Conservatives might want to start preparations for a collective book burning and/or DVD steam rolling ASAP:
Harry Potter’s mentor is gay!
Damn those elitist, ivory tower European sorcery academies with their secular liberal agendas!
Damn them all to Hell!
Author J.K. Rowling left fans stunned at a recent appearance at Carnegie Hall to promote the mega-popular book series’ final entry when she nonchalantly announced that beloved master magician and Hogwarts Academy Headmaster Albus Dumbledore is as gay as an East End belfry full of bats.
The bombshell landed after a young fan inquired whether the arch sorcerer would ever find “true love.”
“Dumbledore is gay” the scribe promptly responded and deeply in love with a former rival, their star-crossed pairing doomed in a fateful battle of wills. It was his “great tragedy” and an important backstory in the character’s murky past.
Word spread like wildfire and with Dumbledore’s sexual orientation having long been a hot topic among the series’ adult fan base, expect the conservative hand-wringing to be equally swift.
Rowling has been a thorn in the side of many a concerned parent group since her spectacular rise to prominence, the author quite open about her oeuvre being a “prolonged argument for tolerance” and her young cast of characters a model for the need to “question authority.”
Why, what’s next? Will they refuse to wear flag lapel pins or (No!, No, don’t say it!” ) … go vegetarian?!
You’ve got to give the lady credit for not balking to public pressure from the Parent Patrol. She’s got the clout and wherewithal to do and say whatever she pleases. The Potter books have long been accused of covertly promoting witchcraft and paganism to America’s youngins.
Children’s entertainment, be it books or films, are under the microscope more than ever. Who can forget the simultaneously uproarious and petrifying documentary Jesus Camp which condemned the young wizard as an enemy of the All Mighty and called for his execution. Or consider the Gay Panic talking heads like Glenn Beck or the panel from Fox and Friends alerting us to Happy Feet’s gaggle of gay, environmentally-aware penguins?
It’s no secret that the books that tend to elicit calls for being banned are the ones that tackle touchy subjects like sex, race, violence, profanity, and yes, magic.
It’s not just the expected Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies that top the list, but genuinely complex and respected fiction like Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, William Golding’s Lord of The Flies, Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle In Time and Judy Blume’s Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret that also incur no shortage of outcry.
And we know “childrens do learn” , so we must take care that they never encounter anything that doesn’t demonize the monstrous others that religion depends upon as a go-to scare tactics and rallying cries.
Still, the Free Market has spoken. Harry Potter’s exploits have connected with the public and sell like nobody’s business. The cast of characters even receive the fantasy porn tribute in all manner of fan art and writing. Synergy has led to a toy line and successful movie franchise, one in which Rowling is just as keen to flout conformity and Christian disdain with.
Upon spotting a reference to a past female love interest for Dumbledore in the script for the upcoming sixth film, the author was adamant in nixing the notion and subsequently outing the character to the director and studio.
Like her gay grandfatherly wizard, Rowling is dangerous, not one to shy away from death and difference in her work. As a mystified Chuck Klosterman pondered in this month’s Esquire, an actual writer is courting and challenging kids to be more sophisticated and becoming an unruly folk hero in the process:
“…I find it astounding that the unifying cultural currency for modern teenagers are five-hundred-page literary works about a wizard. We are all collectively underestimating how unusual this is. Right now, there is no rock guitarist or film starlet as popular as J.K. Rowling. Over time, these novels (and whatever ideas lie within them) will come to represent the mainstream ethos of our popular culture.”
Who knew a fortysomething single mom could become a household name by getting kids to read, ultimately rank by Forbes as the second richest female entertainer, stand as one of the most powerful celebrities in the world and still manage to scare the Bejeezus out of all the squares?
Apparently, when when the Rapture does come, all forward-thinking Americans who oppose an elective war, grasp that they descend from the great apes, use the wrong orifice for sex and don’t fear the printed word are heading for the Inferno and its gamut of many agonies.
At least we’ll have plenty of naughty books to read.
Man I knew. I knew it all along. His dildo I suppose?
Now we know why all the importance over Dumbledore’s wand.
Well, that’s like… …not really the guy we hoped for to be gay. Did we?
That’s not all the warmongering right-wing “Christians” are missing. Rowling is a practicing member of the Church of Scotland, and her books are infused with ancient Christian symbolism. But if you’re a reactionary who can’t think for himself, you tend to miss all that.
How dare Rowling brought up “touchy subjects” in her books. Heaven forbid that a child is confronted with injustice and they reject ut it. Heaven forbid the child learns to question limits and the existing order so that they may learn to create, learn, reinvent and grow. It’s like she wants the future to have hope or something.
Rowling is Christian, and not at all ashamed of it. And yes, her work is infused with imagery and symbolism torn straight from the pages of both Old and New Testaments. But I think what Mr. Baker was getting at was the “lunatic fringe” she was referring to when asked about her religion. You know, the fringe she refused to take responsibility for? This is not an anti-Christian piece (though to be fair, it can certainly come off like one–not all queers are atheists, Shawn) but an anti-bigot one.
