Unimpressed, Jo. Unimpressed. - AKA, holy shit, Tarie's made a fandom post!
When I checked my flist this morning, I discovered that a good portion of my flisters are absolutely chuffed that JK Rowling has revealed some more facts and backstory about beloved Harry Potter characters that she didn't include in the books while at a Carnegie Hall book reading. In case you missed it, which I doubt, Jo revealed that she "always thought of Dumbledore as gay." While the admission that Dumbledore, arguably the most powerful wizard to have ever existed, is homosexual will undoubtedly impress, either positively or negatively, fandom and the collective public, I find the revelation to be cowardly for a few reasons.
Ultimately, canon is the existing plot, setting, conflict, and characters in the pages of the Harry Potter books. While I realise that some portions of fandom are film based, that is certainly a minority. Thus, when I refer to "canon" I am indicating the seven-book series, plus the two accompanying texts (Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). As canon consists of what is on the written page, anything Jo Rowling says on her website, in interviews, in lectures, or to the curry vendor across the street simply cannot irrefutably be canon. Yes, sometimes the things she reveals about character backstory is interesting and helps the reader to see where she might have gone with a particular character or subplot had she time or worked out how to include it in the text. However, that is just it -- the revelations are interesting, and nothing more. They cannot possibly be canon because these facts do not exist within the context of the pages. As writers and essayists, Jo's facts and tidbits from these out-of-canon places can help us to enrich the world we know about -- if we choose to do so. Incorporating what Jo says outside of book canon is personal choice. Thus, if we do not care for what Jo has decided about who Neville marries or what tattoo Dean Thomas has or whether or not Draco owes Harry a life debt, we don't have to include it in our view of our beloved characters, our fic, or our meta. Therefore, by revealing Dumbledore is gay in a book reading, Jo is giving the public a choice as to whether or not they now want to go back and find homosexual subtext in Dumbledore's words and actions within the confines of canon. This is actually insulting to homosexuality because she is giving people the power to ignore it rather than to not only recognize its presence but recognize its presence in a powerful and respected figure in the world of her books. So, in choosing to not include this revelation in canon, by either an anvil-sized clue or a wee thumbtack-sized one, but rather by way of offhanded comments at a book reading, Jo Rowling shows particular cowardice whereas homosexuality and her fiction is concerned.
Waiting until the series has been completed to announce that Dumbledore is gay also smacks of cowardice. Although the first three books in the series were considerably lighter in size and (some would argue) fair, the latter four were certainly more geared toward her aging readership in both length and maturity of subject matter. While it is understandable that Rowling would both not have opportunity in the plots or wish to include blatant homosexual undertones in regards to Dumbledore in the earlier, 'less mature' books, it is unbelievable that she did not approach the subject in the latter four given myriad opportunities she painted for herself. From Goblet of Fire onward, the books not only increased in length but also in the seriousness and darkness of the subject matter. As Harry and his friends approached adulthood, the severity of his situation became more and more apparent. However, along the way to Voldemort's defeat, Rowling took the time to craft romantic relationships with the teens and stress the importance of love, compassion, and loss with the adults (Arthur and Molly, Lucius and Narcissa, Remus and Tonks, among others). Yet she clearly shied away from doing so with Dumbledore. Why? It is not as though she did not have many open windows in which to include at least one single mention. When one considers Deathly Hallows, they will recall how a good portion of the book dealt with Harry's learning about Dumbledore's personal life, focusing very much on Dumbledore's youth. As we all know that youth serves to shape us into the individuals we become in adulthood, it is surprising she did not think to leave a single comment that would validate her 'Dumbledore is gay' statement when exploring Dumbledore's younger years. There was much opportunity to do this -- from Dodge's article and his dealings to conversations with Aberforth to Rita's article and more, a single comment revealing his sexuality could have easily been slipped in. Yet Jo chose not to seize any of those moments and instead turned the other cheek as far as Dumbledore's supposed homosexuality is concerned. She obviously had no qualms alluding to heterosexual activity in the last few books, most notably Deathly Hallows. ("Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches...You'd be surprised, it's not all about wandwork, either," anyone?) For the past few years, Rowling has enjoyed being the world's most powerful author. No longer wanting for money or book deals, why then could she not include mention of Dumbledore's homosexuality? Even if the inclusion might be considered risky because of specific Christian groups and/or homophobes, Rowling truly had nothing to risk because she is secure as an author and financially as well. Noting that Dumbledore was homosexual would not have really altered the series or anything else so extreme. It wouldn't have detracted from Harry's journey one bit. Why, then, was it not included? If she had always thought Dumbledore was gay and Dumbledore obviously plays an important part of the story, why was this never addressed? I call cowardice.
For reasons that baffle, Rowling appears to have a great need to be validated, to be lauded with laurels and applause. She needs approval. It is one thing to interact with fans and to provide them with a website and interviews, but it is an entirely different matter to continually drop bombs about the backstories and fates of characters she didn't ever include in canon. While some may argue that she is just giving her fans a glimpse at her Harry Potter world as a whole, there are others who will argue that she is being an attention whore and a drama llama. I am inclined to go with the latter most of the time. In this instance, I am certainly going with the latter. When Jo announced that she had always seen Dumbledore as gay, the crowd at Carnegie Hall gave her an ovation. Clearly pleased, Rowling then said, "If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have told you years ago." This statement strongly implies that she did not include mention of Dumbledore's homosexuality because she believed people would react badly to it. Thus, I stand firm in my belief that the "Dumbledore is gay" revelation is a rather timorous one.
