As some of you might have heard, J.K. Rowling recently said that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay.” Of course, this has stirred up a lot of controversy among anyone who loves the Harry Potter books and anyone interested in getting homosexuality more (or less) spotlight. So basically everyone. I’ve given the matter some thought, and since I’m interested in the writing field and the fantasy field in particular, I hope you won’t mind if I spend some time explaining my thoughts on the issue, particularly my reasoning that this fateful pronouncement does not “ruin” the books.
First, my stance on homosexuality. It might be helpful, or I find it so, to define “gay.” Most people nowadays speak of gayness as a characteristic, a natural part of someone’s personality that is ultimately expressed in sexual preference. This argument is greatly assisted by certain traits stereotypically associated with homosexuality; for example, men who dress meticulously or are into ballet, etc. And since most gay people appear to be the friendly and affable type, it seems that gayness couldn’t stem from the same source as society’s ills, so it must be a natural thing. However, how can we reconcile clear edicts in the Bible and in modern revelation against homosexuality if we believe it is really possible to BE gay according to this definition? Maintaining Christian belief with this definition of gayness seems, in my opinion, to accept a God who creates man and then punishes him for being himself. And then, I suppose, we only just recently uncovered God’s mistake and now we’re setting things to rights?
That is ridiculous to me, and that is not the God I worship. I’ve decided in my heart that when I see variance in the ideas of the world and what I know of God, it isn’t what I know of the Lord that should waver and change. So I’ve thought a lot about this over the years and come up with my own definitions: I believe there is a difference between having same-sex attraction and acting on that attraction. This is because acting on that attraction is a sin, and I defy anyone (particularly any Christian, who should know better) to call it otherwise. I call the sin, the action implied in homosexuality, “gay.”
Some might think that maintaining this distinction would lead me to hatred and (my politically correct sensibilities shudder) homophobia (gasp!). On the contrary, I find that considering homosexuality in this way helps me to preserve the distinction between the person and the sin. I know that there are good, righteous people out there who struggle with same-sex attraction, and I want to show kindness and compassion to them, as I would for anyone else struggling with temptations—which is, let’s face it, all of us. If I used the world’s definition of gay, I couldn’t do otherwise but label such persons as gay, and I’d struggle myself with how I should treat them. Could I really hate them if I believed what they were feeling was part of their divine nature? But could I accept them when I desire to obey God’s commands and am taught to “shake at the appearance of sin” (2 Ne 4:31)? Strange though it may seem to some, when I retain the perspective of homosexuality as a sin, I can separate the sin from the sinner, and treat both as they should be treated.
Next, on to my perspective as a writer. (This will all come together, I promise.) I know a book is going well for me when the story I’m writing starts to twist under my fingers in ways I don’t expect—and, in some cases, don’t want. Sometimes I’ll get to a scene I’ve been imagining for weeks, only to find that my characters no longer fit that scene and, now that I know them better, wouldn’t act the way I originally pictured or say what I wanted them to say. As Chauncey Mabe of the South Florida Sun-Sentinal wrote in a recent article, “That’s the way it works in fiction. Characters tell their creators who they are and what they’re going to do, not the other way round.” ("Can't Rowling Just Be Quiet?" Nov. 4, 2007.) This is one of the most exciting phenomena of writing, and I love it when this happens because it means it’s really working—my characters, who I love almost like real friends, are coming right off the page. The unsettling thing about it, though, is that it leaves seeds of doubt about where the work is really coming from. If it escapes from the author’s plot outlines, and even sometimes beyond the author’s understanding, is it really the author’s creation?
This question of who “owns” literary works is a hot topic in literary theory. Our friend Chauncey Mabe also wrote (in the same article), “If 20 years as a literary journalist have taught me anything, it’s that once a writer sets down her pen, turns off her word processor, or settles the dustcover on her typewriter, she knows no more than the average reader—about anything, including her own books.” I hope I don’t offend any of you by saying that, however annoying that high school teacher might have been who forced his/her interpretation of a literary work on you, and even though you may have countered said teacher with essays or even quotes from the author stating that there was nothing symbolically intended in the piece, that teacher was not utterly wrong. Why should the author’s interpretation be the only interpretation? It isn’t more valid than a reader’s experience. If it’s impossible for everyone to have the same experience reading literature, it’s impossible to name one experience as THE experience, as if there were some platonic whole in literary heaven for every story ever written.
