Dead Fictional British Pagan from Another World Sets Wingnuts Frothing (Yay, Rowling!)
Posted by
KTK
J.K. Rowling has a wonderful gift for pushing the religious wingnuts’ “insane gibber” button, seemingly without trying. Her Harry Potter series consistently ranks among the books most frequently targeted for banning by the winger legions, and now she’s got them in a sex panic over what must be the most sex-free coming-of-age stories on record. I like her more and more.
The AP carried this odd little item the other day:
In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. “Dumbledore is gay, actually,” replied Rowling as the audience erupted in surprise. She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort’s predecessor who appears in the seventh book. After several minutes of prolonged shouting and clapping from astonished fans, Rowling added. “I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy.”
Already the wingers are beside themselves.
At “Death by 1000 Papercuts”, “as gayness overtakes the Harry Potter series”, they’re concerned for the children:
Scratch one more childhood safe haven from the list. Parents have one less resource for children to be children . . . .Apparently, the need to add one more small weight of the world to childhood worries was overwhelming, most probably to someone among her new circle.
R-i-i-i-g-h-t. Children the world over are going to be “burdened” with “worry” that Albus Dumbledore’s sex life doesn’t meet this clown’s approval. The bit about “someone from her new circle” is incomprehensible, but he seems to be darkly hinting that Rowling has new gay friends that she didn’t have before she wrote the books. Because of course she couldn’t have had any then. Or something. And this is a problem . . . how? Oh, who cares?
But Mr. Papercut’s not alone in his angst over fictional sexual identities:
“Thank you for permanently staining my view of Dumbledore,” read a post [on the official Harry Potter website] from someone identifying himself or herself only as “Concerned Reader.”
One major anti-Potter crusader is Laura Mallory, a mother of four from Georgia, who made headlines earlier this month when she told the Gwinnett County Board of Education that the series was trying to indoctrinate children into the Wicca religion. In response to Dumbledore’s outing, Mallory told ABC News that the Potter series has “an anti-Christian agenda,” and, “this only further supports that.”"My prayer is that parents would wake up, that the subtle way this is presented as harmless fantasy would be exposed for what it really is — a subtle indoctrination into anti-Christian values,” said Mallory. “The kids are being introduced to a cult and witchcraft practices.
“A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one,” she added. “That’s proven, medically.”
Not surprisingly, conservatives at Saturday’s Values Voters’ summit in Washington also had some thoughts on the now controversial wizard.
“I feel like children’s books shouldn’t be political — they shouldn’t have political ties, they’re entertainment,” attendee Katie Beach said. “I think it’s pretty ridiculous for her to say that or to do that.”
“I’m a gibbering nut. That’s proven. Medically.” OK, lady . . . put the books down and back away slowly . . . .
And, of course, we have a claim from a member of a group that was formed for the express purpose (among others) of prohibiting marriage for gays and criminalizing gay people’s private lives, claiming that merely saying a fictional character is gay is “political”. Let’s think about that . . . simply being gay while not actually existing is a political act. Necessarily, one presumes, actually being gay and existing has got to be some kind of super-political act. (I wonder what it is to exist, be gay, hold elected office as a religious-conservative Republican, and offer to blow strangers in a public restroom . . .? Just asking.)
Boy, it’s High Dudgeon season on the insane right again (when is it not?). But I have to say it’s a lot more entertaining as their political star fades than it was just a few years ago. For once I’m actually grateful to George Bush for something.
I will note that it seems generally odd to me to create backstories for fictional characters. What does it mean to say that you know a certain fact about a character in a book, if that fact doesn’t appear in the book? Since the character has no real characteristics to begin with (Hamlet isn’t “really” moody; “Hamlet” is the name of a non-existent character who is portrayed as being moody, but isn’t really anything, since he doesn’t exist), what does it mean to add even more characteristics that don’t exist even within the fictional ground of the story itself? It makes sense to speculate on the kinds of motivations real people would have if they were the kind of people portrayed in the story - that gives us a chance to understand human nature better. So the idea that Jeeves and Wooster are both gay adds something to our appreciation of their relationship, and of relationships in general. But throwing in facts that just seem unrelated to the story or the character strikes me as not merely unnecessary but in some way incomprehensible. Suppose we are told that Heathcliff collected postage stamps. What can we possibly make of that? More to the point, how can it be “true” if it appears nowhere in the book and the book is the entirety of Heathcliff’s fictional existence? In this case, Dumbledore’s being gay jibes with supposed characteristics that do appear in the books - his lack of female relationships and his boyhood crush on another powerful wizard - but it doesn’t seem to do much to help us understand him. Learning that those characteristics are related to his being gay, especially after the immense 7-book series is finally finished, tells us nothing about him - or ourselves - that we didn’t already know (all of those characteristics could still obtain without him being gay, and our beliefs about the fictional character would not be greatly altered).
