CE Week #9: “Dumbledore revelation just a detail”
Leonard Pitts Jr.
Miami Herald
October 26, 2007
We’re off to see the wizard.
No, not the one who lives at the end of the yellow brick road. This one might be said to live somewhere over the rainbow, as in the flag that symbolizes gay pride.
Or hadn’t you heard about Albus Dumbledore? If you are, or live in proximity to, a Harry Potter fan, you’ve already made the acquaintance. If not, suffice to say that he is our hero’s mentor, the headmaster of Hogwarts, the school for wizards in training. Last week, we learned that he was also something else.
The revelation came in response to a question from a reader during author J.K. Rowling’s appearance at Carnegie Hall. The reader asked if Dumbledore ever finds “true love.” Rowling replied that Dumbledore is gay and in love with a rival wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, whom he once defeated in battle. According to news accounts, the audience gasped – and then applauded.
The revelation has brought scattered condemnation from conservative religious types who already hate the books because of their supposed ability to make children worship the occult. But truth to tell, the criticism has seemed relatively muted, especially as compared with the praise.
I conducted my own focus group survey of two Potter fans in Miami and their responses echoed what I’ve seen in press reports. “Me and my sister are so happy,” gushed Katherine Robertson, 14, “because we’re big on gay pride.”
Her sister Anne Marie, 17, added, “I think the gay community was one of the few groups that was not represented in the books and it was important that they were. I don’t think it changes my perception of him at all. It’s just that as a Harry Potter fan, it’s an extra detail about him that I would like to know.”
His sexuality is an extra detail, she says. Not destiny, not definition. Just detail.
I am reminded that five years ago, Marvel Comics outed one of its signature characters, Ben Grimm, the rocky orange guy from the Fantastic Four: not as gay, but as Jewish. Apparently, in the minds of creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, he was always a Jew, but that was something they felt constrained to keep quiet back in 1961.
As a comic book geek of long standing, I felt much like Anne Marie Robertson does. It didn’t change my perception, but it was a detail I liked having.
The trouble is, not all details are created equal. Details of culture, color and sexuality are dangerous because they assume outsized importance in our mental calculus, because they have this ability to shape people’s understanding of who one is. So that to be gay is often to live confined to a prison of others’ perceptions, no longer a complex amalgam of likes and dislikes, weaknesses and strengths like anyone else, but reduced instead to a single neon characteristic. You are your sexuality and nothing more.
Or as actor T.R. Knight once put it, “I hope the fact that I’m gay isn’t the most interesting part of me.”
For some people, it is, and always will be.
Which is why there’s a subversive genius in what Rowling has done. By declining to lead with sexuality, she allows readers to first know a beloved character in the fullness of his likes and dislikes, weaknesses and strengths – like anyone else. And the revelation, when it comes, is only “an extra detail.”
We live in a nation where some people still accuse gays of “recruiting.” And equate homosexuality with pederasty. And give cheap applause to preachers and politicians who use gay men and lesbians as easy scapegoats.
Could the boy wizard help a generation learn to look at a gay person and see, neither definition nor destiny, but only detail?
That would be the greatest magic trick of all.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/27/ce-week-9-dumbledore-revelation-just-a-detail/trackback/
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Who cares. The series already ended (finally). Can we all please move on with our lives? I heard about this myself nearly two weeks ago and my reaction was … “what the…” WHY reveal something like THAT, anyway? I mean honestly. Who cares about Dumbledore’s damn sexuality. Sex isn’t even apart of the story. It bugs me because I’ll never be able to think of him in the same exact way. Stupid, right? Ugh… What does this have to do with politics anyway…
First of all, congrats Mr. K on the baby, it’s about time! Anyways, back to the article. Ok when J.K. told the audience the Dumbledore was gay, was she being serious or was she just making a smart remark? It seems to me that she was being sarcastic, but I could be wrong. I see the point that this article is trying to make. That if someone is to be gay, it should be seen as just another characteristic of them, like their height and weight. The problem with that is I don’t think it’ll ever be possible for our country to not recognize someone as gay when they prefer a different sexual preference. We are too stuck on the things that are different from us. For example it is much easier to identify someone as “the person in the wheel chair” than, “that really nice guy who is in our English class.” In our society our imperfections stick out and become the things that are easily identifiable by. That girl with the crooked nose, that teacher that wears hooker boots, that guy with the bald head and thick beard. Being gay just goes in the list. Anyways I think the point I’m trying to make is that being homosexual may not ever be seen as just a detail in our society. But hey, maybe there’s hope for the future.
