So, apparently Dumbledore is gay. Huh.For those who don't know (are there such people?), Albus Dumbledore is the headmaster of Hogwarts, the fictional school of wizardry in J. K. Rowling's wildly popular Harry Potter books. Though the series is over, and this particular revelation never came up in any of the books, Rowling revealed this tidbit during a recent question and answer session. That's not what I really want to talk about though, as I couldn't care less. What's interesting, and worth discussion, is the response this has gotten, especially from the same people who already demonize the books for (supposedly) promoting witchcraft.
For one, there's this guy, whose attitude can best be described as neanderthal. He actually ends his post with this:
"I think it’s time that any Potter material in your home meet Mr. Trash Can. Unless you want your children to become like Dumblequeer. Yuck. What a dirty trick."
Really? Did he really just say that? And he's serious? ... Really? Like, really, in reality, the really real world? In a first world nation in the modern era, someone who is literate enough to post something online actually thinks things like that?
...
Really?
Moving on, "anti-Potter crusader" Laura Mallory is quoted in an ABC News piece as saying (my emphasis):
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. [...] The kids are being introduced to a cult and witchcraft practices. [...]
A homosexual lifestyle is a harmful one. That's proven, medically.
Um... No. No it hasn't been "proven". People with agendas and no respect for truth often make that claim, however. I'll not even bother to point out how stupid the claims of witchcraft are (here's a hint: magic isn't real and it never was, ergo there is no threat from it). As for the anti-Christian claim, well, given that nothing about the books is directly anti-Christian, and the fact that this claim stems almost entirely from the ridiculous witchcraft argument (witchcraft being tied to Satan in Christian mythology... though having no such connection in any other, it's worth noting), this is also a load of crap. Some people are just angry and self righteous and they'll find something to gripe about no matter what.
SIDE RANT #1: This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If your agenda is based on a lie, then why are you pursuing it? Really, if you have to lie to make your point of view come out on top, then why is that your point of view? Obviously it's wrong or you wouldn't have to lie, or cherry pick the evidence, or anything of that sort. If your position is in the right, then the evidence will back it up. In fact, your position should be based on the evidence, not the other way around, if you have any intellectual integrity at all.
Somewhat saner is the post titled "Turns Out Dumbledore Was More Flawed Than I Thought" on Redstate.com. The author has a laugh at the way "
Rowling really pulled one over on [him]", then unfortunately goes on to imply Rowling is a fascist. Odd. The real kicker in this case is the following passage:
I wonder where her tolerance was for those readers who have beliefs different from hers. Where was the respect for them? Don't they too have a right to avoid and hide themselves away from ideas and themes they disagree with? I guess not. After all, there is no crime in creating an endearing story that is acceptable and appealing to many, and then pulling the rug out from under the readers later by revealing some disconcerting facts about a beloved character.
This fails to make sense on several levels. First of all, did he actually suggest that hiding from ideas you don't like is a good way to live? That's exactly the sort of behavior that leads people to say things like the troglodyte mentioned above. It also leads to the kind of super-limited world view that creates extremists and (if carried much further) suicide bombers. Secondly, is a guy on a Web site that actively rails against gay rights actually whining about intolerance? Furthermore, is he really whining about someone being intolerant of his intolerance? That's like those Christian activists claiming that life in the US is so hard for them despite being in the majority and living under a government that that is headed by an openly fundamentalist President and is heavily influenced by Christian lobbyists. It just doesn't make sense.
SIDE RANT #2: This reminds me of another pet peeve of mine, when people get after me for saying something like "I'm only intolerant of people who are intolerant" (which amounts to a slogan, by the way, hardly an exhaustive and nuanced mission statement) by claiming that it's a self defeating position, since I would have to be intolerant of myself. It doesn't work that way. My personal intolerance is in reaction to the behaviors and actions of others, it is not in reaction to something as trivial as race, religion, or sexual preference. I'm not going to welcome people who actively oppress and harm others with open arms simply because to do so would be "tolerant". I'm not going to be tolerant of the kid who spit in my face in high school for no reason either, nor will I tolerate the guy who broke into my car back in 2000, if I ever meet him. If your intolerance is for a valid reason, then more power to you.