ETA: I realize some of you think I'm being harsh in calling it cowardice, and that's fine! I can see both sides of the coin, honestly. There are lots of interesting POVs in the comments from folks, so take a look!
ETA 2: For an engaging counterpoint, check out
marginaliana's post here.
Ultimately, canon is the existing plot, setting, conflict, and characters in the pages of the Harry Potter books. While I realise that some portions of fandom are film based, that is certainly a minority. Thus, when I refer to "canon" I am indicating the seven-book series, plus the two accompanying texts (Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). As canon consists of what is on the written page, anything Jo Rowling says on her website, in interviews, in lectures, or to the curry vendor across the street simply cannot irrefutably be canon. Yes, sometimes the things she reveals about character backstory is interesting and helps the reader to see where she might have gone with a particular character or subplot had she time or worked out how to include it in the text. However, that is just it -- the revelations are interesting, and nothing more. They cannot possibly be canon because these facts do not exist within the context of the pages. As writers and essayists, Jo's facts and tidbits from these out-of-canon places can help us to enrich the world we know about -- if we choose to do so. Incorporating what Jo says outside of book canon is personal choice. Thus, if we do not care for what Jo has decided about who Neville marries or what tattoo Dean Thomas has or whether or not Draco owes Harry a life debt, we don't have to include it in our view of our beloved characters, our fic, or our meta. Therefore, by revealing Dumbledore is gay in a book reading, Jo is giving the public a choice as to whether or not they now want to go back and find homosexual subtext in Dumbledore's words and actions within the confines of canon. This is actually insulting to homosexuality because she is giving people the power to ignore it rather than to not only recognize its presence but recognize its presence in a powerful and respected figure in the world of her books. So, in choosing to not include this revelation in canon, by either an anvil-sized clue or a wee thumbtack-sized one, but rather by way of offhanded comments at a book reading, Jo Rowling shows particular cowardice whereas homosexuality and her fiction is concerned.
Waiting until the series has been completed to announce that Dumbledore is gay also smacks of cowardice. Although the first three books in the series were considerably lighter in size and (some would argue) fair, the latter four were certainly more geared toward her aging readership in both length and maturity of subject matter. While it is understandable that Rowling would both not have opportunity in the plots or wish to include blatant homosexual undertones in regards to Dumbledore in the earlier, 'less mature' books, it is unbelievable that she did not approach the subject in the latter four given myriad opportunities she painted for herself. From Goblet of Fire onward, the books not only increased in length but also in the seriousness and darkness of the subject matter. As Harry and his friends approached adulthood, the severity of his situation became more and more apparent. However, along the way to Voldemort's defeat, Rowling took the time to craft romantic relationships with the teens and stress the importance of love, compassion, and loss with the adults (Arthur and Molly, Lucius and Narcissa, Remus and Tonks, among others). Yet she clearly shied away from doing so with Dumbledore. Why? It is not as though she did not have many open windows in which to include at least one single mention. When one considers Deathly Hallows, they will recall how a good portion of the book dealt with Harry's learning about Dumbledore's personal life, focusing very much on Dumbledore's youth. As we all know that youth serves to shape us into the individuals we become in adulthood, it is surprising she did not think to leave a single comment that would validate her 'Dumbledore is gay' statement when exploring Dumbledore's younger years. There was much opportunity to do this -- from Dodge's article and his dealings to conversations with Aberforth to Rita's article and more, a single comment revealing his sexuality could have easily been slipped in. Yet Jo chose not to seize any of those moments and instead turned the other cheek as far as Dumbledore's supposed homosexuality is concerned. She obviously had no qualms alluding to heterosexual activity in the last few books, most notably Deathly Hallows. ("Twelve Fail-Safe Ways to Charm Witches...You'd be surprised, it's not all about wandwork, either," anyone?) For the past few years, Rowling has enjoyed being the world's most powerful author. No longer wanting for money or book deals, why then could she not include mention of Dumbledore's homosexuality? Even if the inclusion might be considered risky because of specific Christian groups and/or homophobes, Rowling truly had nothing to risk because she is secure as an author and financially as well. Noting that Dumbledore was homosexual would not have really altered the series or anything else so extreme. It wouldn't have detracted from Harry's journey one bit. Why, then, was it not included? If she had always thought Dumbledore was gay and Dumbledore obviously plays an important part of the story, why was this never addressed? I call cowardice.
For reasons that baffle, Rowling appears to have a great need to be validated, to be lauded with laurels and applause. She needs approval. It is one thing to interact with fans and to provide them with a website and interviews, but it is an entirely different matter to continually drop bombs about the backstories and fates of characters she didn't ever include in canon. While some may argue that she is just giving her fans a glimpse at her Harry Potter world as a whole, there are others who will argue that she is being an attention whore and a drama llama. I am inclined to go with the latter most of the time. In this instance, I am certainly going with the latter. When Jo announced that she had always seen Dumbledore as gay, the crowd at Carnegie Hall gave her an ovation. Clearly pleased, Rowling then said, "If I had known this would have made you this happy, I would have told you years ago." This statement strongly implies that she did not include mention of Dumbledore's homosexuality because she believed people would react badly to it. Thus, I stand firm in my belief that the "Dumbledore is gay" revelation is a rather timorous one.
ETA: I realize some of you think I'm being harsh in calling it cowardice, and that's fine! I can see both sides of the coin, honestly. There are lots of interesting POVs in the comments from folks, so take a look!
ETA 2: For an engaging counterpoint, check out
marginaliana's post here.