Harry Potter author JK Rowling made some waves by confirming speculation that Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster at Harry’s school, was gay:
She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds “true love.”
“Dumbledore is gay,” the author responded to gasps and applause.
She then 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.”
Dumbledore’s love, she observed, was his “great tragedy.”
This has lead to some pooh-poohing on both sides of the aisle. On the right we have conservative Catholic Ross Douthat:
A writer confident in her powers wouldn’t feel the need to announce details like this after the fact, and a writer who understood the strengths and limitations of her creation would recognize that trying to smuggle this level of psychological realism into the Potter series is a fool’s errand that can only diminish her achievement…
And someone from the left in his comment section replying:
For a set of novels all about diversity and driving home the message of tolerance to not have an openly gay character, or deal with the issue at all, was a significant lapse and an act of either willfull, or ignorant, omission.
Personally, I think Rowling handled it exactly right.
(As a disclaimer, I am pretty liberal on the subject of gay rights. Though I respect the American right to condemn behavior that they find immoral, I personally support gay rights up to and including gay marriage. Once again, I’m just getting my biases out there for context.)
I’ll start with explaining why I agree with Rowling’s decision to leave Dumbledore’s sexuality out of the book. It’s pretty simple: it doesn’t belong there. The insertion of homosexuality in a book would only serve as a lightning rod which would detract from story for a significant portion of its readership. Even supporting Rowling’s view on the subject, it would have been analogous to the Very Special Episodes of sitcoms that detracted from the humor by hammering home some social issue of the day. Let sitcoms be sitcoms, and let children’s books be children’s books.
Further, those points that Rowling was trying to drive home she was doing with allegory. The notions of tolerance, morality, and egalitarianism are expressed through half-breeds and muggle-borns, not by making an issue of the Patile twins’ Indian heritage. There’s no grand point in bringing real-world issues into a story that is looking at things in a fantastical setting. No doubt that the commenter feels that homosexuality shouldn’t be an issue because it would be settled… but if that were the case than the omission wouldn’t be a big deal, either (Almost none of the Hogwarts faculty’s romantic histories were discussed).
On the other side, contrary to Douthat’s speculation that Rowling did it to try to emphasize something that her book (in his view) was not, she was simply answering a question. If anything, her recent talk about her faith and the religious allegory is more along the lines of his accusation of self-importance on Rowling’s part, but that either met with Douthat’s approval or at least did not garner his attention. The fact is that in Rowling’s mind Dumbledore is gay and the homosexuality was there when Rowling was writing it whether she mentioned it or not.
As a fiction writer, I would expect Douthat to understand how that works. I guess it works differently for him. When I’m writing fiction, for every fact I put in about a character and his or her backstory, there is a fact or more that I leave out. For instance, I can tell you how each of my main characters vote. I can tell you what their religious views are. Whether or not I put it in is a combination of whether there is the place to put it in and how it will come across. If a character’s atheism is likely to make the character less sympathetic to a large swath of the audience, and his atheism does not come up in the normal course of the story, I’m not going to bring it up. Less controversially, even if I know in my mind who a character’s first kiss was I’m not going to mention it unless I have reason to. I come up with a character’s backstory before I write the story and I am not going to jam everything in there, but after having written it if anybody asks I’ll be glad to answer. But that I withhold it from the story or answer it after the story is written and read is not necessarily indicative of any grand agenda on part.
As far as writing, I’m sure that part of the issue is that most people don’t realize what goes into writing. Fiction writers of any sort inevitably have reams of source behind the eventual novel.
It is somewhat bizarre that people don’t get this even as they discuss the vague nuances of Lord of the Rings (and the immense amount of backstory and documentation Tolkien wrote), or Star Wars, or Star Trek, or anything else of the sort.
(Before I continue, a disclaimer similar to yours: I’m not as supportive of “gay rights.” I believe that the Supreme Court decision striking down sodomy laws was correct, as “tolerance” entails letting people do what they will in their own private lives, but I do not believe that the state has a vested or worthwhile interest in giving support and promotion of homosexuality via agencies such as homosexual marriage.)
