The fact that readers might now revisit the Harry Potter series with an eye as to how Dumbledore's tragedy is deeper than first imagined should be nothing strange.
Really great comment, Brian.
Well written article.
Post a Comment