Now, to be fair, there's some stupidity on the other side as well. Comments like "this is a victory for homosexuality the world over" miss the point entirely as well. So what is the point? Here we have a beloved character in a crazy popular book series, and after the fact we find out he's gay. Does this change our opinion of him? Why? The guy above who claimed that Rowling tricked him was actually on to something, but for the wrong reasons. The fact is that the whole time, doing everything that he did, Dumbledore was gay and we loved him anyway. The things he did haven't changed, he isn't a different character than he was before this revelation. In short, him being gay doesn't really matter. It wasn't mentioned in the novels because it didn't matter, except as a bit of back story that helped determine how he ended up the character he was.
If you see a burning building with someone trapped on the second floor, and some guy rushes into the building and saves them at great risk to themselves, then that person is a hero. Would finding out that person is gay change your opinion of what they did? It shouldn't, not any more than finding out that they're Jewish or black or a communist should (well, maybe the communist thing, though only because that's a conscious choice). The reason is that none of those things have any bearing on how good or bad a person is. Now, had that person turned out to be a murderer or rapist, sure, but then those are conscious actions that cause actual harm, and that's different.
So the point is, it doesn't really matter. Get over it already.
P.S.: In reference to the title of this post, I'm referring to Jerry Falwell's odd claims that Tinky Winky, a "Teletubby", was secretly gay. I was reminded of this by an article by one Mark Finkelstein in which he writes:
"It’s a children’s show, folks. To think we would be putting sexual innuendo in a children’s show is kind of outlandish."
-- spokesman for Itsy Bitsy Entertainment Co., which licenses Teletubby characters in the United States.
Yeah, outlandish. I mean, how could anyone imagine there could be undisclosed gay characters in pop-culture materials for children? That Jerry Falwell, what a Christian conservative crank!
[...]
What's that? It now turns out that Dumbledore is gay? That guy who was the headmaster at Harry Potter's Hogwarts? Author J.K. Rowling said so herself?Oh, well, that's different.
[...]
Somewhere, Jerry Falwell is smiling.
OK, it's sad to think that he believes he scored a point with this. It's sadder to think that believes that a character turning out to be gay - after doing nothing that would suggest his sexuality in any way, and never being in a situation in which that information was relevant - is the same thing as "sexual innuendo". Falwell was a blow hard, he always was, and he still is (yes, I know he's dead, but until we all agree to ignore everything he ever said, it still counts).
P.P.S.: I was reading the comments on a related Digg.com posting earlier and someone pointed out that the source for a great deal of the worlds best religious art, Leonardo Da Vinci, was gay as well. Someone responded that it's in vogue right now to insist that great historical figures were gay, and that Da Vinci wasn't.
Hate to burst your bubble, but he was. Along with a number of other clues (including his own writings) just take a look at his attempts at rendering the female anatomy versus his works depicting male anatomy. It's likely that he never saw a naked woman up close, but he was certainly up on his men. He's still one of the greatest artistic and scientific minds the world has ever produced.
5 comments:
1. I would submit to you that the notion that sexual preference is "trivial" is a personal bias based on one's spiritual views.
2. Jerry Falwell was not the first to claim Tinky Winky was gay, nor does tha claim seem "odd" in light of the fact that several major news outlets had "outed" the poor Teletubby prior to JF. These sources include:
People magazine saying that "gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon."
The Village voice stated that Tinky was "out and proud," sending "a great message to kids — not only that it's OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized."
In fact, a Nexis search reveals that Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice), The New York Times, and Time Magazine (twice) made reference to Tinky being gay in 1998.
Falwell's "outrageous" comments came out in Feb of 1999, whereupon he was roundly lampooned and marginalized for such Chicken Littlery, and the incident has been a primary touchstone for people denouncing Falwell's intolerance.
I hate it when people lie to support their position, because, if you have to lie to support it, why do you hold the position in the first place.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your meaning. Are you implying that I'm lying to make a point? I never claimed that Falwell was the first or only one to make that claim, he's simply the most vocal and high profile person to do so. He's also the person being discussed in the article I quoted. For the record, anyone who has ever made that claim has sounded like an idiot in the process, I don't care where it's coming from.
