Posted by Cockney Robin | According to this article in My Way News (discovered through Memeorandum) J.K. Rowling seems to have decided that it was time to haul beloved Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore "out of the [broom] closet".
Had anyone suspected? Damozel, reading "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," picked up on the gay vibe straightaway and shared her speculations with me. "Could it be....could Dumbledore be....could Rowling possibly have intended....?" But being unsure, she didn't bring the matter up in her review of the book.
She also at one time briefly suspected the doughty, pawky Scots transfiguration teacher (McGonagall), though of course the spinster-lady-with-cat or even the spinster-leady-who-is-cat (McGonagall is an Animagus) is a stock character in British fiction: she might be a widow or disappointed in love and neither I nor Damozel has sufficiently mastered the Potter trivia to remember if we ever had a hint. But surely there could be no doubt whatsoever about the intended orientation of that jolly, virile, pipe-smoking lady,
Professor Grubbly-Plank who briefly replaced Hagrid in teaching Care of Magical Creatures?)
As to Dumbledore, the most Rowling provided was the barest hint that the friendship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald to which so much attention was devoted in The Deathly Hallows might have been of the sort that dares not speak its name in the red states of contemporary America.
"" She....explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down.""(My Way News)
But then again, the Potterverse is filled with intense friendships between young people of both, or either, or any sex. While one might detect a definite note of Brideshead Revisited in the accounts of Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald, nothing in the book compels one to the conclusion that Rowling tells us is the intended one.
Could Rowling---the highest earning author of all time, I'm told---simply be trying it on with Yank and Brit parents whose version of Christianity authorises them to sit in judgment of those whose beliefs/ways of life conflict? It's too late really to put the djinn back in the bottle; and presumably those who were going to ban her books have already done so. Is Dumbledore's outing simply a massive wind-up? An afterthought?
I think not. "Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore. A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character."(My Way News)
Silly as it will be---and I confidently expect it to get very silly----this "controversial" information about a fictional character is likely to rattle the cages of a certain sort of American and a certain (much rarer) sort of Brit. Will they demand retrospectively his removal from his position of responsibility at Hogwarts and over young children? After all, an American mate of mine once told me that Dolores Umbridge reminded her so clearly of a teacher she had in grade school that she had nightmares for months. Would an American version of Hogwarts be run by the authoritarian Umbridge with her tightly smiling rage, sugary vitriol, and preference for minor (yet permanently scarring) torture as a form of punishment? While most Americans loathe her the way the author intended, I wonder if the ones who don't allow their unfortunate offspring to read the Potter books might find her special combination of cruelty and sanctimony all too cognate with their own inner headmistress/high school principal?
In a post called "Another reason for the book-banners to go batshit crazy," the brilliantly named "Brilliant at Breakfast" predicts:
Since there will be film versions of the remaining books, we'll be treated to a new version of the infamous Murphy Brown fracas, in which the Christofascist Zombie Brigade™ will get its collective knickers in a twist over a headmaster who's not only a wizard, but also gay! Oh, the humanity! Think of the CHILDREN!!! Then grab the popcorn. This is going to be fun. (Brilliant at Breakfast)
See also Pam's House Blend, the famous LGBT blog, ("Dumbledore comes out of the broom closet") for some entertaining reader reactions, including entertaining reactions from so-called freepers (a new word for me).
Rowling isn't fussed. "" Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason." (My Way News) Still, in her shoes I'd have kept schtum and let the books speak for themselves. ""Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."(My Way News)
In her place, I think fan fiction would be the least of my worries. I can see a whole industry springing up round this revelation, which certainly blows apart the sort of 1950's sexual vibe of the Potter books, where a little snogging between adolescents, a couple of double entendre jazz lyrics, and a few other very chaste references is all the sex we (or children) have to cope with. The Potter books are very much about friendship and love, but not very much about sex.
So I do have an objection to her having made this revelation post hoc, though it is literary rather than moral, political, or sociological. She's retroactively, just by this one bit of information, changed the whole dynamic of the Potterverse. Now readers and critics---certain of them, anyway--- will scrutinize in retrospect every interaction between Harry and Dumbledore, every revelation about the relationship between Sirius and James Potter, and so on. In her place, it isn't what I'd want. Besides, I'm always uneasy with the notion of an author interpreting her own work outside the scope of it. Surely you should leave it to the reader to draw the right conclusion (or not)?
Why make explicit after the fact information that the books themselves left to inference and speculation? If she wanted to explore the sexuality of adult wizards, why not start a new series? She's brought up a whole generation of readers who would happily devour anything of the kind.
But that's just one man's opinion and---as previously noted---Rowling is rumoured to be the highest earning author of all time (I say "rumoured" as I'm too lazy to look this up to confirm) and I've not a single book to my credit. She can do what she likes with her characters.
Blogger round-up, as always, via Memeorandum. And check back here for updates, as I'm looking forward to a brouhaha of unprecedented proportions.
LINKED
- J.K. Rowling Outs Hogwarts Character (My Way News)
- Another reason for the book-banners to go batshit crazy (Brilliant at Breakfast)
- Dumbledore Comes Out of the Broom Closet (Pam's House Blend)
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS
BN-Politics' Review of Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows
RECENT BN-POLITICS POSTS
Limbaugh's Speech Rights More Worthy of Protection?
Congressman Bluntly Berates Bush & Others
Elderly Nobel Laureate Demonstrates Selective Nature of Intelligence
Jon Stewart to Gen. Ricardo Sanchez: "Now You Tell Us"
13 Pieces of Media & Political Gossip
Twice-Told Tale: One New Orleans Family's Double Helping of Loss (and a Chance to Help
Comments