The truly frustrating thing about bigotry is its reductive nature. It takes the wonderful complexity that is a human being and reduces it to a single caricature. The woman at the movie theater who upset me so much sat through the same movie I did. She watched the same characters struggle and evolve, but in the end, at least in regards to the character of Allegra, she couldn't or wouldn't bring herself to see the person behind what she'd labeled a perversion. Unfortunately, the same can be said for whatever the opposite of bigotry is. That force that drives The Advocate to out dead people and movie stars who've decided that they'd rather not share who they share their beds with. It's all two sides of the same coin, taking a single characteristic of a person and transforming it into everything worth knowing about that person.
The re-reading of Potter-verse has already begun, with close analysis of every Dumbledore related word. Particularly close attention is being paid to the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, the wizard young Dumbledore first befriended but eventually defeated, which J.K. Rowling recently characterized in a speech as a romantic attachment. When I first read about Dumbledore's attachment to Gridelwald, the passionate charge in the relationship was clearly there. Rowling isn't a subtle writer. Yet I was also so clearly reminded of incidents in my own life where I formed an overwhelming attachment with another person.
There's nothing so amazing as experiencing a "meeting of the minds," when you meet someone who "gets" you. There's a movie called Heavenly Creatures which portrays this circumstance so clearly, and also portrays how this kind of intense, passionate teenage friendship can go completely, horribly wrong. As a film librarian, I had a patron complain about this movie once — and when I say complain I mean this person was completely beside themselves, they were so upset by this movie which was, they insisted, clearly advocating for teens to kill their parents. Unfortunately for the person who wanted the film removed from the system, I was enthralled by the movie. I actually considered sending them a thank you note for suggesting I watch it.
Now, I've never murdered any of my parents, nor faced a former friend in a wizard duel, but I related to both these stories under discussion here, because I've been young and felt alienated and discovered a friend who felt the same sort of alienation at the same time. Even though I'm an actual grown up now, I can still feel exhilaration when I read or view a work of art that captures a universal human experience so beautifully. And my question to J.K. Rowling, or my concern or my confusion or whatever it is that's making this gnat buzz around me, is "Are you telling me that I got it wrong?" I thought I was reading about a universal human experience, something that Rowling is generally damn good at capturing. Was it in fact a "gay" experience? In labeling Dumbledore gay does Rowling wish to expand my understanding of him, or narrow it? I believe that Rowling means for it to expand. In a perfect, wonderful world, it does expand. Certainly learning that my aunt was gay expanded my understanding and appreciation of her life.
Article comments
1 - Che
When I started reading this article I thought it was going to be a load of the same jackassery I've been seeing all over the net. Glad to see it wasn't.
I understand your concerns. The most vocal people about the "Dumbledore Issue" have been the fundie christians (who KNEW he was evil all along, being a wizard. Now its even WORSE), and the fundie gay activists (why wasn't he GAY in the books?!)
For me, Dumbledore's past love for Grindlewald just added another facet to the complexity of an interesting, lovable and deeply complicated person. But the fundie christians have never read the books anyway, and the fundie activists live in a bizarre narrow little world where everything and everyone is either gay or not-gay. But the people who have read and love the books are legion, and these are the people who are going to appreciate the whole picture.
People cheered when Rowling answered the question about Dumbledore's love-life, revealing that Dumbledore was gay. Was the entire group at Carnegie Hall gay? Were they all thinking, "Yay, another gay to add to our list!" No, they were Harry Potter fans, and I think they cheered because their understanding of a beloved character had just expanded a bit.
So take heart. There are PLENTY of us out here who love Dumbledore, the whole Dumbledore, and aren't going to forget his kindness, his bravery, and his wisdom.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Kati,
If the "re-reading" of the Harry Potter series occurs as seriously as you suspect it might, then it will prove to Joanne Rowling that some things remain better left unsaid. The wisdom that she puts in Dumbledore's mouth is profound. If society demeans it all by making a stink over something that never even appeared in the novels, it will be shame. But, this is is a generation of dogs, reversals whose upbringing is not in them, so it will not be surprising if this "re-reading" of Harry Potter you predict occurs.
This brings up one point that I occasionally bring up with my kids, though. That is the general orientation of the books, an orientation which is not too visible, but is clear to anyone with open eyes. Rowling's agenda in her books is diversity and multi-culturalism and plugging its virtues. She uses elves, centaurs and wizards, and the relationships between them to make her points, but she makes the points nevertheless. Perhaps, her comments about Dumbeldore were made in the same spirit.
3 - daryl d
Nice article. I'm surprised Perez Hilton hasn't shown pictures of Dumbledore with white stuff coming out of his mouth? Or has he?
4 - Victor Plenty
Who's Perez Hilton? And why should I give a damn what he says about Dumbledore?
Ah, never mind. Don't bother answering that. There isn't any answer that could persuade me to care what such a person might say, even if he's President Bush's astrologer or whatever.
5 - Kati
He's a faux celebutard who, I think, fancies himself the new Louella Parsons. He likes having pictures taken of himself with real celebutards, in incriminating circumstances if possible.
At least, that's my impression.