It's still an odd claim, no matter how many people made it first. I mean, they're Teletubbies for Pete's sake. That's like claiming that the Smurfs glorified polygamy (only one woman in a colony of men). Some things just aren't meant to be plumbed for greater meaning.
Re-reading this post, I can say that I lost my original point a bit, which is completely my own fault. My point was that this character, who has been loved and revered all along, is still the same character now as he's been all along. Since his sexual orientation has nothing to do with what he's done to become so revered and beloved, then why does it change that? It's a separate issue altogether.
I was trying to make the same point about DaVinci. He's one of the most important and influential figures in history, and yet he was most likely gay. Other historical persons who engaged in homosexual behavior include Alexander The Great, King Edward II of England, Shakespeare, Emperor Nero of Rome, Plato, MIchelangelo, and more. Modern examples include Leonard Bernstein, Marlon Brando, Sir Ian McKellen, George Takei, Andy Warhol, Anthony Perkins, Bryan Singer, Oscar Wilde, Billie Joe Armstrong, and many others. The point being that sexual orientation does not diminish what these men accomplished (or are accomplishing), good or bad.
And that's why it really is a trivial matter, regardless of spiritual beliefs (or lack there of). It's a private matter that should be of no concern to others since it does not affect them. And until someone comes up with some objective, verifiable evidence that I'm wrong on that point, I don't care to debate it (I will always listen to objective evidence, to not do so would be intellectually dishonest).
PS: I'm jealous that you have access to Nexus. I'd love to, but I can't justify paying for it at the moment.
I did not mean to imply that you were lying, although I can see where you could read it that way. Sorry about the implication. I was refering to those who predicated (in large part, at least) Falwell's alleged hate upon those statements. Especially those who ignore previous statements to the same effect.
You refer to objective evidence on a whether to make a moral judgement on a particular act. Is there such a thing as an objective basis for any morality? I don't expect an answer here. I'll email you a couple of further thoughts.
Also, I don't have nexis (for the same reason as you), but have access through someone else.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
And I actually do believe that you can objectively define morality, at least to a point. Honestly, if you're not hurting anyone else, I really couldn't care less what you do (to head this off, since it's been pointed out before, lying is actually harmful, so it fits my criteria).
Of course you have a good point that it is nearly impossible to agree on a set definition for things like harm, or even morality for that matter. I guess I just prefer a "live and let live" philosophy.
When I first started hearing on the news that JK Rowling had stated that Dumbledore was always a gay character in her mind all I could do was roll my eyes. From the beginning stubborn, close-minded people had been against the Potter series because of the witchcraft and the imagined link to "the devil". This revelation would just give them another excuse to rail against the books and movies.
I agree with you that after the last book was finished and read the sexual orientation of any character was completely irrelevant. I was visiting family the day it was all over the news. My aunt, who is a dear sweet woman born in the 40's and still working on shrugging off her old country upbringing says. "Oh honey, did you hear the news?"..."That writer said in an interview that Dumble-guy is gay. I think it's just wonderful, don't you?" I just shook my head and tried to explain how it didn't matter. It would have been "wonderful" if it had somehow pertained to the story, but really how do you work that in to a kids fantasy story without seeming like you're doing it intentionally to win points with a specific group of people.
Not to mention, had she somehow worked it into the story the same pea brains who think they're all in the service of Satan up at Hogwarts would have also raised an alarm that Dumbledore must be a pedophile and that's why he's so interested in Harry's future. Bigots often make that leap equating homosexuality with pedophilia.
I respect that JK Rowling is an open minded woman and I believe she too felt Dumbledore's sexuality was a moot point, I just wish she hadn't bothered mentioning it now. When you are a writer you know way more about your characters than anyone else will ever hear. Maybe it’s different in England. Maybe they’ve already pulled their heads out of their butts over there. Maybe she’s been enlightened for so long she forgot what kind of stir this could make. I'm an advocate for gay rights and tolerance (of all but the intolerant, as you say) but all that has come of this is mass ridiculousness.
Post a Comment