In which I disagree with everyone.
So, Dumbledore is gay, is he?
This is not awesome. There is no 'hoo' to my very dry 'whoo.'
I'm in the minority on my friendslist here, but I'm not happy with J.K. Rowling right now. She threw me a bone, and it was a chewed, meatless bone, and she expected me to be content with it. I think I'd rather have no bone at all. You see, Dumbledore isn't just a gay. Oh no. He's a closeted gay. Closeted by lifestyle (he's a very famous wizard and there were all these biographies and obituaries and not one said 'he liked the bumsex') and by narrative (seriously, it's not that hard to just mention it. Once.)
I'm all for taking authorial interviews as canon, but it's not really, is it? In ten years time, are people who read Harry Potter going to remember or care what is said in interviews? Not really. Canon is in fact a narrow definition, constrained in this case by the books and the movies. Anything outside of that is nice, but in the grand scheme of things, it does not count. The wizarding world has already been shown to be sickening heteronormative, what with all the cute little nuclear families and divorce, bastards and other such unsavoury happenings occurring only among the dark wizards. This nice new revelation only enforces this. Dumbledore likes men, we're told, but We Don't Talk About That Kind of Thing. It's much more acceptable to talk about his brother's bestiality, for Bob's sake. We can only assume that Aberforth's goat friend was female. And don't get me started on the genetic link Rowling has inadvertently implied by making her only gay character the brother of another sexual deivant.
In an ibarw post I can't find the link for, someone talked about a fantasy author who claimed that 'all members of my fantasy race are black, but they don't mention it because everyone is.' That wasn't enough for that blogger - there was nothing to identify with. You can't just paint characters and call them 'people of colour' and expect chromatic fans to identify with them. Similarly I, a queer Harry Potter fan, feel no more affinity for Dumbledore than I did yesterday. He doesn't count because at no point in the novels did he deal with or even acknowledge this part of himself. It's forced into the background.
I'm reminded of all the lesbian friends of that woman on the train. You can be gay, but you can't talk about it. Closeting in general makes me twitch. Yes, it's no one's business, but it shouldn't be hidden. It's made worse that Dumbledore is a role model: someone to emulate. His sexuality is hidden and secret and therefore he is ashamed of it, and so should you be.
I'd much rather she hadn't said anything at all, actually.
This is not awesome. There is no 'hoo' to my very dry 'whoo.'
I'm in the minority on my friendslist here, but I'm not happy with J.K. Rowling right now. She threw me a bone, and it was a chewed, meatless bone, and she expected me to be content with it. I think I'd rather have no bone at all. You see, Dumbledore isn't just a gay. Oh no. He's a closeted gay. Closeted by lifestyle (he's a very famous wizard and there were all these biographies and obituaries and not one said 'he liked the bumsex') and by narrative (seriously, it's not that hard to just mention it. Once.)
I'm all for taking authorial interviews as canon, but it's not really, is it? In ten years time, are people who read Harry Potter going to remember or care what is said in interviews? Not really. Canon is in fact a narrow definition, constrained in this case by the books and the movies. Anything outside of that is nice, but in the grand scheme of things, it does not count. The wizarding world has already been shown to be sickening heteronormative, what with all the cute little nuclear families and divorce, bastards and other such unsavoury happenings occurring only among the dark wizards. This nice new revelation only enforces this. Dumbledore likes men, we're told, but We Don't Talk About That Kind of Thing. It's much more acceptable to talk about his brother's bestiality, for Bob's sake. We can only assume that Aberforth's goat friend was female. And don't get me started on the genetic link Rowling has inadvertently implied by making her only gay character the brother of another sexual deivant.
In an ibarw post I can't find the link for, someone talked about a fantasy author who claimed that 'all members of my fantasy race are black, but they don't mention it because everyone is.' That wasn't enough for that blogger - there was nothing to identify with. You can't just paint characters and call them 'people of colour' and expect chromatic fans to identify with them. Similarly I, a queer Harry Potter fan, feel no more affinity for Dumbledore than I did yesterday. He doesn't count because at no point in the novels did he deal with or even acknowledge this part of himself. It's forced into the background.
I'm reminded of all the lesbian friends of that woman on the train. You can be gay, but you can't talk about it. Closeting in general makes me twitch. Yes, it's no one's business, but it shouldn't be hidden. It's made worse that Dumbledore is a role model: someone to emulate. His sexuality is hidden and secret and therefore he is ashamed of it, and so should you be.
I'd much rather she hadn't said anything at all, actually.