I once fell in love with my travel agent.
I was a 20-something college student on my way to Ireland. I did not have a ton of money to spare on extras, so I was grateful for the savvy deals on flights and hostels that he procured for me.
I also liked the fact that he was so funny. I had never met him in person—he was in the Cities and I was 4 hours northward—but we talked on the phone and exchanged correspondence. An itinerary here, a form to be signed there—all of these arrived in my mailbox with a personal note in the form of a square yellow sticky attached. (He was charming and had great handwriting—I was hooked.)
As the paths of our lives would have it, I had some time to kill in Minneapolis before moving on with the rest of my summer. We arranged to meet at the office even though it was a Saturday and the agency was officially closed.
Well, J. was handsome. We’re talking truly hunky handsome, with a well-trimmed beard, a healthy (but not too George Hamilton) tan and piercing blue eyes.
And he was nice.
So nice, in fact, that when he invited me to a movie that afternoon I agreed. (‘Cause I’m not crazy!) We whispered our way through a very strange film and then went for ice cream at a trendy little shop downtown.
It was a gorgeous summer evening. We walked the two blocks from the ice cream shop to the lake, watched the sun begin to set and kept right on talking.
And at some point he told me he was gay.
I felt my heart drop out of me then. I was, in the words of someone who has been in the news a lot these days, “horribly, terribly let down.”
I’m sure it wasn’t his intent, really, but I felt deceived and certainly disappointed.
I’m feeling deceived again these days, but this time I believe that the deception is intentional. J.K. Rowling has recently announced—I know you know this—that her character Albus Dumbledore was gay.
I just don’t get it.
I don’t know why she had to go there but in a way, I’m not surprised she did. She’s a very clever gal, that J.K. Rowling, and her Dumbledore’s no dummy, either. In other words, I believe that there’s a reason why she withheld this information until now. She wanted to wait until her readers—her many, many readers—were already smitten.
Again, I feel betrayed. Why? Because we are talking about the author of a children’s book. She started out the series in a harmless fashion, one in which the main characters were, for the most part, friendly, safe and likeable. Now that we (and especially our children) are hooked, however, she reels us into her agenda.
When any person, real or fictional, wears their sexuality on their cloak, as it were, he or she is asking us to make a moral choice. J.K. Rowlings takes this premise one step further. She is forcing this choice upon her fan base in that she has taken a beloved character and made him gay “after the fact”.
People who have bought these books and read them with their children will need to make their own judgments. I personally do not see how I could start the series at this point without Dumbledore’s sexuality being at the forefront of my thoughts. I had planned on reading these books because so many of my very respected colleagues enjoy them. However, in light of this recent pronouncement, I am more than wary.
I’ve been burned in my affections before.
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Well, I will not say it. And honestly, I heard murmurs of this, but since I don’t watch the news (I am really out of it) I did not know the truths of this story. You can imagine, I am not at all surprised.
The best part of this excellent post is the paragraph about “wearing their sexuality on their cloak and asking us to make a moral choice.” Thank you for beautifully putting into words what I have been unable to.
People only feel that way about gay people or characters. Most people feel heterosexuality is normal or default so when homosexuality is mentioned to them that's "wearing it on their sleeve" or in their face.
I wonder if gays feel heterosexuality is in their face. There's definitely more overt sexuality on display in life and movies.
And it's sad that something as normal as sexuality is something you feel you have to shield your children from. Do you shield your children away from heterosexuality? Of course not. Treat it the same way and they'll be fine. Explain that most people enjoy the company of the opposite gender but there are also those who prefer their own.
What's the big deal? It's not that difficult.
I haven’t read the books yet. I’m just thinking aloud here. And what I’m thinking is this: If there was any hinting or suggestion of this in any of the novels, it would have already been out there. The anti-Harry Potter groups would have picked up on it and made sure that the rest of us knew about it. We wouldn’t be surprised by the author’s “revelation”. So I’m thinking, if you were planning to enjoy these books with your children, or even on your own, you should continue without regard for Dumbledore’s alleged sexuality. It obviously doesn’t come into play in the slightest. I do not plan to read these books or buy them for my kids or watch any more movies than my husband has already brought home. I do not like the author in the slightest, and this is one more reason why. You vote with your money, and I choose not to support her, with my dollars or my time.
The following is from Jenn at As Cozy as Spring, who is still unable to leave comments on Blogger and who gave me permission to post this:
I was so annoyed by the Dumbledore thing. WHY does it matter? It has no bearing on the story at all. There was (in my opinion) no hint of it anywhere, so why bring it up now? It was just silly. And you are exactly right. It’s a kid’s book – we shouldn’t be discussing anyone’s sexuality at all. None of the other teachers in the book have spouses or significant others. My concern is that Dumbledore will become some sort of gay mascot, you know, and that will be hard to avoid.
I honestly can’t help but wonder if Rowling did this as an afterthought “in your face” to Christians who were so critical of the books. Maybe I’m just too cynical, but it seems if there were no hint of his being gay in the books that this is a kick-in-the-shins publicity stunt. There will be some previously dedicated readers who drop her books as a result, but “educators” and “intellectuals” who might have been more inclined to dismiss and pooh-pooh the books as childish literature will be more inclined to promote the books now — to say nothing of the homosexual lobby.
I think it IS a sign Margaret not to get involved in it at all, not to read them.
I forgot, I have a similar “love” story (not actually love, but a date story anyway) where the guy turned out to be married and he did tell me on that first date (thank goodness), but still!!! So disappointing and what a waste of time!
I completely echo Jenn’s thoughts, posted by Margaret. What a ridiculous proclamation by Rowling, one very unnecessary to the storyline or to the enjoyment of these books!! It is very annoying to folks like me, Catholic Christians who have defended the books for their sound writing and fantastical fictional storylines, only to be slapped in the face by this! I’m ready to unshelve Potter for good…
Your post is the first I’ve heard of the news. Though I haven’t read any of the books, this makes me so sad. An author in her position, with such a wide and innocent audience knows she has influence. My interest in Potter was piqued by the recent Catholic blogger discussion about it, and until now, I thought I would eventually read the books with my girls.
I’ve changed my mind. So sad. Let us all come together to offer a Hail Mary for Rowling and her young readers. And thank you, Margaret, for this post.
I think this was a publicity stunt. Rowling even said that she welcomes the upset of the Christian groups that boycotted her books before.
I already have all the books. I really enjoyed the story. If I didn’t already have the books, I wouldn’t buy them. If I don’t like what an author/actor/etc is doing in life, I don’t support their work.
However, I don’t mind my children reading them, since I already have them. My children have NO exposure to the news. We do not play the news in our house, so my children won’t learn about this until long after they have read the books. I don’t really have a problem with Dumbledore being gay, but I don’t think it was necessary at all. It was not part of the story line, but rather, I think, part of her agenda.
I heard this a few days ago, after JUST having finished reading the series, and was completely floored. WHY? WHY? WHY????
This is just so completely unnecessary!
I can assure you there was absolutely NOTHING in the books that even hinted at anything remotely sexual or romantic in the relationship between Dumbledore and that other wizard or anyone else.
As one who has defended my choice to read these books and allow my children to read them,I am very disappointed.It’s not that I have issues with a gay character,if that’s what she wants to write about. Just put it out in the open so readers can make informed choices about whether they want to read it or not. But to proclaim him gay after the fact is just so frustrating, because now we don’t even have the choice to go back and “unread” it if we wanted to!
I still love the books, but I have a definite bitter taste in my mouth about Rowling.
I feel like I’ve been made a fool of by her. This was very, very sneaky, dishonest, and underhanded of her.
Great post! I fully agree. I’m glad we haven’t started the series here…
Your post was so well put. I couldn’t believe it when I heard the news. Like someone else stated, I’ve been a Christian supporter of the books, explaining to others how there really isn’t anything bad in the books. They are just fun, enjoyable reads. And though they still are, something about just knowing this piece of information about the beloved character Dumbledore changes things. I’m really upset that Rowling would choose to state this after the completion of the series. Or at all, for that matter… it’s a children’s book!!!!!! Anyway, thanks so much for your inciteful post. I hope that this tidbit about Dumbledore will someday be forgotten and my children will be able to read the books just as innocently as I did. Sadly, I’ll no longer look at the books the same.
Yep, I’m also pretty irritated. Honestly, what a chicken, you know? If she *really* wanted to make a bold statement, she would have announced that *before* she raked in all the millions from *every last book* in the series….but, no, the announcement comes after the initial royalties from the *last* book of the series have rolled in.
It’s funny, I usually get blown off for being overly critical whenever I share my concerns about the Potter books. The usual response is some variation on the defense Catholics gave to the Da Vinci Code. “It’s just a story and good/fun/entertaining read.” I never understood how a children’s book that clearly incorporates witchcraft (with hints of Wicca) as an empowering ideal for children could be read so unassumingly and with so little caution. How many other things should/do we let this non-defense justify? (ie. Grey’s Anatomy, Sex in the City.)
And a preemption: Gandalf was not a human- he was something more like an angel. Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, etc. were the examples for kids. Their destinies were tied into their making sacrificial decisions and respecting the boundaries of their nature.
But what actually ended up turning me off to the story was the fact that all of these children attended an incredible magic school where they learned to harness their amazing powers for… for… well for nothing imparticular. They were just basically going to Wizard University to get their degree. They either got in with the good teachers/students or the bad teachers/students, got their education, and went on their way. There was never any real sense that they had some overriding responsibility or duty to each other or the outside world. When mayhem threatened to shut down Hogwart, I had about as much sympathy as I would for Harvard Buisness School shutting down- “What are all of those business majors going to do? We have to stop this!”
The stories never seemed morally compelling to me. They seemed kind of shallow when I really thought about them in the big picture.
If she was in fact attempting to upset Christians, then this may blow up back in her face, you see, Dumbledore was chaste in the stories which shows that chastity is possible for the homosexual.
🙂
I don’t tend to put much stock in the personal or political lives of artists or entertainers. There’s something about that temperment that can tend to make them … interesting. For example, I’ve seen and loved many beautiful movies put together by people that I have strong disagreements with.
And I do think Ladybug Mommy Maria makes a good point about Dumbledore being chaste. (Some in the homosexual community have complained about Rowlings remarks because a) Dumbledore never came out of the closet himself and b) he apparently was celibate for the rest of his life.)
For me, the books are what the books are (I finished reading them through a second time just before this news came out) and, though there were things I didn’t like, there was a lot in them that I loved. Since we’ve already read and discussed them with our oldest I think it would pointlessly draw attention to the politics involved if I now removed them from my house based on comments by the author.
I do understand that it will turn some off from reading them in the first place. Whaddya do?
When I first heard about this issue I thought the same thing as suzanne.
Then I realized the same thing as ladybug momma maria. Some people may be attracted to those of the same sex but if they do not act upon those urges then they do not sin. If Princess reads these books some day and if the topic of Dumbledore being gay comes up then it opens the door to discussing chastity and abstinence.
I have never been even slightly tempted to buy/read these books, but have followed the discussions on many blogs with interest.
Right now, my oldest is tearing through so many other more classical reads, and there is so much more out there that is just so much better, that I doubt we will be delving into H.P.
That being said, I am more of a moderate on this issue. If any of my kids come across these and want to read them, I will probably let them. BUT. I will make sure he (the child) is ready to discuss the topics of witchcraft and Catholicism and even homosexuality and abstinence.
So, probably not until they are 20.
🙂
Preface: I have read all seven books multiple times but none of my children have any exposure to these stories.
I agree with Love2Learn Mom. I think JKR was pandering to her audience and was on a “shock and awe” campaign. I think there is not even a hint of this “revelation” in her books otherwise Michael O’Brien and others would have sniffed it out. I think even if she meant for Dumbledore to be a champion of homosexuality from the beginning, she failed miserably because his one alleged relationship was “the greatest tragedy” of his life that only taught him to thirst for power and that it’s OK to destroy the powerless. He did live the rest of his life chastely and even removed himself from temptation.
Can I just say that I was more annoyed and offended by this conversation that happened the same night:
Question: This was easily the funniest question of the evening. A little girl asked what improper charms Aberforth Dumbledore had used on goats.
Answer: Rowling looked stunned, and then asked, “How old are you?” (I believe she was eight.) Then Rowling blushed slightly and said that there might have been any number of charms one might use on a goat, such as a charm to keep the goat clean, or to keep its curly horns – “and that is my answer to you.” The older audience members got the joke and had quite a laugh, but the little questioner seemed quite satisfied, too.
We can guess pretty easily what she was insinuating and my question is… if you know that 8 year olds are reading your books… why put that junk in it?
I will probably let my kids read the books eventually because I really don’t see anything in the books to object to (the author, yes!) but I just bumped up my minimum age requirement. They are not children’s stories anymore!
I was struck by a couple of things when I heard this news.
First, the last HP has been published, read, dissected and the hoopla has died down. Even the movies don’t generate the kind of excitement that the release of a new book did.
So now that we’ve all moved on to other things, here comes Rowling, stirring up more interest and publicity.
Second, she said earlier that she was writing a sort of encyclopedia of the characters to include more of their back stories that couldn’t be included in the books. How much money is that kind of book really going to make? It’ll do ok, but it’ll be in the discount rack pretty quickly. So why not get people talking about the characters again?