My first reaction when I heard J.K. Rowling’s response on the evening news was to laugh, because after reading about the various hidden social puns in the Harry Potter series, it was amusing to once again find the author defying social norms. This newly discovered trait of Dumbledore’s, however, did not change my perception of the series nor the character himself; as Anne Marie Robertson and Leonard Pitts so simply stated, it is just a detail. Pitts makes an eloquent point in this article. Stereotyping places people in neat little boxes, which is worthwhile for broad sweeping statistics, but people cannot be defined by one particular trait, whether sexuality, skin color, or religious preference. Ever since elementary school, I have always felt labeled as the “smart” kid, and even though I appreciated people’s admiration, I always felt that they were so fixated on my test scores and report cards that they missed out on other interesting and unique traits that make me, well, me. Rowling is a pure genius of human nature to leave this particular detail until the series end, when its readers had come to love Dumbledore simply for his benign nature and quirky idealism. While characters can easily be defined by a particular label, human beings cannot, and Rowling did well to remind us of that.
The fact is that people can not just look at this fact that Albus Dumbledore came out of the closet and just act like it was extra detail. Personally, that little bit of extra information shocked me. Us as a civilization assume that people are straight. More often than not, gays do not live much longer than 40 years old because of their lifestyles. So yes, hearing about an old, wise wizard who just now “comes out of the closet” does strike the general public as more than just a bit of detail. My personal opinion is that it is not natural for same sex marrige or parteners to exist. The simple fact that men alone, or women alone can not reproduce proves that it was not meant to be. same sex relationships were never a part of God’s plan.
This whole thing looks like a desperate attempt from J. K. Rowling to get as much media attention as possible. After all, all of her books are out now, and she is used to so much more attention. She needs something else to fuel the attention fire, because us humans can never get enough attention. It is like an addiction. discusting!
I think JK should start writing more books, because look what happens when she doesn’t. I don’t think her comment about Dumble-whats-his-face was really necessary. The first time I heard about this story last week the only thing that came to my mind was just “why?” Perhaps, JK felt the need to express a flaw in society, break the gay stereotype. But, if she explained the inner most workings of this character, why not tell us everything else about the other characters? I really agree with Jackie’s comment about how no matter what we will always see being gay as an imperfection, and imperfections stick out like a sore thumb. The fact is, as the author, she has every right to make Dumbledore anything she wants to be. All we can do is laugh, because we will probably never understand the reasons behind her “statement”. And really the fact is its fiction. I am interested to read about how the kids who read her books respond to this new revelation. At least she said he was gay after the books were written, because people are close minded individuals, and some do not like to be familiar with the unfamiliar.
At first when I heard people talking about this I was like who honestly cares. This person is not even real and its not that important. So I was kinda glad to hear that the Author descriped the fact that he was gay as just a detail which is true. If a person is gay thats not all they are thats just a part about them and then there is who they actually are. I think that what she said will be well recieved from her readers especially people in the gay community. Its just about all positive except for those people that are so far off the deap end adimate about hating the book that they have to tell everyone they hate. Honestly I hate wet socks but I dont tell everyone that. There are just some things people need to keep to themselves. So when it comes to people hating these books they should just stop complaining because its not going to change anyones mind really. I dont really like the books but Its not like im going to go around and tell people not to read them. They can if they wan’t. So even though this acticle is not all the important in the overal sceme of things I still though it was kinda interesting.
Wow, so Dumbledore is gay? I don’t see how this is bad. The article brought up a really good point in that his sexuality is only a characteristic that makes Dumbledore Dumbledore. As with anyone. Every person is different because we all have our defining characteristics. Our defining characteristics makes us individuals. Which brings me to my next point. Ever since we are little we are told to be individuals. We are told to dress our independently, act independently. Be INDIVIDUALS is pounded into to us. We are also told not to give into peer pressure. Don’t follow the crowd. Another way of telling us to be individuals. So if being gay is so horrible, how is the gay person supposed to be an individual? Also, being gay shouldn’t be the most exciting part of a person as a whole. It is only a characteristic
This is a pretty entertaining article but I would like to know if J.K. Rolling was being serious or sarcastic with him being gay. If she was being serious, it is horrible that the audience would gasp and then applaud. What does it matter if, first of all, a character in a stupid series of books is gay. Who cares! Does that really change your mind on whether you like the book or not (I would never read one if my life depended on it). That is the same, though in real life. If you meet somebody for a first time and have fun and like the person, then a few days later find out the person is gay would you suddenly not talk to them again? Hopefully, you would think nothing of it but if you are one who now does not like the Harry Potter you would be the one not to ever say another word to that person. That shows that you are not a person to be respected, because you can not respect someone else. I really hope that the people who now dislike Harry Potter because of Dombledork’s sexual orientation find a nice closet to hide in like Howie from the Benchwarmers.
