(Insert title here)
S.A.M. said:
I object to a gay Dumbledore ....
I actually read an article earlier in which a gay man agreed with you. Er, well, for different reasons, I guess. Um ... let's see ... try ... ah, here it is ...
So along comes Rowling with Dumbledore—a human being, a wizard even, an indisputable hero and one of the most beloved figures in children's literature. Shouldn't I be happy to learn he's gay?
Yes, except: Why couldn't he tell us himself? The Potter books add up to more than 800,000 words before Dumbledore dies in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and yet Rowling couldn't spare two of those words—"I'm gay"—to help define a central character's emotional identity? We can only conclude that Dumbledore saw his homosexuality as shameful and inappropriate to mention among his colleagues and students. His silence suggests a lack of personal integrity that is completely out of character.
(
Cloud)
The thing is that I don't even read the books. I don't think I've seen any of the movies in the cinema. Now, maybe it's my own literary ambitions and perspective getting in the way here, but I disagree with Cloud. He makes the point himself:
But here is a gay man as de-sexed as any priest—and, to uncomfortably extend the analogy, whose greatest emotional bond is with an adolescent boy: scarred, orphaned, needy Harry. Rowling said at Carnegie Hall that in her conception of his character, Dumbledore had fallen in love long ago with Gellert Grindelwald when the two were just teenagers. But Grindelwald turned out to be evil, which apparently broke Dumbledore's heart. (Quite evil: Grindelwald is Rowling's Hitler figure, opening a camp called "Nurmengard" for political enemies in the 1940s. Dumbledore/Churchill eventually defeats Grindelwald/Hitler in a 1945 duel.)
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. It's also a throwback to an era of pop culture when the only gay characters were those who committed suicide or were murdered. As Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1981) points out, in film after film of the mid-century—Rebel Without a Cause; Rebecca; Suddenly, Last Summer—the gay characters must pay for their existence with death. Like a lisping weakling, Dumbledore is a painfully selfless, celibate, dead gay man, so forgive me if I don't see Rowling's revelation as great progress.
(ibid)
I mean, this isn't your average jilted-lover scenario. Really, if you fell in love with
Hitler, and then watched what he did, would your self-esteem pull through intact? I don't look at Dumbledore in this as a jilted gay man, but rather as a deeply-wounded human being who spends the rest of his life doubting his understanding of love.
I think it's unfair that gay men in literature
must be front and center. Now, maybe there are some cues in the books that point to this outcome, but it seems to me that if a gay man jilted by Hitler wants to spend the rest of his life being an educator and bright force in the Universe, more power to him.
Here's the creepy question:
Was he a top or a bottom?
I will defer again to John Cloud: "
Am I making too much of this? Undoubtedly."
I am concerned about confused boys "turning gay" after reading Harry Potter. Its a parental concern, not prejudice. Dumbledore is an authority figure, it will make it seem okay to be gay!
Boys who read Harry Potter and turn gay, will spread STDs throughout the community, but this is a social concern, not prejudice.
Oh, come on. What are you trying to pull?
Here's the solution:
If it's a parental concern, then take part in the child's life just as you would if he was heterosexual.
Seriously, who's going to abandon the kid just because he's gay? Or, rather, I should ask, what kind of sick bastard would abandon their own kid for being gay?
If a son dates a "nice" girl, it's all cooing and oohing, corsets and chaperones and snapshots, and don't they just look good together?
If a son dates a "bad" girl, it's all intervention and grave faces; we just want to make sure you don't throw your life away for a cheap thrill.
Yeah, it's a bit insensitive, but at least--by comparison--they're trying.
Just because a kid is gay doesn't mean he's destined for the bathhouse or a men's room at a local park.
Do you worry about STDs and pregnancy just because crappy romance stories are
everywhere?
Think of it this way. One of my favorite films as a kid was
The Rescuers. My brother really liked Madame Medusa's swampmobile; we both liked the idea of having pet alligators named Nero and Brutus. Part of me, though, dreamed of actually
being Penny, an orphan girl held prisoner while she searches for a legendary diamond.
Dumbledore isn't going to make much of a difference. Without this news, don't be surprised if any number of the gay boys spent some nights dreaming of being Hermione, ravaged by the evil boys of Slytherin House.
Seriously ... knowing that about me, doesn't it seem strange that I wouldn't start dealing with it until I was nearly 20? And don't think I started dealing with it. I got loaded, went down on a friend, got busted by campus security, and, as the incident wrecked a friendship, didn't deal with it again for five years.
So I'm going to propose that you're worried about the presence of a
positive role model.
Now, again, maybe it's just the storyteller in me, but if I'd had someone in Dumbledore's role back when I was twelve and at least half of my masturbatory fantasies involved self-feminization, I can't say I would have gone wild and come home with HIV. But I probably would have spent long hours imagining myself as Dumbledore's student, knowing his secret, and asking him why he never told anyone. Believe it or not, this fictional wizard can actually teach gay children. It's a matter of where they put their trust, and how they view themselves in relation to the world.
If you abandon a gay child, leave them to the bigotry and lusts of the world, you are more likely to see your fears come true. If you love the child just as you would a heterosexual son, you can still exercise your authority toward the child's health and happiness.
• • •
Greenberg said:
How about being concerned about confused youngsters turning to magic and fantasy thinking after reading Harry Potter?
How come that the magic and fantasy component in the Harry Potter series seems to be the least objectionable?
Even though it's probably the most dangerous of all.
Er ... um ... yeah. Right.
Welcome to our happy lunacy, Greenberg.
______________________
Notes:
