Saturday, November 03, 2007

More on Dumbledore

Thanks to Episcopal Cafe for pointing us to this EW commentary by reporter Mark Harris:

Dumbledore: A Lovely Outing

It's often said that if every gay person in the world were to turn purple overnight, homophobia would disappear. In other words, fewer people would be inclined to vilify other human beings if they woke up one day and discovered that they'd been aiming stones at their college roommate, their aunt, their grocer, or their grandson.

Statistics bear this out: People who have a gay family member or friend have more enlightened attitudes about homosexuality than those who don't. What Rowling has done, brilliantly, is to turn Dumbledore purple. She didn't reveal his sexuality in order to unlock a new way of reading the books, or as a provocation. She simply told the world that a main character in the best-loved books of the last 10 years is homosexual, and asked her audience to contend with it — and with the fact that it shouldn't matter. And her choice to make a beloved professor-mentor gay in a world where gay teachers are still routinely slandered as malign influences was, I am certain, no accident.

In addition to the braying of hatemongers, there's already been some umbrage taken at the appropriateness of Rowling's decision to uncork this news in front of children, a brand of sanctimony for which I have no patience. At least one out of 25 of those children will eventually self-identify as homosexual. The other 24, having made their way through an epic series that includes multiple murders, demonic possession, and the psychic toll of having mentally ill parents, will, I imagine, be able to handle the bulletin that some people are gay, and will likely benefit from the richer understanding of the world that such knowledge provides.
.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I know from reading Titus One Nine there are some Harry Potter fans. But they've been strangely silent about this one! La-de-da.

Anonymous said...

what else do you expect from this occult sort of stuff?

Anonymous said...

As a Harry Potter fan (and a titusonenine fan, I would have thought that this was a total non-event. This is JKR's world -- she can order it however she likes it -- just as God created his world, and he can ask us to be obedient to the order that He likes.

Which is why those difficult passages in the Bible which you would like to ignore actually matter so much to us.

The reaction is consistent with the worldview of authority and obedience, and has is not ordered by a particular view of homosexuality.

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

anonymous -- Just for the record, not asking anyone to ignore any biblical passage ... asking rather they be read in context without the modernist influence of fundamental literalism which is a very "new thing" in historic Christianity and, from my traditional Anglican perspective, not a GOOD new thing!

Anonymous said...

Dear Rev. Russell:

Isn't Dumbledore a fictional character? I would agree with anonymous this is a non-event. Sort of like all the excitement around a Star Trek convention.
What it means to me is people discussing or arguing over the attributes of a fictional character need to get a "real" life.
Maybe we could spend time arguing over the religion/orientation of Humpty Dumpty for the next great debate.

Silly.

A sinner saved by God's Grace

Jim from Michigan

SUSAN RUSSELL said...

Did you miss the part about Rowling offering a teachable moment on tolerance?

Evidently.

RonF said...

Actually, it seems to me a bit odd that J.K. Rowling can simply announce that a given character is gay or straight or black or white or purple and expect to be taken seriously. Does any characteristic of a character (there's a phrase for you) exist outside of the character itself? If she'd written the sexuality of the character into the books themselves I'd have no issue with this. But to simply announce this with no development in the actual books makes me wonder if she's simply pandering to a particular audience or political/social agenda.

If she really wanted to make a statement, or if there was something about this that was really part of the character, why didn't she write it into the books?