Frog in Lukewarm Water…
So a made up character is homosexual…great…just another sign of how corrupt our world is getting. I never engrossed myself with those books, they were never my “cup of tea” and I’m not saying this worsens my view of this book. It just brings up interesting ideas like watching how corrupt our nation—world—is becoming. Ten years ago this sort of comment would be posted every where and shunned by all readers Christians and Satanists alike. Homosexuality has never been looked upon with desire by the public hour and now a childhood hero is now supposed to be homosexual. How long are we going to incorporate this kind of perversion into our society; into our lives? I foresee major consequences to this “revelation”: “If you accepted Dumbledore why won’t you accept the rest of us?” Now I know that may be a little far-fetched; however, I think it has some truth to it. For me this article awoke certain issues that had left my mind. I remembered the impressing issue of homosexuality in the United States AND in the world. We need to repent of our ways and turn back to our roots or I foresee destruction in the future. It reminds me of an analogy that involves a frog in a pot full of water. If at first you through a frog into boiling water it will jump out almost automatically. However, if you through a frog into a pot of lukewarm water and slowly warm up the water, the frog will remain in the pot until the frog finally dies due to the boiling water. This goes with the United States. You make the connection, I think you understand.
Danny Porter
I applaud JK Rowling for outing a character… especially such a major figure in the series. I think that it was a very bold move, and fortunately for her, it didn’t receive too much negative attention. Her timing was right, because like the article said, she waited until after the series (”she allows readers to first know a beloved character in the fullness of his likes and dislikes, weaknesses and strengths – like anyone else. And the revelation, when it comes, is only “an extra detail,”) to reveal the “secret.” And it’s hard to claim she was seeking publicity (like the series could get any more popular anyways ha ha) because the final book has been released for months now and the only thing left are the movies. Not to mention she did not volunteer the information and make a big scene about outing Dumbledore, she simply answered some dinky little kid’s question. Everyone I have spoken to has been pretty much nonchalant about it. Like the article said, it is just a detail. It shouldn’t change the way readers view the character. “Being gay” is not the defining characteristic of a person who is gay. Some people say, “WHY, why would the author do that?” But honestly, it isn’t a great big deal. I think it’s awesome that Rowling has the ability to connect with yet another “community” of people. And for those who were completely blindsighted by this revelation, how could you not see it coming? What male wizard has better style than the great Albus Dumbledore?
Is nothing sacred anymore?
When I first heard about the “outing of Albus Dumbledore”, I honestly thought someone was just screwing with me. Is JK Rowling serious? You can’t be telling me that she wrote Harry Potter’s “mentor” as a homosexual character? Why would she do that? Plus, I want to what sort of die-hard Harry Potter fan would ask such a question like that. Personally, I grew up reading these books, so I have a certain attachment to the series but I wasn’t dressed up in my cloak and wand when the 7th installment came out. But come one!! This is ridiculous! I truly have nothing against homosexuality. I don’t. But For JK Rowling to make one of her key and main characters a homosexual…that’s a little risky. She has already had to endure so much crap for her books: Wiccan practices, good vs. evil, etc. I just don’t understand why she did it. Don’t kid me wrong, I mean that woman is practically richer than the queen so I’m really not going to question her but…I honestly laugh when I think about Dumbledore being gay. It is just too weird for me to comprehend. The Harry Potter books aren’t ruined or anything for me, but if I read them again, I might start reading between the lines.
I think its funny that this is being treated like Dumbledore is a real person, not just a fictional character from a book series that is over, as Kelsea pointed out. I honestly thought it was just a ploy for Rowling to keep herself in the headlines, to keep people talking about her books. And apparently its working. I mean, really, what is the point, other than to draw more attention and controversy to the books?
I’m not a huge fan of the series, I don’t hate the books, but I never rushed out to buy the new one. It doesn’t make me dislike Dumbledore any, just makes him more interesting and I kind of want to see where she might hint at his sexuality. Perhaps something like this will make the younger generations realize that being homosexual is not a bad thing, and you can still be a really wise, respectable and (because Dumbledore totally was) a just all around good person. That is a good thing in my opinion.