Two examples of this: First, J.R.R. Tolkien. Many critics and literary folks insisted that the events depicted in the Lord of the Rings were allegorical references to WWII. Tolkien rejected all such ideas, saying, “As for any inner meaning or ‘message’, it has in the intention of the author none.” Although apparently the work was completed by 1939, before WWII became “a threat of inevitable disaster,” Tolkien was involved in WWI, and it seems nonsensical to suppose that he miraculously survived such life experiences without any lingering effect whatsoever. Without Tolkien’s life experience, could he have written what he did? I submit that no, he could not. Can we then ascribe part authorship to these experiences? Interesting to consider. Example two is George Bernard Shaw’s epilogue to Pygmalion (which the film My Fair Lady is based on), in which Eliza and Professor Higgins do not end up together. Shaw scoffed at the audience’s desire for happy endings, but was he right, or did he bend the characters unnaturally (and rather selfishly) just to prove his point? If most people like happy endings, it doesn’t necessarily follow that happy endings are a wrong way to end a work.
Alright, at last we come to my synthesis of these ideas. My favorite thing about the Harry Potter books is that it is so easy to slip into Harry’s world. The characters and the world they live in feel real to me, so much so that I feel a little out of place for a day or two after finishing the books, strange to not be there anymore. With characters so realistic, I’m sure Rowling had the same experience that I and many other authors have had, having the story slip in unexpected ways. If this was the case, Dumbledore cannot be entirely Rowling’s creation; if he is well-written, he must be also his own and slightly beyond her control. What right, then, does Rowling have to make solid, blanket statements about him? Another quote from Mabe: “If Dumbledore had wanted the world to know he was gay, he would have come out in the text.” By tacking on such statements, especially after the books are done, I think Rowling breaks a fundamental principle of writer’s etiquette.
Putting Rowling’s opinion on Dumbledore on the back burner, then, we move to the text itself—or to Dumbledore himself—for evidence. The following are my conclusive thoughts on a gay Dumbledore: Having read all of the books, I can picture Dumbledore as perhaps struggling with same-sex attraction. I can even accept that his fascination for Grindelwald could have been affected by this tendency. But I personally believe that just as Dumbledore realized the error of his previous thoughts and battled (and beat!) Grindelwald, he battled against his internal weaknesses: lust for power, as he admitted to Harry, and perhaps also, more quietly, that same-sex attraction. I can believe that just as he placed himself in a position where he would not be tempted to sway power unjustly, he would have put himself in a position where he was not tempted to homosexuality.
This is all “could have”s and “would have”s, because Dumbledore is silent on the subject, as suits his character. As Harry’s experiences attest, Dumbledore could never be faulted for telling anyone more than what they needed to know. But you see, because I hold an author’s word as less than absolute and because I define “gay” by action rather than by character, I find no detriment to my enjoyment of these books. In fact, in considering these perspectives and synthesizing my thoughts, I have found greater enlightenment, not only on Dumbledore’s character (and the themes of the Harry Potter series) but on the nature of writing and analyzing literature, and the nature of God’s creation. In a world of criticism and contention, it is entirely possible to find the peace and steadiness that comes from absolute truths. However, I think this peace comes rarer when we bury our heads in solid ground, trying to ignore the confusion of the world around us, than when we, clasping the rock of truth firmly with our hands, raise our heads to see (and marvel!) how the world falls into place from this perspective.
(Most of the) Original Comments
Brent on 06 Nov 15:01
Wow. I could not have said it better. I can't speak English that well. I wouldn't have been able to say it with authority either because I'm not a writer of words.
Mom (Phelps) on 07 Nov 01:21
Also, WOW. I am in awe at your ability to research, analyze and then synthesize an essay that expresses so elegantly and persuasively a positive and uplifting view of a controversial subject. When I first read of Rowling's "opinion," I was disgusted and wanted to ignore it and pretend I had never heard it. I was also determined never to read any future book she wrote. You have helped me process this in a more positive way. I thank you! I still don't believe that I will read any of her future books. I will definitely read all of yours, though!
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:13
I enjoy what you've written, Sarah. It has good cohesion and valid, strong points. I also agree with a lot of what you've said. But there's a little bit of which I don't agree with, and strangely enough, it's not with your opinions on homosexuality. I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context. "I've always thought he's gay" might have come out indirectly as in an interview or as an off-comment when she was really talking about something else. I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay, but Rowling hasn't put any sexual act in here (at least, of all the six books I've read) and she's merely commenting about a small inclination. His characteristics of kindness and bravery and inspiring leadership surpass any sexual orientation. I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that. I think she's simply commenting on the inclinations he could be struggling with or the attractions he might have, but not necessarily on the actions he takes.