Aah, I never read HP. I’ve always been suspicious! I feel vindicated, yeah! 😉
>>>>If she was in fact attempting to upset Christians, then this may blow up back in her face, you see, Dumbledore was chaste in the stories which shows that chastity is possible for the homosexual.<<<<<< JMB said: How do we know he was chaste? She didn’t exactly write about him being a homosexual either, but now apparently he is. So how do we know that she won’t later tell us about his various relationships?
I would have to agree with JMB. I think the most insidious thing about all this is that the HP series is being marketed as children’s books.
There are HP movies yet to be made. What else will Rowlings say?
I wonder what Michael Gambon thinks about this. Did the actor know he was playing the part of a homosexual?
Here’s my take on it;
This reveals Rowling’s true heart; she’s a tool.
I believe she said she was never in it for the money, but for the story. As an aspiring writer, I can accept that sort of thing.
But she’s not doing this for the story or for the trade or anything else.
This is about money. She’s made a ton, and now, by “revealing” sexual orientation, she’s got the homosexual activist community. Lots of money there…after all, they own the ACLU, public policy in several countries, etc.
She is a politician; she wants their vote. If she didn’t have it already, now they’ll pick up her books and she’ll be marketing to them as they will infer themselves into Dumbeldore’s persona.
That is the ONLY reason to make this revelation; any other reason given is tripe. This is marketing, pure and simple.
I was a fan of Anne Rice, and still am to some degree; she has talent, she’s intelligent, she does amazing research and has the ability to bring history alive in color and sound and the whole bit. But her whole homosexual undertones thing always disturbed me. Then I learned her son is an active homosexual, and it all made sense; each writer insinuates a part of themselves and their lives into their work. Her writing of homosexuality was, in looking at it in psychological terms, a way for her to come to terms with her son’s condition, to see it vicariously through fictitious characters in a convoluted manner. I don’t agree with the method, but I can at least have compassion with that understanding.
Rowling…no compassion there. This is all about the money.
I’ve not read the Potter books, although they remain on my list when I get to them, just to know what’s really there. I have enjoyed the movies.
But I will not spend a dollar to purchase those books and feed her greed.
Dumbledor gay = more money for the author.
So ironic…the puppet that manipulates public policy has become the springboard for an author’s greed.
Leave the dead to bury the dead, indeed.
I love the way you put this, Margaret. It really is a letdown to the reader, but especially to the Christian reader who has had to rally to her defense against the witchcraft charges, often leveled by other Christians.
It really is the worst form of cheating to reveal a major character trait after the character is “dead” and the books are all published. If it had been important to the story for Dumbledore to be gay, then it needed to be revealed in the story, not after the fact.
http://vereloqui.blogspot.com/2007/10/j-k-rowling-is-wrong-about-dumbledore.html
I am in total agreement with Mr. Cothran on this subject. I still love the books and think that the author is very talented, but she’s WRONG about her own character! How can this be? Check out the article!
Thank you for that link, Laura! Here it is again: J. K. Rowling is Wrong about Dumbledore: Why the creator of Harry Potter doesn’t know what she is talking about
The author, Martin Cothran, writes for Memoria Press. His observations add an excellent dimension to this discussion.
Margaret, I think the connection you made between your non-date and Rowling’s news illuminates what might be a common tactic among homosexuals: Get people to like me and then spring the news on them that I am gay.
I had a similar experience in grad school – someone I thought was interested in dating me, but was really looking for a sympathizing female friend. My impression, looking back, is that he wanted to rally some support between partners.
Rowling takes it to a whole new level.
Personally, I have stayed away from the Harry Potter books. That genre just doesn’t interest me, but the controversy about this series of books does.
I like what ladybug mommy pointed out – at least (as far as we know) the character demonstrated chastity!
I have read all the HP books. Multiple times. As far as I can tell, in thousands of pages of text, there is only one speech (and not by Dumbledore) that comes anywhere close to suggesting such a thing. And that speech is on never underestimating the power of obsessive love, and so could also be a clue to Snape’s motivation (as I’m pretty sure it actually is).
If JKR had not decided to ‘spill the beans’ on this, I don’t think anyone would ever have known. As it is, in the ‘canon’ of the series, Dumbledore had exactly one such relationship, which may or may not have been consummated, and which ended tragically. He then, in the ‘canon’ of the series, remained celibate for the rest of his life.
Meanwhile, very little attention is being paid to the fact that she did confirm in a different Q&A session earlier that she deliberately used Christian imagery in the book.
Because of this different answers to different audiences scenario, I’m starting to agree with the concept that she is trying to ‘cash in’ with new audiences. The more controversy, the more interest, the more money. (Like she NEEDS more money.)