And, this book was controversial enough, what does Rowling have to lose by making it even more so? Any publicity is good publicity.
I guess I’m missing the point. Maybe I just don’t care enough about the Harry Potter books or the fact that JK Rowling makes a fictional character gay, but I don’t see how this is such big news…! Rowling said, “By declining to lead with sexuality, she allows readers to first know a beloved character in the fullness of his likes and dislikes, weaknesses and strengths – like anyone else. And the revelation, when it comes, is only “an extra detail.”” An extra detail! What is the point of an extra detail? If the character is already sold and the readers are drawn into who this particular wizard is, is it necessary to add that fact that he is really gay? And like TR Knight said, “I hope the fact that I’m gay isn’t the most interesting part of me.” The problem, it becomes the most interesting thing because we are so engrossed in a person’s sexuality that we can’t just get to know them without judging them by their orientation…
Personally I find absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. I mean I’m not about to stereotype about them or discriminate against them, but I find nothing wrong with it. But making Dumbledore, the “mentor” or Harry Potter, that’s a little risky. Only because I don’t think the public is ready for a idea such as that. It’s not the public norm yet, making it a little shaky. Dumbledore is supposed to be the leader and the one to look up to, but if he is homosexual I think people will frown upon that. Which I find ridiculous but I don’t make the rules of how people will react to subjects likes this. Don’t get me wrong J.K. Rowling is an amazing writer and is fully capable of pulling off something like this, and what she did with her writing was good. It’s just the public opinion about things like this. It’s unfortunate, but true. It just goes to show how people aren’t used to change or something being different than how they are.
Pragmatism
“It just goes to show how people aren’t used to change or something being different than how they are.”
Now Ryan Brannan I would greatly have to disagree with this comment, that people aren’t used to change. I would just like to think out loud for a change, so I’m sorry if it does not make any sense. Is it the fact that we are not used to change or that we have become more pragmatic in our ideals? Pragmatism means “if it works, use it.” So if we see a lifestyle, such as homosexuality in this case, and find out that the average lifespan of a homosexual is around 48 years old, an incredible amount of colon cancers and various STDs, we see this homosexual reference as quite a disgusting idea. But I wouldn’t say that people are not used to change, because change happens everyday, it’s as simple as changing our underwear. Change is vital to our very existence; however, the change of endorsing a destructive lifestyle in children’s books only creates a numb generation. Homosexuality leads to an eternal separation, and we all need to understand that this act kills and needs to be taken care of. NOTICE: I said act, not people but that the act of homosexuality needs to be taken care of. (Just for those who might say I am against the people who practice homosexuality). By incorporating a homosexual reference into our children’s books we will start making our younger generations numb towards homosexuality and stop seeing how it destroys the body.
Danny Porter
Okay, having been a Potter fan for a long time, I wanted to do a marathon post responding to all the comments up so far. I’ll start with a quote from the actual event.
WHAT WAS SAID
Q: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?
JKR: My truthful answer to you… I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. … Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that’s how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair… . I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, “Dumbledore’s gay!” “If I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!”
Re: Kelsea
I think you touched on why Rowling didn’t reveal Dumbledore was gay in the books, “Sex isn’t even a part of the story.” No doubt many readers would be thrown off by a revelation that doesn’t really pertain to the books. In the final book, it can be somewhat deduced from the Grindlewald/Dumbledore backstory, but now it exists as non-canon, leaving future readers to determine on their own if they want to let it factor into the overall story.
Re: Jackie (and Jarek)
Yes, Rowling was actually serious when she made this claim, and Book 7 supports it. I think it’s true that people will always focus on the differences, but I think as long as it’s not a negative differentiation, that can be a good thing. I agree with Ryan that characteristics make us the individuals we are.
Re: Amanda
I was also amused by Rowling’s announcement, because she has a tendency to give subtle hints in her writing. Everyone tries to find them, but they can be rather surprising. Alfonso Cuaron, director of the 3rd Harry Potter movie, actually interpreted the character of Remus Lupin as gay back in 2004, and those who have read the books know that wasn’t true at all, but certainly wasn’t beyond a twist Rowling could have pulled off in the books.
