J.K. Rowling’s revelation that Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore is gay has prompted widespread comment, most of it from people who were happy that she’d done it.
There are not enough gay characters in literature, the argument runs, especially in children’s books, which reinforces the view that being gay is unusual and not normal.
Rowling herself has said the Harry Potter books are a prolonged argument for tolerance and an end to bigotry.
Back in the 1980s the portrayal of gay parenthood in the children’s book “Jenny lives with Eric and Martin” caused an uproar in Britain and played a major part in the Conservative government’s decision to pass legislation which prohibited the “promotion” of homosexuality by local government in schools, libraries and other public places (known as Clause 28). In the U.S. “Heather has two mommies” became a similarly publicised book.
More than 20 years later Clause 28 has long gone and gays and lesbians enjoy a much more open lifestyle in many countries. So why is the revelation that a character in popular children’s book is gay still such big news? Do we need more gay characters in children’s literature? What do you think?
Trackback
103 comments so far
Previous | 6 … | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I don’t see how this revelation in line with JK’s “prolonged argument for tolerance and an end to bigotry.”
Why? Because Dumbledore wasn’t openly gay. If he was (even if it only gets a tiny bit on the books), that that would be a better case of that ‘tolerance’ story line that JK is now saying she’s trying to do — to portray that the people in the book was tolerant/intolerant of Dumbledore, having something (even just a little) to do with his sexual orientation.
Nothing against this revelation, just a little inconsistency… which makes this more of a PR move.
* To Biologist: wouldn’t you say that homosexuality is an anomaly then, if it doesn’t help the species to reproduce? Strictly from the biological perspective, that is…
- Posted by WizengamotOMG! Why is giving Dumbledore a gay identity relevant. It’s wrong on so so many levels. We are talking about a children’s series of books. He is the almighty in their eyes, not a gay or straight man.
Dumbledore is like a God or a Pope in a sense. So who in their right mind would give a God or a Pope a sexual preference. Gods & Popes are above and way beyond that. If any one of the children had turned out to be gay and the character had been written from the beginning in that manner than I would accept it. But at this point, (out of the blue) Rowling is looking for attention and she just ruined the series in my opinion.
- Posted by Rabbit Wants an iPhoneIf you don’t put it in the book what’s the point? Next we’ll here that this character was bi, this one was this and that one was that. I guess everyone should go buy all the books and see all the movies (or is it buy the books and DVDs) so they can rewatch everything knowing that Dumbledore was gay.
It seems more like a self-serving publicity stunt than anything else. Pathetic.
- Posted by Scott CThe fact that these books are studied and Rowling herself has had to inform us that Dumbledore was gay surely means that her writing is insufficient to convey that he was. The books are good, but nothing in them implies he was gay, just that he was an intellectual. I think this is a ploy to add weight and significance to the subtlety of her writing – a move that is unnecessary as they are probably already timeless classics.
- Posted by Jacques…and on a side note: I always thought Ginny and Hermione would have made a cute couple.
- Posted by RobiiKaren, the nature of that relationship is not mentioned once in the text of the books, nor is the content of the books able to be read in a way that would make allusion to the fact that Dumbledore is gay. Possibly why she waited until the end of the series after it was published to release this information. You can choose to ignore it, if it so “taints with sexuality” the experience of reading it for you.
- Posted by Robii“I thought what was normal for every living being was to be able to reproduce?”
Come on now, you’re smarter than that. You really are.
Well over 90% of bee and ant populations don’t breed. By an oversimplistic view of evolution, this is an impossibility. In that view, the creatures that do reproduce (queens and their mates) will pass on queen-like and mate-like genes and the drone-like qualities will eventually be weeded out of the gene pool.
As you might have guessed by now, the oversimplistic view is wrong. Evolution is more complex than that.
As it turns out, many animals rely on others in their community to survive. Even non-reproductive members can lead to offspring by creating a friendly breeding environment for others of their species. Since animals are not magic and usually live and breed where they were born and raised, there is a common set of genes shared between all members of the group.
This even applies to suicidal behavior, which is actively anti-breeding (since you can’t breed if you’re dead). The so-called altruistic members of some species are predisposed to sacrificing themselves, such as letting out a yell to alert others when a predator is nearby, even though assures its own death in the process and fleeing was still an option. While that particular creature can’t breed, the other nearby animals have some of the genes (usually recessive) that will continue to produce these non-reproductive members.
Non-reproductive members of a species are indeed normal and in some cases required for some species to survive.
- Posted by Chris C.So reproduction is the only meter by which human interaction is set? Sexuality holds no other purpose than merely to reproduce? No physical intimacy or desires, passions? That’s not just a statement to offend gay people, that should offend women too.
Sorry ladies, but since reproduction is the only meter Renaud would care to scale the entirety of human interaction by, that means you can put down those fancy “books” and stop having those pesky “opinions,” because your purpose is entirely to provide offspring. Legs up! Don’t worry, we’ll be sure to bury you in a Y-shaped coffin.
How sickly primeval. I’m sorry for the sad little world you concoct for yourself if you think the only reason people pair themselves is blind breeding.
