In Defence of Dumbledore (article from Mugglenet)

[XemaSab]

The recent revelations about Dumbledore's sexuality have provoked a huge amount of debate, and quite rightly so. The issue is important, and Dumbledore is one of the most loved and respected characters in the series, so we shouldn't be surprised that just about everyone wants to offer an opinion on the matter. What has been disappointing, and to me at least (although perhaps somewhat naïvely), surprising, has been the negativity of some of the reactions.

The truth of the matter is this: whether Albus is attracted to women or to men makes not one jot of difference to his ability as a wizard, a headmaster, a fighter against Voldemort and a mentor to Harry. It doesn't make his intentions or reasons different, or affect the importance of any of his actions or achievements. And yet, whilst a large amount of the debate on the issue has been constructive, there is still a very loud and significant voice within it shouting that JKR has let us down, Dumbledore has let us down, and questioning how we can never look at either Albus or the books in the same way again. Most ludicrously of all, the suggestion has been repeatedly made that this information puts an entirely different light on Dumbledore's relationship with Harry.

I suggested that my surprise at the vitriol directed in Dumbledore's direction by some (although certainly not all people) was naïve, and my reasons for this are as follows: I believed that the world was moving towards being a more tolerant place, where discrimination was being driven out wherever it was found. It wasn't long ago that racism was rampant and accepted as a general part of society; now it is not. The same is true of sexism, anti-Semitism, religious discrimination of other types and so on. I'm not saying that no racists, sexists or anti-Semites still exist, but to be one has become the socially unacceptable stance rather than the other way round.

I had believed that we were moving in the same way with homophobia, and that it was becoming a social taboo to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation (which after all hurts nobody else and involves activities between consenting adults only). This is certain true to an extent, but it only takes an event like the announcement about Dumbledore for it to become clear how much work still needs to be done in accepting everyone as equals regardless of their sexuality.

http://www.mugglenet.com/infosection/opinion2/defence.shtml

[Beer Snob-50]

1. there is still much work to be done

but nonetheless, i don't think that this announcement had anything to do with the books and it can be said that doubledore was really asexual throughout the series. none of the teachers ever was mentioned with spouses. rowling started an uproar where none was needed imho

[kay1864]

6. She responded to an actual question--she wasn't making an "announcement"

[Beer Snob-50]

8. by answering this question the way she did

she made an annoucement in my opinion.

[kay1864]

9. Then any answer about any of her characters is an "announcement" then?

Because she can't be faulted for revealing information she already knows.

It's not like she called a press conference and said "I have an announcement to make that may shock some of you...DUMBLEDORE IS GAY!"

[JVS]

2. Aren't the features of character to be found in the text itself?

I don't understand this idea that Rowling can declare a character's orientation. It is either in the text or it isn't.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Rowling has always used an extensive...

"backstory" for each character and situation she wrote about. Much of the inforamtion was not directly revealed in the text, but the text was written by her with that knowledge in mind.

From all I read, she is going to be writing an extensive encylopedia where all the backstories will be revealed and fleshed out.

[Withywindle]

4. Almost all fiction writers know a LOT more about their characters...

...than ever winds up in the books. Their histories, their favorite colors...all sorts of things that make them who they are, whether it's relevant to the story or not.

That's the context Rowling said that in. She was doing a Q&A session in which a lot of fans were asking questions about the characters that weren't in the books. Did so-and-so get together? Did Snape get a portrait? What did so-and-so do for a living? She had answers for all of them. The gay revelation came up when someone asked about Dumbledore's love life. She said "I've always thought of him as gay," which I have no reason to not believe. And no, it wasn't really all that relevant to the main story, except in that it influenced why he didn't go after Grindelwald (an old flame who is relevant to the plot) until he absolutely had to. But a friendship would have explained it as well. Some readers saw a strong romantic subtext in the description of their youthful relationship. Others didn't. It was open to interpretation. JKR just clarified the way she saw it.

[kay1864]

7. Minor correction: Grindelwald wasn't "an old flame"

Dumbledore loved Grindelwald, but the love wasn't returned. Grindelwald may have even been straight for all we know.

[XemaSab]

13. I don't think the "love" was returned

but that doesn't mean they didn't have something going on.

[crispini]

5. It's pretty clear from Rowling's interview that she always thought he was gay.

She talks about at one point how the movie director wanted to make a reference to some old girlfriend of Dumbledore's and she waved him off.

That said, you're right, there are not many "tells" about Dumbledore in the canon. I can see why JKR would not have wanted to go there explicitly -- in some ways it seems like an overly complicated backstory thing, and not something that really makes much of a difference in the book.

Honestly I think why JKR declared it NOW was that she mostly wanted to freak out the fanbase (heh).

I haven't read the OP, but it looks good and I'll go back and check it out. I too am continuously disappointed by how many people still make a big deal about that kind of thing. So he's gay, big yawn. That's what I wish the reaction had been.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

12. I agree.

If you can't figure out from the text that the character is gay, does it REALLY matter?

This is much ado about a publicity stunt, imo.

[SteppingRazor]

10. "Dumbledore has let us down"...

Um, isn't that a bit like saying "Magnum P.I. loves me," or "Indiana Jones couldn't care less about you?" :crazy:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. OMG!

[Chovexani]

14. I love that damn macro

:rofl: There were some hilarious ones going around the Friday it happened.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

21. I couldn't resist...

:evilgrin:

[Withywindle]

15. Why does he need to be defended?

He'll hex your arse from here to Azakaban if you mess with him. Don't let the twinkliness fool you.

[Lethe]

16. this is from someone who has never read any of the books

but i mean how is Dumbledore's sexuality necessary to the story? Nobody is debating whether or not Gandalf is gay, who cares?

[Der Blaue Engel]

17. Don't ask, don't tell, right?

I mean, I don't mind if Dumbledore's gay, I just don't want to hear about it.

Someone asked, JK told. So what's the big deal?

[Lethe]

18. who's making a big deal?

in fact, my last two words were, "who cares?"

[Der Blaue Engel]

19. Clearly, some people are

I'm just responding to the idea that I've seen expressed that JK shouldn't have made such a statement for whatever reason. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but some people definitely are.

[Lethe]

20. well my take on it is the same

If George Lucas said in an interview that Obi-Wan Kanobi was gay, why should I care? Are there any plot devices or anything at all in the movie that depends on his sexuality? No, there isn't, so why should I care?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. because unless otherwise stated heterosexuality is always assumed.

most of the world is heteronormative.

[Lautremont]

23. They lost me at "the issue is important." nt

[Q3JR4]

24. I've said it before and I'll say it again,

to me it doesn't matter what his sexual orientation was, because it changed nothing about the way he acted in the book or the things he got up to. I don't really see what the big deal's about, gay or straight he played his part.