Lastly ... and then I'm done on this issue
I'm reading Meryl's recommended read from MuggleNet, "In Defense of Dumbledore." I wanted to make some comments as I read:
The author here is being dishonest, naive, or both. Or he hasn't visited Iran. Where since 1980, an estimated 4,000 men have been put to death for being gay. Tolerance for homosexuality is in it's infancy on the world stage.
Which is my point. Nothing is different. No part of the story is different. This is egotism on Jo's part. I know everything there is to know about these characters because I invented them and you did not . Ask me what color they paint their toes and I can tell you and you can not. It's ridiculous.
If it does not exist in the context of the novel it does not exist. If it can not be inferred through imagery and study ... than it does not exist. It can be discussed. Maybe someone will write it down in a study guide (I'm sure someone will) and a teacher can ask a class ... "Do you believe Dumbledore to have been gay? Does this change your opinion of the story? Is it better or worse?" But ... now because Jo has come out and said, "oh yeah, he was totally gay." Does that mean the dialogue can't happen? Is it now her word against ours the readers?
She released the novel and the characters onto the world. They are OURS now. Not just hers. They exist in the hearts and minds of all of us. And we can imagine what they were like or what they did in the future, or what kind of ice cream they ate, or who their best friends were in college (if wizards have a college - which in my imagination - they do!). To have the author come out and say these things is cheating. I feel like something is being stolen. The imagination part of it maybe ... those kids in those books related to all of us on different, personal levels. To me, Harry doesn't really look like Daniel Radcliffe. He's a bit shorter, with floppier hair and a more narrow face. He doesn't seem as whiney. To me, Dumbledore was not gay or straight, he was asexual. He was a good man who for whatever reason, did not have a wife. I don't know why ... maybe he worked too much. Plenty of men like that. Maybe his love affair was with the school. I resist the urge to couple up everyone because I don't think it's necessary. And for a figure in a novel who's role was mostly fatherly and often Grandfatherly ... it just wasn't an important fact.
Which -- why is it important now?
Well ... because they are using it to promote an agenda. Now they can tie Harry Potter books to gay rights. Can you imagine their delight. It's like them coming out in support of a political candidate ... Harry Potter supports Hillary Clinton! She'd be using it at every stump speech. Jo has a real vehicle to affect public opinion here, and she's using it.
Her prerogative I guess. Though I have to say I'm incredibly disappointed.
In all honesty, it is true to say that society has come a long way with regards to treatment of gays. It is only a matter of decades ago that in some cultures practicing homosexuality was an imprisonable criminal offence, whilst in others homosexuality was seen as a mental illness. Thankfully such days are gone, but a certain portion of the reaction when a public figure such as Dumbledore "comes out" still proves that there is a long way to go.
The author here is being dishonest, naive, or both. Or he hasn't visited Iran. Where since 1980, an estimated 4,000 men have been put to death for being gay. Tolerance for homosexuality is in it's infancy on the world stage.
We now know for sure that Dumbledore was gay, and we also know (given the information provided in Deathly Hallows) that Snape was straight. This knowledge makes no difference at all, in either case. They still thought the same things as they thought before, did the same things as they did before, and had the same value as people as they had before.
Which is my point. Nothing is different. No part of the story is different. This is egotism on Jo's part. I know everything there is to know about these characters because I invented them and you did not . Ask me what color they paint their toes and I can tell you and you can not. It's ridiculous.
If it does not exist in the context of the novel it does not exist. If it can not be inferred through imagery and study ... than it does not exist. It can be discussed. Maybe someone will write it down in a study guide (I'm sure someone will) and a teacher can ask a class ... "Do you believe Dumbledore to have been gay? Does this change your opinion of the story? Is it better or worse?" But ... now because Jo has come out and said, "oh yeah, he was totally gay." Does that mean the dialogue can't happen? Is it now her word against ours the readers?
She released the novel and the characters onto the world. They are OURS now. Not just hers. They exist in the hearts and minds of all of us. And we can imagine what they were like or what they did in the future, or what kind of ice cream they ate, or who their best friends were in college (if wizards have a college - which in my imagination - they do!). To have the author come out and say these things is cheating. I feel like something is being stolen. The imagination part of it maybe ... those kids in those books related to all of us on different, personal levels. To me, Harry doesn't really look like Daniel Radcliffe. He's a bit shorter, with floppier hair and a more narrow face. He doesn't seem as whiney. To me, Dumbledore was not gay or straight, he was asexual. He was a good man who for whatever reason, did not have a wife. I don't know why ... maybe he worked too much. Plenty of men like that. Maybe his love affair was with the school. I resist the urge to couple up everyone because I don't think it's necessary. And for a figure in a novel who's role was mostly fatherly and often Grandfatherly ... it just wasn't an important fact.
Which -- why is it important now?
Well ... because they are using it to promote an agenda. Now they can tie Harry Potter books to gay rights. Can you imagine their delight. It's like them coming out in support of a political candidate ... Harry Potter supports Hillary Clinton! She'd be using it at every stump speech. Jo has a real vehicle to affect public opinion here, and she's using it.
Her prerogative I guess. Though I have to say I'm incredibly disappointed.
Comments