Back to subject, I’m proud of J.K. Rowling for this decision. I’m a little sad for Dumbledore, since the implication is he spent his life pining after a companion who would seem to have turned into an adversarial relationship.
- Posted by RobiiYour missing the point. This is a series of books written for children. Sexual preference has no place in it, has nothing to do with it. It is sick that she felt the need to taint such excellent reads and what could of possibly been concidered classics in the future with sex. Rather twisted world we live in, that sexual preference is bled into something like this.
- Posted by KarenI don’t see that it makes a difference. If he is gay that’s great. Does it weaken the character or the story? No, does it change the popularity of the books and the enjoyment gained from them? No
- Posted by Chris ScottTolerance is a consistent theme in these books, so why is it an issue if Dumbledore is gay?
I may just be simplifying things here but I think there are far bigger things to worry about in this world than the sexuality of a well written and well loved character of fiction.
I thought what was normal for every living being was to be able to reproduce? Therefore homosexuality is not normal and unusual (I didn’t say it should have a finger pointed at). As for the comment on eye colour, having green eyes doesn’t stop you seeing, but having sex with the same sex will stop you breeding…
- Posted by RenaudIt is a good thing homosexuality is made more present in literature, as not doing so would be discrimination against a part of the population which fall in this category.
Authors write the books, if she says he is gay then he is gay. PEOPLE ARE NOT BORN GAY OR STRAIGHT. certain chemical processes in the brain may make it more likely that a person prefers or or the other, however that is pure specualtion. Influences by culture obv creat many homophobes on one side and may encourage people of a more feminine personality to choose to be gay, but thats all being straight or gay is. A choice based on a feeling based on whatever it is that maks you have that feeling. Its a choice and one people have every right to make becuase it has absolutely nothing to do with anything else except where people like to put there private parts. SO if the author chosses to make dumbledore gay, he’s gay. end of story.
- Posted by James Baxter“… Sorry, but if you look at this even purely from a scientific point of view - statistical, zoological, physiological - let alone a religious, moral or even anecdotal point of view, I think you’ll find that being gay is indeed unusual and not normal.”
Your point being? Ok I get the picture that you obvious consider being gay as an abomination, but who said anything about our world being “normal” as you stated…
Im proud that J.K. Rowling decided to add a gay character into the series… even more astounded that is was a character with a grandeur such as Dumbledore. Rowling portrays Dumbledore in a warm, caring, wise, loving, and strong minded.
Rowling has shed light on an issue that is very contraversal world wide. She has aided Gays, Lesbians, bisexual, and trans gender people all around the world by helping to end bigotry.
- Posted by Paul-MichaelLiterature, movies etc are supposed to reflect humanity. Whether one is gay or straight, it’s irrelevant. If the characters excite the imagination of the audience, and people can say “yeah! He/she really makes me believe in the character”, then thats all that matters.
- Posted by jamesReligious or moral views are best left to the individual, and should not interfere with the books’ or movies’ content.
No dears, what ever that Rowling woman says I can assure you he wasn’t gay.
- Posted by McGonogallI have not read much Harry Potter. I started the first book, but found it boring.
However, in general, I support the idea of having openly gay characters in literature. This is not to say that didactic books should be written extolling the virtues of homosexuality, but that they should be included to represent a very real and natural part of society.
In “The Summer After the Dark” Doris Lessing wrote about the experiences of a middle-aged woman coming to terms with the way men had begun to treat her now that she was no longer young.
The novel enabled all of society to understand the sexism that women face. This was an invaluable contribution to literature.
Having the ability to understand the human experience from various vantage points can help us live together peacefully.
A new book, recently released, examines gay literature. It is called “Out in Paperback: A Visual History of Gay Pulps”. http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/displa y.pperl?isbn=9780978176518
I am glad J.K. Rowling has clarified that Dumbledore is gay rather than allowing speculation to run rampant. It is time more authors brought their gay characters out of the closet.
- Posted by JuneFrom a “purely scientific” point of view, homosexuality has been confirmed across many species including canines, and our closer, simian relatives (ex. chimps). Statistically speaking, one could make the argument that green eyes are “not normal/unusual” as they are found to be less common than say brown eyes. However, this does not make people with green eyes “not normal” just different and in a genetic minority to those with blue or brown eyes. In the case of “morality”, how can you determine one’s morality based on sexual preference? I happen to know many gay people in loving, monogamous relationships while some of my heterosexual friends can’t even remember the first name of the person they slept with the night before. Does this make them more moral than my homosexual friends? Please do not use the guise of science to state was is clearly just an opinion of yours, not fact.
- Posted by A BiologistA view from Canada!
http://www.craigmonk.com/the_classroom_c onservativ/2007/10/dumbledore-is-g.html
- Posted by Holly Morris“There are not enough gay characters in literature, the argument runs, especially in children’s books, which reinforces the view that being gay is unusual and not normal.”
- Posted by Joe Public… Sorry, but if you look at this even purely from a scientific point of view - statistical, zoological, physiological - let alone a religious, moral or even anecdotal point of view, I think you’ll find that being gay is indeed unusual and not normal.
yay! i always fancied him! yummmy!
- Posted by George Thomas