The issue is somewhat compounded by the fact that, rather than being a series intended for adults, the Harry Potter series is intended for children. I can understand very well how parents would feel cheated at finding out about this after the fact, rather than knowing about it up front, given that children have a tendency to identify with Dumbledore. In the series, especially the early portion, Dumbledore’s very much the “adult who never grew up” - a fascination for candies, trinkets, and the occasional joke. It’s not until later in the series (and un-coincidentally the point where kids who started reading the series at age 5 were now becoming teenagers) that Dumbledore became a more serious character. Dumbledore is set up to be a role model, albeit an imperfect one who does make mistakes.
The larger issue is that there is a push and pull between segments of the population. Does Rowling’s announcement change the text of the books? Probably not. Does it cause some headache for parents who will need to explain to their children the morality surrounding homosexuality, and try to maintain their own moral stance without causing strife with their children over books their children obviously enjoy? Very much so.
Reading the commentary at Douthat’s site, I see a whole lot more hateful speech from the pro-homosexuality left than from the people they’re attacking as “haters.” Then again, that seems true to form - the old “free speech as long as you agree with what is Politically Correct(tm)” running amok.
Of course, your own view on the matter may vary greatly whether you believe sexuality is changeable. There are differing views from all sides on this one.
Comment by Webmaster — October 23, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Does it cause some headache for parents who will need to explain to their children the morality surrounding homosexuality, and try to maintain their own moral stance without causing strife with their children over books their children obviously enjoy? Very much so.
It does, though at least it lets the parents address the issue in their own way if they choose to do so. Had the novel said “Hey, Dumbledore is gay and anyone that has a problem with that is an intolerant poo-poo-head just like those that hate the muggleborns!” (which is likely how Rowling would have framed it) would have left parents in more of a spot.
Reading the commentary at Douthat’s site, I see a whole lot more hateful speech from the pro-homosexuality left than from the people they’re attacking as “haters.” Then again, that seems true to form - the old “free speech as long as you agree with what is Politically Correct(tm)” running amok.
The Atlantic has a pretty liberal readership and its conservativish writers (Douthat and Megan McArdle) take a lot of grief. The bile spat at McArdle is sadly much worse (though McArdle’s style is more aggravating than Douthat’s). I think it’s one of those things… when you’re arguing against a consensus (liberal or conservative) you’re often going to get it a lot worse because the commenters can all expect more support than not for their indignance.
Comment by trumwill — October 23, 2007 @ 10:36 am
I think you’re exactly right as the sexuality of Dumbledore would have detracted from the story she was trying to tell. When creating characters in works of fiction, writers should only divulge information that is pertinent to the story or why a character made certain choices, etc.
The same is true with non-fiction. My book’s is around 85,000 words. I removed about 40,000 words because I realized I was going off into stories or incidents that detracted from the story I was trying to tell. For example, I removed pretty much every reference to my late wife’s parents except for the fact to mention their mental illnesses and how that might have related to my late wife’s actions. Stories about me not getting along with them or their childish antics simply were detracting from the story I was really trying to tell. Thankfully a good editor pointed that out and I was able cut unnecessary stuff from the book.
Comment by Abel — October 23, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Ross is some kind of conservative, and may have a Catholic background, but I didn’t think he was a “conservative Catholic” by any stretch.
Comment by Spungen — October 23, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Abel,
It’s definitely good to have a good editor.
Spungen,
His politics are muddled sometimes but veer conservative on social issue, and I’m pretty sure he is a sincere Catholic (as opposed to a legacy Catholic). I guess to say “conservative Catholic” might come across like the equivalent “orthodox Jew” rather than as “Catholic who is also conservative” as I mainly meant it.
Comment by trumwill — October 24, 2007 @ 6:09 am
I personally would have wanted to know before the end of the series. But that is just from a fan’s point of view.
Comment by logtar — October 25, 2007 @ 4:18 pm