My stance has more to do with the immense validation the 12-year-old queers are feeling right now. We all know how hard that is to come by….
The piece isn’t so much Anti-Christian as it is Anti-Authority. The problem is that in America God is used to justify every irrational fear, whether it’s science, sex, feminism, immigration, whatever. At this stage of the game, if you step out of line at all, you’re going against God because God apparently is America. Artists and authors have always challenged that control.
You have to admit that though she may be a practitioner of the faith, she does seem to love pissing off the more authoritarian sector who brand anything complex as “secular”, which is just a slightly modernized version of “heathen”.
Seriously, this is what rich women do when they run out of shopping and interesting story lines. Backstory my ass. Have you all forgotten that this is a character in a story made up of words on a page. Dumbledore being gay is a convenient way for Rowling to get a hell of a lot of free publicity. Nothing more. If you need a fictional wizard to validate your existence you have no hope of ever joining the real world. If Rowling had any backbone at all, that “backstory” would have been a front story from book one. No… right… didn’t happen! Of course, that would have prevented her from raking in the dough which has been tossed her way one Brink’s truck at a time. Now that the story is done, to park that load of crap on the sidewalk is about as interesting as a dog taking a shit.
Robert — LOL!!!!!!! loved your rant. Thanks.
Um, what’s so wrong with us wanting to see ourselves in movies or books? How often do we really turn up other than as killers or lame goofs? It seems like it’s always taken for granted that we’re not heroic or even there at all. How many gay action heroes are there? There’s always talk about better and stronger parts for women. Why not us too?
I’m pretty sure the reason most people go to movies or read is to reflect themselves in characters or stories they relate to. We just almost never have them tailor-made for us.
Why now? there’s really no reason that one could infer that Dumby is a gaywad from the text itself. It’s publicity…or something. she could have just as easily said, “Professor Trelawney was a crystal-gazing, Tori Amos loving, fairy collecting pansexual free lover.” And, it might have made more sense…
So, why Dumbledore?
What i find more interesting (esp. coming from another “well-intentioned” (christian) source of mass media) is that Dumby is Dead. I smell another pile to add to the brokeback mountain of dead queers: they HAVE to kill us in order to produce “empathy”.
what does that do to our (/kids’/their) consciousness?
She didn’t just announce it to announce it. A child asked her at Carnegie if Dumbledore ever found love and she answered. I like that she didn’t just dodge the question or give the kid a line of publicly tolerable pablum. She did what she has always done, treated her audience as thinking people and she gave an honest answer.
If you have not read the seventh book, you will not have picked up on the anguish in Dumbledore’s story about Grindelwalt. The fact that he did the things he did and was blind to a lot of the more unsavory aspects of Grindelwalt’s character only make sense if you add to the equation lust, infatuation, even love. Mix those volatile things with pride and power and you have the explosion that set the stage for the entire series.
As a writer myself, I know *tons* of information about the internal life and previouis histories of my characters that never make it on the page. Why? Not because I’m ashamed of it, or don’t want people to know…but because not every jot and tittle of a character’s life serves the story. Too much can bog it down and add in all sorts of annoying red herrings. It’s very easy to see that this sort of detail can come out now when it won’t interfere with the story arc.
I mean, hell, she’s mentioned how other characters are married and to whom and what they are doing with their lives and no one is pearl clutching over how many more books that sort of information will sell.
With the possibility of prequels or stand-alone adventures, the character isn’t necessarily “dead”. Hell, if J.R.R Tolkien managed to magically resurrect himself and reveal that Gandalf or the Hobbits (I’m talking to you, Frodo and Samwise) were queer, it would certainly open up a dimension to his work that people have hinted at for years and appreciated anyway.
And who’s to say Dumbledore is the only one? You know how the gays are— where there’s one there’s got to be more.
I’m still hoping she’ll write Hogwarts: A History. Hermione mentions it nearly every other breath for the entire series and it irks me that it isn’t a real book. I know, I know…silly fan. Ah well.
DON’T WORRY THIS IS SPOILER-FREE.
Just finished reading the last book. What a rip-roaring ride. Very satisfying. Startling ending, several finales. Doesn’t stop. Will make a hell of a movie. In love with J.K.
Thorn said “pearl clutching.” I love that.
You’re welcome, Howdee. ^_^
That guy Robert is a real dolt. I can’t tell if he is anti-gay, anti fiction, or just all around anti -life. Give the lady a fucking break. The Lord of the Rings Triology has an entire backstory book called the Simarillion (sp) that most people know nothing about. In fact a whole language was created by Tolkien as a linguist to support it. And that which lies beneath the surface in the mind of the author is what gives weight and unity to the story on the surface. It’s the same with actors and their parts.
Still Robert has a nice way with words. Very cutting and sarcastic and very witty. My advice: have another drink.
The way she did was nice really. It doesn’t change his entire character, just adds a new dimension. She didn’t salt the earth. His being gay is only one facet of his character, just like any of us.
And besides, if you have read the last book it helps you undrestand why he did what he did.