Kate the Great on 07 Nov 21:15
Arg. I had all sorts of paragraph breaks in there and now it's all mushed into one blob. That only increases my want for tact and polite pauses.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 11:15
Thanks for the comments, everyone! I've been bothered by the lack of hard returns too. Let's see if html works in comments . . .
In response to your thoughts, Kate:
"I've read quite a few opinions on Rowling's statement, and I think we've all taken it out of context."
I did my own reading as well, and several articles did specify the context of Rowling's statement. In fact, the article I linked to references just that. It wasn't an off-comment or anything, it was a response to a direct question.
"I agree with you when you say that acting on that feeling is what's wrong with being gay . . ."
Usually I don't try to be picky about words, but I'm very stringent about my use of the word "gay" because the usage has affected (or is tied up in) the definition, as I discussed. In my opinion, nobody IS gay by the world's definition. By my definition, being gay IS wrong. I think it's the way people talk about gayness that leads them to ultimately accept homosexuality. We talk of it as an "inclination," an "orientation." No. Same-sex attraction is a temptation, just like greed, lust, dishonesty, and all the others had by many otherwise good people. The only difference is that today instead of defending against this temptation quietly and diligently with the help of God and other close friends, people make giving in, or declaring their determination to live a homosexual lifestyle, a public announcement, a "coming out" celebration, accompanied (as after JK's remark) by a standing ovation. "We are so tolerant and accepting now that we can endorse lifestyles of sin, hooray! Isn't it great to be open-minded?" It's really painful to see so many people with completely misguided good intentions.
"I appreciate your opinion that homosexuality is about action, but I don't think Rowling thinks that."
I agree with you. I think Rowling, like most of the people in Carnegie Hall that night, see no difference—or at least, no difference worth making a stink about—between the "inclination" and the action. To me, the difference means everything.
Aye Spy on 09 Nov 12:38
I found another good article on the literary side of this debate, for any interested readers: http://media.www.vanderbiltorbis.com/media/storage/paper983/news/2007/11/07/Opinion/Thoughts.Written.On.Napkins-3085250.shtml
Kate the Great on 09 Nov 21:12
Huh. That really makes sense for me, Sarah. This has been an issue I've struggled with for years. You've helped clear up my opinions on the matter. Now, I don't know if I can be this bold in stating these kinds of views when the issue comes up. And it comes up often, as I have quite a few gay friends.
I enjoy the additional article you've included. "Once created, literature speaks for itself and speaks equally to all readers. After writing, the author is resigned to a position of interpretation no different than that of any other critic." It's a fascinating concept, and it seems to support my high school mentors' theory that the Harry Potter books will stand as the classics of our time much like Chaucer stands for his time and Shakespeare for his.
Sofal on 11 Nov 22:28
"Tolerance", "diversity", and "lifestyles" are three highly abused words in my opinion. "Tolerance" is preached vehemently by very intolerant people. The word "diversity" is feared and worshiped yet at the same time its meaning is ignominiously reduced to nothing but skin color, gender, or "sexual orientation". The word "lifestyle" is used to hide wickedness of every single kind you can think of. Not everything is worth "embracing". Fewer and fewer things are.
And about Harry Potter standing as the classics of our times: You're fired. First of all, no. Second of all, no. And lastly, no. And I'd like to ask how the knowledge that literature speaks for itself logically leads to this utterly false conclusion. Please don't take offense, but I just.....no. I'm going to put a cap on the fire hose and say no more about this subject in this comment.
Sorry about some of the short-comings of this blog system. The textile support for the comments is non-existent. There are some other problems as well, the most annoying one being the complete lack of cache invalidation when someone comments or writes a blog article (especially with the feeds). It drives me up the wall. The Mephisto blog project has been abandoned by its creators, so the only way I'm going to be able to get these things fixed is if I hack them in myself or find some blog software that hasn't been orphaned.
Aye Spy on 12 Nov 11:04
Thanks so much for your comment, Kate. It is a fascinating concept, isn't it? I'm glad you found my thoughts helpful.
As I'm sure you know, your opinion on Harry Potter would be more valid if you had actually READ the books, Ryan. Also, one last thought: Where morals are not involved (e.g. concepts of literary theory, etc.) I believe tolerance is always in good order.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment