I've never talked about my love of Harry Potter here before. I haven't had a reason to-while I enjoy the books, I haven't felt the urge to write any fanfic or slash, and what place does a children's book really have on a blog about sex?
Well, the fact that JK Rowling just outed Dumbledore seems like a reason to break with that position.
I have to admit when I first saw a reference to this, I thought it was a hoax. But apparently it isn't. JK Rowling insists she knew all along that Dumbledore was gay, but kept it mum, with one exception. Apparently there was going to be a passing reference to a former (female) crush/love of Dumbledore's in the upcoming movie of Book 6, and she felt compelled to send the director a note about it. Rowling, however, decided to share this information publicly when asked by a reader at Carnegie Hall last night.
Which begs two questions-Why wait to tell us, and why tell us at all?
Why wait to tell us is perhaps the more interesting question to delve into. It is difficult to repudiate something we care deeply about, and perhaps (giving Ms Rowling the benefit of the doubt) her game plan was to have us love Dumbledore deeply (which we-readers of the series-do) before dropping the information on us. For many of her younger readers, Dumbledore will be the first gay "person" they know, such as Vanyel from Magic's Pawn by Mercedes Lackey was the first gay person I "knew."
While it is easy to believe stereotypes or project what you believe a gay person is like if you have never met one, it is much more difficult to have those small minded prejudices once you actually know a homosexual. I would hope that Ms. Rowling's younger readers will think long and hard about their own prejudices as they digest this information about their beloved Headmaster.
A more cynical person might argue that while she has known all along, she didn't share with us because it might have impacted book sales. Not that the religious right in the US didn't already hate her for all of the "witchcraft" in the books already (including a memorable 700 club my tivo accidentally taped because of the Harry Potter reference wherein I watched the host claim that the books stated that HP had been sexually abused as a child---to which I said WTF? I think you're reading a different series than I am). However, I know from my time as a teacher that while there are many conservative parents who let their children read controversial fantasy novels (such as Phillip Pullman's book The Golden Compass, in which the Church is painted as evil and corrupt) but who would pitch an absolute shit fit at a gay character (witness the semi-successful banning of Maureen Johnson's The Bermudez Triangle in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, which she chronicles with her characteristic flair and style on her blog here-start at the bottom and read up). Waiting to tell us until the series was done might lose Warner Brothers a little bit of revenue on the last two movies, but the book revenue is safe. Which makes me wonder if it was her choice or her publishers?
So which was it---wanting to preserve revenue, or wanting us to grow so attached to Dumbledore that outing him would force us to face our own prejudices, hopefully ending up more tolerant? I want to believe the latter, I really do.
So now I ask the other question--why tell us at all? In 2007 should we really care what a character's orientation is? Should Dumbledore's outing actually have been news? Shouldn't we be past the point where learning someone is gay earns a collective eyebrow raise or gasp? Does it matter? How does it change the legacy of HP?
I really would like to live in a world where a character didn't need to be outed because no one necessarily expected him to be straight. I wish that it weren't seen as relevant.
Come to think of it, now I'm a little angry that none of our characters had a crush on/ended up with a same gendered partner. And I'm a little angry at myself for never entertaining the possibility beyond persuing a piece of slash or two.

Recent Comments