Re: Zander (and McKena, and Chelsea)
I disagree with the fact that the desired result was media attention. I think the media was actually a means to a different end: promoting a positive image for homosexuals. Anything Rowling says on the books will get media attention, so I don’t think it was a “desperate attempt” on her part. Like Chelsea Jones writes: “it’s hard to claim she was seeking publicity (like the series could get any more popular anyways ha ha)”. And she was simply answering a question, albeit with a little extra detail.
Re: Hilary (and Ryan B.)
I agree with you that the comment wasn’t necessary, but I disagree when you say “we will always see being gay as an imperfection”. I’m sure many people always will, but this is what Rowling is trying to do for younger generations–making a point that just because a person is gay doesn’t mean they fit into a certain stereotype. Like Ryan says, it’s not the public norm yet and people aren’t used to change. But I suppose Rowling thinks it’s worth a try.
Re: Erin
I agree completely. It is a detail that will be jumped on by fans, and hated by many who might already dislike the books for other reasons. But that doesn’t change the success of the books, which probably will survive the test of time far longer than any other details.
Re: Danny
I obviously hold a different view than you do on this subject, and I completely respect that. However, I don’t really agree with the frog analogy. I don’t see this as a slippery slope into corruption; I see this as an author trying to make her personal opinions known without damaging the integrity of her books with people who share opinions such as yours. Now, whether this fact leads to greater acceptance of homosexuality can’t be seen right now, but I don’t necessarily see it as a warming to a boil. I see it as a warming of the collective consciousness and a signal of acceptance; a kind of warmth which can never become too hot to bear but only increases comfort the warmer it gets.
Re: Leslie
The question asked was not if Dumbledore was gay, it was if he had ever been in love. That’s exactly a question a die-hard Potter fan would ask, especially with all of the new backstory on Dumbledore revealed in Book 7. It’s risky, definitely, but as you say: “I mean that woman is practically richer than the queen so I’m really not going to question her”. Rowling can push the envelope all she wants because of the power and influence she holds with the series. And yes, if one reads between the lines they could definitely come away with the interpretation that Dumbledore did love Grindelwald.
Re: Mandy
What is the point of an extra detail? Fans devour extra details. Fanfiction.net has thousands of Harry Potter stories written by people who eat up the universe, and a detail like that will keep them buzzing for a long time. The whole tour has been about details, like how Neville Longbottom marries Hannah Abbott who becomes the landlady of the Leaky Cauldron Pub that they get to end up living over, or how Remus Lupin had so much difficulty being hired as a werewolf that he never really had proper employment until Dumbledore hired him, and was supported by Harry’s father’s fortune because James was just that kind of friend. (Yep, that’s typical fan fodder.) I don’t think it was truly meant to become a media maelstrom, but because homosexuality is a big issue right now, this particular fan tidbit got blown out of proportion.
-C.Rash
When I read the first few sentences in this article that stated that some character from a fiction book was gay. My first reaction was who cares! Why is it such a big deal that this character is gay? “Me and my sister are so happy,” gushed Katherine Robertson, 14, “because we’re big on gay pride.” Ok, this quote is just amazing. The bigger question is why in the heck has this story gotten international coverage? It may seem to some as a gain for gay pride or something, but to me it is just crazy. The fact that a fictional book is getting national news coverage over all the other stories that you could find around the world is just amazing. Maybe you could contribute it to the fact that I’m not a Harry Potter nut, but I don’t think that could be accurate. I agree with Amanda though that it didn’t change her perspective of the character or the book, if it were in a book that I was reading I would have to say the same thing. I agree with Hillary, why would she come out and say that this dumble character is gay; I think that it is just to get more media attention to her book.
Reply to Danny
So, I am just curious, what do you mean by repent from our ways? Do you want homosexuals to deny who they are? Or deny the way that they feel to make other people more comfortable? How is that fair? Just because they’re different from the ‘norm’ does not mean that they should be ashamed of themselves and have to hide away from society.
Equality is an essential part of America, and everyone living here is entitled to it, so being homosexual would deny you this right? I guess I do not understand why you would refer to this as a “kind of perversion”. I think its opening children’s minds to acceptance of things that are difference. How can being accepting lead to corruption?
I mean, there are people who are homosexual. That is reality. Why should we shelter kids from this? They are going to find out sooner or later.
And I am not attacking you as a person, and I definitely respect your opinion because you do make a lot of good points that I really thought hard about, I just do not understand where you are coming from. I do not know how homosexuality-in children’s book-could push us any closer to corruption. Are there not worse things in our world today?