Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
This article was written by Emily Cousins
As diversity goes, the world of Harry Potter is a pretty accepting place. Three headed dogs, werewolves, wronged convicts and illusory toilet squatters exist rather harmoniously within the stone fortress of Hogwarts. Aside from the apocalyptic bids for world domination and the magical mayhem that thus ensues, it would seem that tolerance of all things surreal and mystical is certainly a prominent theme.
All manner of socio-economic taboos are addressed and appeased with matter-of-fact logic. Discussions surrounding race manifest themselves in the “mud blood” allegory, the death eaters are obvious contenders for an extremist cult metaphor, and Dobby as the subservient slave is transparently obvious. In many ways, Harry himself is the ultimate “outsider”.
So I was genuinely thrilled to hear this week that the brilliance that is JK Rowling announced to the world that Dumbldore, the man, the dream, the legend, was gay. He burst from the closet like an over-enthusiastic boggart and the applause at the press conference following the announcement were apparently as deafening as the Griffindor cheers after their House Cup victory. Jo (I feel chummy first name terms are appropriate after this fantastic revelation) is in a uniquely fortunate position as she has quite literally an entire generation of young people in her thrall. She has utilized this social responsibility brilliantly by getting children to read and engage with quite overtly politicized ideas. I’ll save any reflections on these for my hypothetical thesis, and for now bask in the bravery of her actions.
Her delivery of the big news at an open book tour in New York, was understated and low key - exactly what the portrayal of homosexual relationships should be. True equality comes when a deviation or difference is not seen as a big deal. JK Rowling chose to divulge the headmaster’s sexual preferences in a manner that proved it did not change him as a character nor alter his wisdom, goodness or heroism. Neither was it isolated nor gratuitous publicity seeking, it was tied-up with one of the most integral themes running through all seven book; love. And the best thing is, her creation of a gay role model is such a positive thing. She has aided acceptance and tolerance through her works and it is not too much of an overstatement to claim that thousands of children could potentially now be immune to slurring prejudiced influences surrounding the homosexual community.
Of course, there’s the rather amusing side to it all as well. It’s fun to speculate about the real reason for Arthur Weasley and Dumbledore’s late night chats at the Ministry of Magic. And there is certainly potential for the odd smutty remark about Dumbledore’s pre-occupation with the length of Voldemort’s wand: Yew; Thirteen and a half inches long; Feather of a phoenix.
Of all the characters in the fantastical world, I’d always had thoughts that possibly Madame Hooch and Professor McGonagall were more than just wand waving spell buddies from the other side of the Quidditch pitch. But Albus is the man to fly the flag of pride and a greater leader there surely couldn’t be.
Brilliant!!
whether it alters the "goodness" of this brilliant character in the HP books really depends on your definition of good, and whether homosexual behaviour can be included in this definition.
Homosexual behaviour is not included in my definition of goodness, and sadly my perception of Dumbledore's goodness has been tainted.
disclaimer: don't go calling me homophobic etc. I have nothing against homosexual people, it is not my place to judge them. I simply disagree that homosexual behaviour is unsinful.
So you're saying that it is sinful (to disagree that it is unsinful is to propose that it is sinful), therefore you are judging, and yeah it's fair to say that you are homophobic.
anonymous: I am saying its sinful, but i'm not being homophobic or judging anyone except dumbledore. I would not hold it against anybody or treat any homosexual with any less respect, everybody sins including me.
I was merely stating how it has tainted my view of Dumbledore, who at the end of the day is a fictional character who is made out, at least until the last couple of books to be pretty flawless.
The thing that gets me about this - and people who have actually read the books can correct me if I'm wrong at any point - is that gay rights groups have come out and thanked Rowling for putting a lead character in a big children's story as homosexual. They say it's teaching kids about how adults can be different/lifestyle choices etc yadda yadda.
But..if the books don't actually state that he's gay, as I understand it they just hint at a mysterious past, then surely this is doing gay rights movements no favours at all. It's backing up the fear of being open about your sexuality, surely?
A massive own goal for big JK if you as me.
Stick to the Dark Materials Trilogy.
So... according to you James being gay is a flaw, or an imperfection? Yup I agree with Anon that that's pretty Homophobic.
And ya' never know George, we might see some love scenes of Dumbledore and Grindlewald in the seventh film. Here's hoping eh?
I take George Taylor's point - by disclosing Dumbledore's sexuality only after the books are published, it does seem to signify that there is no place for an out homosexual in a children's book. However, gay people are rarely represented (in comparison to the countless depictions of heterosexual relationships which encourage heteronormative attitudes) and so, in a way, any publicity is a step forward for activists for gay rights - especially in a book with such a massive audience and influence. Also, I think it would have been incredibly irrelevant for this to be revealed in the book anyway - what does it have to do with anything really? I like the way J.K ended it with a kind of 'oh, by the way, Dumbledore's gay.. so there!'. I think it's quite hilarious how it has encouraged people such as James Hogan to reassess their enjoyment of the books by now knowing this. Heaven forbid you solicit the company of a fictional gay wizard.
I disagree with George Taylor - I think that instead of trying to hide it, JK was in fact making the point that it doesn't matter what sexuality he is at all, and that his sexuality shouldn't make any difference to the reading of his character. In fact it is simply to her an after thought - something not fundamentally relevant to the character she created. I think it's a stroke of genius to be honest. Although admittedly that may be going a bit far...
Two things. Firstly, I think the fact that this is newsworthy shows that the struggle for acceptance, equality and human rights has still not yet been won.
Secondly, James Hogan's views do sound pretty homophobic to me.
isn't it bizarre that although this was a really good article, i find myself puzzling more over the issue of James Hogan and whether to label him a homophobe or not...
and i dont know that he is. perhaps his re-reading of Dumbledore was because this is a character with which we all hope to form a connection, like a benevolent uncle or something, and once he becomes a character that James can not relate to through an ignorance and detachment from such an important factor of Dumbledore's life, ie his sexuality, this connection is broken down. Instead of seeing him as less than he was, it is that he can no longer understand him, because he can not understand his life choices.
anyway, enough of that. hurrah for a good article, and a fantastic set of books. I am still sad that the original film dumbledore died...that upsets me the most. the second one never quite did it for me...
thoughts?
people do go on about the first one...actually, the second dumbledore does it for me all the way. I still prefer the gay angels in dark materials as an example of positive, more-than-two-dimensional homosexual presence in children's lit.
I never got the whole sin thing. I think God is something better than petty human control, which is what the concept of sin functions as. I think God would recognise evil or goodness over and above what you believe and what rules you follow. Otherwise God is no better than a human judge, with the same petty considerations and prejudices.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report