I've definitely written some very geeky/nerdy posts in the past, but I actually don't think this one is quite as bad as the title sounds (I swear!).
Since the last movie has came out and there's a ton of talk of Harry Potter flying around, I figured now would be as good of a time to write down concretely some thoughts I've shared in the past but never fully articulated, namely on the topic of Albus Dumbledore's sexuality, and what it means for the series (I sweaaaarrrrr).
Some of you may remember way back in October 2007 when there was the very out-of-the-blue announcement from Rowling that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay. The reactions were predictably mixed, with some people outraged, others perfectly fine with it, and hundreds of posts going back and looking for clues; the media had a field hour. Personally I was a bit confused when I first heard the news, but gradually it began to bug me, and I wasn't quite sure why for the longest time.
I like to think I'm not particularly homophobic by any stretch of the imagination, so it was slightly worrying that I couldn't pinpoint why this small fact was irking me so much. Was I actually bigoted, did I think it just didn't fit, or what? However, I eventually realized the reason why, and it had nothing to do with Dumbledore's interests, but rather the wider implications for the series.
The Harry Potter series is a fantastic work, if I may make that claim, and one of the better aspects is the very strong yet not overbearing morality it possesses. The world is not always purely good or evil, with characters like Malfoy, Snape, and Umbridge all not fitting perfectly into either the Death Eater/Order of the Phoenix camp. The war in the series also brings to light large past injustices, such as wizardkind's continual mistreatment of non-humans and non-magic users, and Rowling uses the opportunity to speak to racial injustice, bigotry, prejudice, and all similar negatives. There's even the startling moment in the 7th book where Hermione basically tells Harry it was kind of Sirius' fault that Kreacher betrayed him, in a stark reversal of Sirius' normally positive attributes.
None is more outspoken in this series in this regard than Dumbledore. He always speaks of treating Muggles and non-humans fairly, bemoans how their ancestors did not behave well and the continual mistreatment has resulted in modern occurrences like the giants joining Voldemort, etc. etc. He acts as the spokesperson for rationality, acceptance, and essentially everyone getting along. In fact, his seemingly paragon-like virtues make the surprise reveal of his past in book 7 all the much stronger.
With this in mind, I can totally understand why Rowling would choose to make such a great character homosexual; in the same tradition, she goes "Look, here's this awesome character, and he's gay! That means gay people aren't evil or horrible or whatever, they're just like you and me, be accepting!" However, in my mind there's a huge downside to this.
Specifically, it completely changes Dumbledore's perspective on the issue. To put it in terms of, for instance, the African-American suffrage movement, Dumbledore is not President Kennedy or Johnson demanding equal rights for all people, he is instead Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, all 3 would be powerful people asking for the same thing, but the difference is someone in the minority asking for more acceptance, versus someone in power demanding rights for the minority he doesn't belong to.
It's a relatively subtle difference, but in my mind it's a big one. If Dumbledore is part of a minority, of course he wants minorities treated better, and would naturally also feel sympathetic towards other minorities he doesn't belong to as a result of his personal experience. Not to belittle minority leaders, but no one is surprised when they speak up for themselves. What tends to actually be surprising is when someone who is not at all involved personally speaks up for the oppressed and demands better treatment; someone who has nothing to gain and everything to lose risking all to help someone less fortunate.
Before Rowling's announcement, Dumbledore existed in that latter camp in my mind. He was in a prominent position, spouting opinions that not everyone wanted to hear, but saying them anyway. Post-announcement, all his exposition becomes just kind of... expected. It loses its potency.
Now as a slight disclaimer, who says a message doesn't diminish its correctness or its importance by any means. I just feel that Rowling was trying to carry that important message, but she made a huge mistake in conveying it, and in my mind making it lose a lot of its power.
I suspect that few people have actually thought about this as much as I have, so perhaps it's really not that big of a deal. I am curious if you guys agree though, or if you think I'm just completely crazy. Now if only ideas and words came this easily for academic papers on books...
-HTMC
I was sorely tempted to find the most outrageous Harry Potter smut I could and post it in here, but I decided to save my revenge for your little Broken Blade stunt for later.
ReplyDeleteOn a more serious note, I actually have stuff to say about this interesting post.
Just to put it out there, minority advocates are not always as aware or concerned with the plights of other minorities as you might think. For instance, the Abolition and Women's Suffrage movements worked together for a while... until it became increasingly clear that some leaders of the Abolition movement weren't really interested in giving women the vote. After that, they had a pretty nasty falling out. Similarly, feminists have often been accused of ignoring the plight of minority women, and only pushing "white feminism." I'm no expert on these matters, but this is what I gleaned from a few classes that touched on the subject(s).
At the Claremont Colleges, yes, every advocacy group tries to be extremely cooperative with the others, and sensitive to new groups that may appear. But, historically, this hasn't so much been the case. Sometimes minority advocates have genuinely held prejudiced views against other minorities or oppressed groups. Perhaps more often, minority groups have competing interests (limited resources, etc), and their advocates will be openly in opposition, even if they both want to see a world where people are treated more decently.
In light of this, I actually don't see Dumbledore's moral position as being weakened that much by the fact that he's a member of one minority supporting the cause of another "substratum" group (since Muggles are actually the majority). I do see his moral position being slightly weakened by the fact that he's a chessmaster willing to sacrifice no small number of lives for the greater good, but this was also interesting character complexity.
It's also worth tossing out there that, to my knowledge, we have no idea what position homosexuality occupies in wizard society. Our only real data comes from this case, and Dumbledore was pretty tight-lipped about everything in his personal life.