|
On the evening of October 19th, during a public appearance at Carnegie Hall, author J.K. Rowling opened a figurative Pandora's Box with a casual comment about her character, Albus Dumbledore. When asked by a young fan if Dumbledore had ever fallen in love, Rowling replied, "My truthful answer to you . . . I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." Further information came out that when reviewing a script for the film adaptation of "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", Rowling found a line wherein the Dumbledore character waxed nostalgic about an old female flame, and scribbled a quick note to the scriptwriter correcting that notion.
We've heard a lot of jokes recently about celebrities and political figures dropping the
"F-Bomb", referring to using a certain expletive in public. Apparently, we can now add the "G-Bomb" to the list of taboo expressions. From the reactions to Rowling's revelation, one would think she'd committed the unpardonable sin.
It should not be a surprise to anyone who reads my work on a regular basis that I am Christian and fairly conservative. I don't feel any need to apologize for that or to try and hide it. As such, I believe in a standard of morality that doesn't always convenience me, but that I was not asked to vote on nor was I authorized to edit or amend.
What might surprise some is that my reaction wasn't nearly so much to Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore's sexual orientation as much as my reaction to other people's responses.
I've read articles and forum posts wherein some of my Christian brethren are convinced this was no off-the-cuff remark, and that it is further proof that J.K. Rowling is out to corrupt and destroy the souls of our children. The claim has been made - repeatedly - that this revelation was made to either promote the gay lifestyle to our children, and/or as a publicity stunt to create marketing hype for the Harry Potter franchise.
Since we can easily dismiss any suggestion of publicity stunts, as the Harry Potter franchise needs no help when it comes to marketing and profit, that leaves the question of whether revealing this heroic character from her books was gay is an attempt to make being gay more acceptable to children, and/or to promote homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle. Is Dumbledore a cog in some vast Gay Conspiracy?
As a writer, I tend to look at other writers' characters with a slightly different eye. The world around us becomes a template from which to build characters, and each character's backstory helps to individualize and formulate that character in first the writer's mind and then the reader's mind. Realistic characters - even in a fantasy genre - correspond to the spectrum of humanity we see around us. In Rowling's mind, at least, Dumbledore being gay helped to formulate the kind of character he had become by the opening of the first book. To be honest, I would lose respect for Rowling were she to cave to the pressure and change that now. It is the right of an author to craft the characters in the manner that fits the story, and the responsibility of the author to remain true to that character's nature.
Having a gay character in a story does not make the book a gay story any more than having a Christian character makes it a Christian story. By the same token, having either in a book doesn't automatically mean the book is an attempt by the writer to push or promote a given agenda. Each story must be evaluated based on the content of the story to determine if any particular message is being promoted.
By that token, it's difficult to think of Dumbledore's part in the Harry Potter series as having any sort of "gay agenda", since his sexuality is not really expressed at any point in the seven book series. Some saw hints of it in the way the character acted, but never during any of the books are there any real mentions of a romantic relationship - let alone a physical one - involving the character.
The question in my mind becomes one of self-examination rather than one of questioning Rowling's motivations. What does our reaction to this announcement reveal about ourselves? Does Dumbledore force us to see that we still have trouble accepting gays and lesbians here in our culture, and that they are not going to just disappear because we're uncomfortable with that? Does he challenge our preferred paradigm wherein anyone who doesn't line up with our idea of morality must therefore be immoral in every way? Think about that for a moment - would there have been nearly the outrage from the conservative contingent if Rowling had said Voldemort, the evil villain of the series, was gay?
Do we ignore it altogether, because we'd rather know nothing about it at all than to deal with our discomfort? Do we shrug instead, and accept that the character is the way he is, even as people around us are the way they are?
When a fictional character's sexual orientation becomes such a volatile issue, it should compel us to examine where we are on the tolerance scale. What we must remember, though, is that tolerance is not endorsement. Tolerance is not saying that I agree with what you do or what you think or what you believe; tolerance is saying that I agree with your right to do, think, or believe as you see fit. If we show intolerance to a fictional character, what does it say about how we treat real people?
It comes with an implied warning, too, as the intolerance we show to others will become the intolerance shown to us. If Rowling's revelation does nothing else, it should make us look at what we are asking for in our society.
|