A Gay Potter Character?

[Petra]

No: HPFGUIDX 178185

David Gunn <tigerdlg1 at ...> wrote in #178172:
> I, for one, am less than thrilled about Rowling's announcement that
> Dumbledore was gay.  First, she managed to keep him "closeted" for
> seven full books.  Hardly a hint there that he was gay.  Many have
> speculated about it; nevertheless, one had to read between the lines
> to find it.  It's as though it was too shameful for her to write
> openly about it.

Leslie41 in #178177:
> I don't think so.  Dumbledore is, well, old, and the books are from 
> Harry's perspective.  The sex lives of teachers are not something 
> that teenagers tend to speculate on.  Dumbledore is not alone in
> that regard.  

Petra:
Very true - Harry didn't even ask Dumbledore about his famous 
achievements and contributions to wizarding culture because 
the two of them have always discussed Harry (DH, US HB, pg. 21) 
and just how Harry might outlive Voldemort.

Arguably, how Dumbledore managed to win the duel against 
Grindelwald might have more to contribute to Harry's chances
of survival than Dumbledore's sexual preference...and they 
didn't even get around to discussing *that*.  Discussing 
Dumbledore's sexuality would have been gratuitous to Harry's 
main focus of survival.

Having said that, I think one can make the argument that 
discussing Dumbledore's sexuality would *not* have been gratuitous 
to JKR's themes of tolerance/bigotry but that's more about the
author's intentions than about Harry's intentions.

If I'm reading David Gunn correctly, he's really talking about 
JKR's intentions, not Harry's when he said:
 
> It's as though it was too shameful for her to write openly
> about it.  

Petra:
This is an interesting response and I am curious to know how
you reconcile the subtext for the above (*if* indeed you intend
the subtext of "How could JKR send the message that gays should 
be ashamed of themselves?" of course) with the fact that JKR
has spoken openly about one of her most beloved characters
being gay?

The thing is, I believe her when she said, "If I'd known it 
would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"

To me, this is a non-issue in the Wizarding World, just as 
racial prejudice is a non-issue.  By not addressing the 
subjects of *bigotry* based on the specifics of skin color or 
sexual preference, JKR is better able to explore the broader 
nature of bigotry itself.  How else do you reach the bigoted...
and why bother to preach to the choir?

How bigotry can start, how it can propagate, how evil can be 
done in service of bigotry *and* how bigotry can serve evil,
etc. etc. are about the relationships between human beings
and such relationships are much more universal and timeless 
than the specifics that racial prejudice and homophobia are.

I don't say this to make light of either of these problems
but to say that I find JKR's approach just as valid as a
didactic approach.  In fact, I think her approach is much
more effective in the long run because I believe in the power
of art to speak to the human spirit across the barriers of 
time and space; novels are artworks of metaphors, which are
always about the relationships, which tends to be universal, 
rather than about the subjects themselves, which can be very 
temporal.

Am I making sense?

David:  
> Further, why do so many gay characters in popular fiction
> have to be so damn tragic, especially in their romances? 
> "Brokeback Mountain" is a prime example.  There are many
> others.  Why can't there be a main character who just happens
> to be gay?  

Petra, with an evil grin:
There is.  See Albus Dumbledore.  His being gay just happens to 
be a footnote in the Harry Potter canon.

I personally don't think it's wrong to treat someone's sexuality 
as being only a *part* of who they are so I really have no 
problem with JKR bring up the topic *only* when asked:

"Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, 
ever fall in love himself?"

I realize that JKR not making a major plot point of Dumbledore's
sexuality can be seen as "closeting" and even at this point in
history, I think that plenty of people would make that choice
about a GLBT for the wrong reason: to hide the truth.

However, I don't think JKR hid the truth about Dumbledore.  Like
most character details that might distract from the main plot
of Harry vs. Voldemort, Dumbledore's sexuality is left unmentioned.

It just IS.

No arguments about whether it should or shouldn't exist, whether
it is right or wrong.  Surely that's an attitude to aspire to?
That eventually it *should* be a non-issue, rather than the only
trait about a human that defines him/her and the basis for bigotry 
and prejudice?

I get that for much of the world's population, her simple
acceptance (evident in the fact that JKR did not making 
Dumbledore's sexuality take center stage in what is Harry's
story) of a gay man is bewildering but to me that suggests
that JKR may be ahead of her times.

So, to answer David's question about "why do so many gay 
characters in popular fiction have to be so damn tragic, 
especially in their romances? <snip> Why can't there be a 
main character who just happens to be gay?"

I refer y'all to 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/33667

and would suggest that if anyone wishes to discuss this issue
without bringing it back on the topic of Harry Potter that s/he
should take up the conversation at Off-Topic Chatter.

David:
> It could be worse, or course.  She could have told us that
> Tom Riddle was gay and that was the reason he turned to the
> Dark side and became Voldemort.

Petra:
Two ways that could have been written -

a) being gay is the reason he became Voldemort
b) being mistreated for being gay is the reason he became Voldemort

Hmm...which would be "worse," in your opinion?

Petra
a
n  :)
 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com