But all that is by the way. What’s really worthwhile about the story is simply that it pisses off all the people who so desperately need to be pissed off. I wish every children’s author would immediately announce that their characters were secretly gay all along. Ramona? Gay. Mrs. Frisby? Gay, and talks to animals. Jonny Tremain? Patriotic, disabled, and gay. The Cat in the Hat? Gay. (And don’t get me started on Thing 1 and Thing 2!) Amelia Bedelia? Gay, gay, gay! From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler and Her Special Friend. I Am the Homosexual Cheese. Are You There, God? - It’s Me, Margaret, and I Eat Pussy. And of course, we all knew about Bert and Ernie. . . .
The sound of conservative blockheads exploding across the nation would be delicious music - and it wouldn’t really hurt anything. They’d all stop buying the books, of course, but it’s not like their kids aren’t already growing up joyless and ignorant.
For taking the first step in this bold and happy-hearted movement, for throwing a welcome sop to gay and questioning fans everywhere, and for giving the wingers yet another part of the world to feel uncomfortable in, hats off to J.K. Rowling!
Rowling, finishing a brief “Open Book Tour” of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a “prolonged argument for tolerance” and urged her fans to “question authority.”
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.
She really gets it:
“Oh, my god,” Rowling concluded with a laugh, “the fan fiction.”
“Oh, my god, the fan fiction.”
See, now, that is going to be evil.
Seriously, holy shit yay.
Comment 10/22/2007
[…] I came across this post - Dead Fictional British Pagan from Another World Sets Wingnuts Frothing (Yay, Rowling!) - and thought it was worth sharing. I hope you find it interesting too and take the time to read some of the other articles on their site. […]
Pingback 10/22/2007
I will note that it seems generally odd to me to create backstories for fictional characters.
It doesn’t seem at all odd to me if you’re the person who created them in the first place. Surely there is a rich texture to the character in the author’s head, not all of which finds its way onto the page. I recently read an interview with Tony Shalhoub in which he revealed that he has (in his own mind) a backstory for Monk: Adrian was a virgin whose marriage to Trudy was just on the verge of consummation at the time of her death. I thought this was cool.
Comment 10/22/2007
Sadly, No! had an interesting post up about this as well. Apparently a columnist in West Va. got his knickers in a twist.
RE: this, “I will note that it seems generally odd to me to create backstories for fictional characters,” every writer is different but I have yet to run across a fiction writer who does not have an elaborate backstory for their characters, even for minor ones. It’s how we writers learn our characters, get inside their skin so that characters, not plot, drive our stories. These backstories may not be relevant to the plot at hand but they certainly are relevant to the characters. It’s how they become believable to readers, and it’s how they come alive on the page. You may not see it overtly but you know it intuitively. We intuitively know that Heathcliff did not collect stamps as a hobby, because nothing in his character is indicative of that–it would be out of character for him.
Comment 10/22/2007
It doesn’t seem at all odd to me if you’re the person who created them in the first place.
I agree that that makes a lot more sense. The author is the (literally) authoritative source of whatever is “true” about their characters, and so in some way if they stipulate that the characters are such-and-so, then they are that. Method actors’ creating backstories for their characters in order to provide “motivation” for their acting is also reasonable, as long as they don’t take it too far (but in that case it’s understood that the story is personal to that actor’s portayal of the character, not that character for all time).
But I still don’t understand saying that something is true about a character who only appears in a book, if that thing is not made clear in the book itself. The fictional world of the book is not the real world, even if the story is set in the real world. Rowling said that she knows her character is gay - but Rowling is not a character in her own book. Arguably she’s the one person in the world who can’t reasonably be a character in that book. So in what way is the character gay in the book - which is the only place he “exists”? If she had made it clear in the book that he was gay, then of course he would be (to the extent that any fictional character “is” anything). But saying it outside the book in a way that has very little relevance to the story itself, and then expecting people to somehow import that into the reading of the book as if it were part of the story - I just don’t see that. What else are we going to learn about Dumbledore? Does he support gay marriage? The flat tax? Annual caldron inspections? Isn’t there something just kind of weird about imagining that he could have any such characteristics, completely outside of and divorced from the context that actually makes him “real” at all?
Comment 10/22/2007
I’m with KTK, it does seem kind of odd. However, I don’t doubt that many writers do it.
It is something that appear more odd to those on the outside, than those on the inside.
However, it is the perceived non-necessity that will give whatever the Harry Potter is anti-Christian perspective traction. Because if it seems weird, and unnecessary, it heightens the likelihood that Rowling is just making a political statement by proclaiming one of her main characters gay.
Either way, though. From a kid’s perspective, or a parenting perspective, who cares! Even if you take moral offense at homosexuality, there are no displays there of, and sexuality doesn’t come up in the books. Actually, I can’t be sure, I only read the first one (but that doesn’t mean I’ve stopped drinking, KTK).
Basically, if the book was good for ya before, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t still be.
Comment 10/22/2007
This strikes me as a bit of a red herring anyway. Whether or not gayness is an appropriate subject for young children is moot, because this entire series hasn’t been appropriate for young children since book two or three. The series has gotten progressively more dark and more mature with each new volume. If you were ten years old when the series started, then each book was roughly age appropriate. But if you’re a ten-year-old starting the series now, I’m not sure I’d let you anywhere near the later volumes, most especially not the last one.
Comment 10/22/2007
I’d actually disagree with the notion that a ten-year-old couldn’t handle the later Harry Potter novels. Yes the subject is dark and certainly not every ten-year-old would be ready, I think the way Rowling handles any of the deaths in her books is with sadness and with regret, even those who are evil are mourned in a way. This is far superior to much that you could find on network TV or basic cable or even some cartoons.
Comment 10/22/2007
What if Rowling had written a scene in which she made it explicit that Dumbledore was gay, and later snipped it — or had it snipped by an editor? I don’t have a problem with saying that Dumbledore exists in Rowling’s mind, and in her various drafts of her various books, as much as he does in the published versions.
It also seems to me that if Rowling is telling the truth about Dumbledore’s sexuality having been clear to her while she was writing the books, it’s likely that that fact was somehow reflected in her characterization. So maybe it was in the books.
Comment 10/22/2007
I’m forced to one of two conclusions:
1. Rowlings always intended for Dumbledore to be gay. In which case I seem to have vastly overestimated her ability as a writer since she managed to write more than 4,000 pages without ever getting around to a rather key detail about one of her characters.
2. She’s lying when she said Dumbledore was always gay, and is just saying this now to create controversy for controversy’s sake, likely out of a desire to 1) tweak the noses of her Christian wingnut critics and 2) keep her name in the news now that her seven years of fame is up.
I’m not sure which I find more disturbing.
Comment 10/23/2007
SD,
You’re missing a sub-possibility under (1). In 4000 pages, it’s not mentioned because it’s not a “key detail” about the character. Gayness isn’t some magical property that permeates your destiny. It’s a fact about who one falls in love with and what one does with them once in bed. The latter part doesn’t come up. The former part doesn’t really come up with respect to
GandaDumbledore.Mind you, being gay tends to become rather important, especially politically, when wacko authoritarians tell you who you should love and what you should do in bed, and say it’s okay for you to be gunned down in the streets. I don’t think that’s on Rowlings’s agenda, though.
Comment 10/23/2007
Dan:
If the gay Dumbledore acts is in everyway undistinguishably from a straight Dumbledore, in what sense is he gay?
And secondly, if we accept Rowlings description, it is a key detail. According to what she said at the Q&A session, Dumbledore was blinded to Grimmwalt’s evil nature because he was in love with him. This contradicts the explanations of everyone who knew him at the time and even Dumbledore’s own explanation of what happened, where he claims it resulted from a combination of his desire to be important and an inability to get over the death of his parents.
My problem isn’t that one of her characters is gay, it’s that this seems so arbitrary. Like the day after Deathly Hallows went to press, she made up a big wheel with Dumbledore, McGonnagal, Hagrid, etc. and span it around to see which of her generally assexual characters was SECRETLY GAY ™.
Comment 10/23/2007
Actually, this article suggests that she left plenty of evidence, particularly in the last book (which I haven’t read). The article gives examples, and they seem quite substantial.
After reading that article, it seems to me that Dumbledore was gay in the books — that she wrote him as gay, and intended him to be read as gay, at least by some readers.
Comment 10/23/2007
The article I linked above suggests strongly that he’s not indistinguishable from a straight Dumbledore. There’s no “I’m gay!” moment in the book, but we wouldn’t expect there to be — the guy’s a schoolteacher, and apparently closeted. In real life, men in Dumbledore’s circumstances had very few “I’m gay!” moments.
But Rowling’s description of an intense relationship that Dumbledore had with another boy when he was at school will be familiar to anyone who is acquainted with the history of homosexuality in Britain the mid 20th century, and her account of the snide insinuations that are made about Dumbledore’s relationship with Potter reflects the way that public figures who are rumored to be gay are often treated in the media.
As I said in my previous comment, I haven’t read book seven myself. But the Salon description strongly suggests that Rowling wrote Dumbledore as gay, at least by then. Her depiction may have been ambiguous, but she did leave a trail of breadcrumbs.
Comment 10/23/2007
Haha… You guys read gay books!
But seriously, how would the gay Dumbledore, be distinguishable from a straight Dumbledore? I dunno; how would a straight Dumbledore be distinguishable from a straight one.
Are there scenes where the characters go on spring break from Hogwarts and fuck hot collegiate muggles in tropical locations? Cuz if so, I’ll read the rest of the books… and the rent the movies.
Despite the importance one may give to sexuality in terms of defining an individual, in the context of the book, a character’s sexuality is only as key a characteristic as it relates to the plot. I’ll let those who’ve read more of the books debate the extent to which Dumbledore’s sexuality related to the plots of the books.
I don’t remember such a big deal being made when we found out that the son on Who’s the Boss was gay…
Comment 10/23/2007
That should read, “how would a straight Dumbledore be distinguishable from a gay one. (Paragraph 2, Sentence 2)
Comment 10/23/2007
Actually the first one almost made more sense, Dig. “How would a straight (sexually significant) Gandalf be distinguishable from a straight (heteronormative a-sexual) Gandalf?”
Comment 10/23/2007
Yeah, I thought of that too, Dan.
Since sexuality is a moot point, the question is basically, how would a stated but plot-irrelevant sexual preference be different from a non-stated, plot-irrelevant sexual preference? He could have been necrophile into beastiality, his sexuality doesn’t come up in the story, so there would be no distinguishable differences in the character.
However, not stating the sexuality is to give way to hegemonic norms, and is therefore tantamount to stating the character as heterosexual. Perhaps, the political point to be taken from this is not that Rowling may have arbitrarily designated one of her characters gay to ruffle wingnut feathers, but that we should ask the question, why is an individual with an unstated sexuality always assumed to be heterosexual.
He didn’t “act gay.” Well, he didn’t “act straight” either…
Comment 10/24/2007
There is something that’s always bugged me in the queer community, which is the lavish complaints about heteronormativity. Now, I agree that there’s no reason to make heterosexualatiy normative, but the obvious fact of the matter is that it is in fact normal. Merely noting that everyone is on average more likely to be hetero than homo is not heteronormativity, but just heteronormality. It’s even reasonable to then presume that any individual is hetero, so long as that presumption is easy to overcome. It is the denial and incredulity upon the presumption being violated that constitutes heteronormativity.
Comment 10/24/2007
I’ll buy that, Dan. But, I’d assert that any even minor outrage (oxymoron?) violates the terms of the “presumption easy to overcome” clause. The “easy to overcome” clause should assume no value judgment.
Comment 10/25/2007
To the writer of this–
Brilliant. I love the satiric look and input you’ve spun this story with. It’s amazing to me to find out that Dumbledore is/was gay, yet unspeakably amusing at the same time.
I also greatly enjoyed the spoofing to the children’s book titles, my favourite being “I am the Homosexual Cheese”. It all just tickled me, and I enjoyed very much reading it.
-Sincerely,
SD
Comment 10/26/2007