Hey, Hypothetical Reader! Wanna talk about Dumbledore's sex life?
Excuse me?
You know, Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, formerly a professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts and later Transfiguration at same, known for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, &c.
I know which Dumbledore you are referring to.
Okay, it's just that recent films have indicated that maybe there are more Dumbledores than was previously believed.
Thanks for reminding me that JK Rowling's most recent writing credit is for that execrable movie.
Speaking of, it turns out that JK Rowling recently confirmed that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were lovers.
I mean, didn't she already basically confirm that when she revealed that Dumbledore was gay?
Well, not exactly, she said that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. Not that the relationship was reciprocal. But now she's confirmed that their relationship had "a sexual dimension."
Hence this discussion?
Hence this discussion.
But we're using Dumbledore's sex life as a springboard to discuss something else, right?
Wha'd'ya mean?
I mean that, knowing you, this is probably a "Death of the Author" thing.
Well, we could have that discussion. So, ever since the books came out, Rowling has consistently been willing to engage with fan discussions on such topics as "What happened to (a specific character) after the books ended?", "Sorry I killed (a specific character), guys!", and most vitally "Did you know wizards used to shit themselves then magic away the evidence? Because they totally did!"
And this has what to do with "Death of the Author?"
Well, it's been awhile since I read that essay, but if I recall, Barthes argues that reducing a text to the author's intentions and biases, we limit the potential for interpretation and turn criticism into a game of finding the "correct" interpretation of a text (I'm sure I've gotten something about this wrong). The only thing we can rely on when interpreting a text is the text itself. This isn't to say that the author's interpretation of their own work should be discounted, just that it shouldn't be considered the only "correct" interpretation.
And what does that have to do with Dumbledore's sex life?
Dumbledore's sex life is entirely extra-textual. It exists entirely outside the boundaries of the Harry Potter books and, notably, the new Fantastic Beasts film series. At least, it exists more in implication than in execution. While Crimes of Grindelwald does hint at the possibility of a romantic relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore, the closest it comes to saying it outright (if memory serves) is Dumbledore saying that they were "closer than brothers." The closest the books come to saying that Dumbledore is gay is a somewhat stereotypical portrayal of him as a flamboyantly dressed, unmarried academic of a certain age.
Are you saying that Rowling is lying to look more, as the young people say, "woke?"
So, I'll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt and say that she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay and that in the 90s she just didn't think that a children's book publisher would be okay with that being explicitly mentioned (you know, like Dumbledore referring to having had a boyfriend at some point). Then 2007 rolls around and she's publishing the last book and people are more accepting and she doesn't see why she can't tell everyone that Dumbledore is gay.
All right.
I'm just not convinced that she knows what that means.
Being gay?
Well, no, I'm relatively certain that she has at least a surface level understanding of the concept. It's just that I'm not entirely convinced JK Rowling knows the answer to either of these questions: 1) Was Dumbledore openly gay? and B) Did/do LGBTQ+ wizards and witches face the same kinds of discrimination and persecution as their muggle counterparts?
Well, the books have a sort of no-big-deal approach to diversity in the Wizarding World, like they've managed to avoid the muggle world's preoccupation with skin color, religion, ethnicity, &c. Wizards are cool with interracial dating (Fred takes Angelina to the Wizard Ball, Harry and Ron take the Patil sisters, Harry dates Cho Chang), the most prominent aurors in the books are black and Irish (Kingsley Shacklebot and Alastor Moody), and nobody comments on any of it.
Exactly, but there's nobody in the books who is openly gay, except (maybe) Dumbledore and only according to JK Rowling's extra-textual assertions. I mean, and the Half-Blood Prince is mostly about who's making out with whom and (if memory serves) nobody is making out with anyone of the same gender, so maybe in this regard, wizards weren't more open and accepting than muggles. After all, there are wizards who believe that muggle-born wizards are inferior, not to mention the casual bigotry towards elves, goblins, and centaurs.
But the whole point of Hogwarts (you know, as a metaphor) is that it's a place that welcomes everyone and that's why Harry feels at home there. Why would JK Rowling write a story that's at least partly about inclusion and acceptance and still make the good guys exclusionary and intolerant?
I'm not saying that she would have done it on purpose. I just think maybe she didn't think through the implications of not having any visible gay characters in her stories. You know, 'cause it was the 90s.
So, you're saying she sucks at world-building?
Kinda . . . and I kinda hate to say that because I enjoyed the Harry Potter books so much. But, looking back, I just don't think the Wizarding World holds up as a real place that makes sense. Everything about Hogwarts is based on rule of cool or rule of funny, and it just doesn't feel real the way that, say, Middle-Earth or Earthsea do.
Well, be that as it may, we haven't really scratched the surface of the question of representation.
No, although, I would say that if you want a more in depth discussion about queer representation (or the lack thereof) in Harry Potter, Nancy (a podcast from WNYC Studios) covered that in the episode "There Are No Gay Wizards." And definitely did a better job than some random straight cis-dude with a silly book blog could do.
Their conclusion?
It's complicated. Some of the people they talk to were happy to hear that a famous author revealed that a beloved character was gay. Some people were frustrated that she still hasn't actually put any evidence of it in the books. Not everyone has to agree on whether a piece of fiction adequately represents an entire group of people. Anyway, listen to the podcast, or if you don't like to listen to things, they have a transcript.
Okay. But you do realize that you're ending your blog post by telling people that someone else did a better job covering the material covered in this very blog post.
‾\_(ツ)_/‾
You know, Professor Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, Headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, formerly a professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts and later Transfiguration at same, known for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards, &c.
I know which Dumbledore you are referring to.
Okay, it's just that recent films have indicated that maybe there are more Dumbledores than was previously believed.
Thanks for reminding me that JK Rowling's most recent writing credit is for that execrable movie.
Speaking of, it turns out that JK Rowling recently confirmed that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were lovers.
I mean, didn't she already basically confirm that when she revealed that Dumbledore was gay?
Well, not exactly, she said that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. Not that the relationship was reciprocal. But now she's confirmed that their relationship had "a sexual dimension."
Hence this discussion?
Hence this discussion.
But we're using Dumbledore's sex life as a springboard to discuss something else, right?
Wha'd'ya mean?
I mean that, knowing you, this is probably a "Death of the Author" thing.
Well, we could have that discussion. So, ever since the books came out, Rowling has consistently been willing to engage with fan discussions on such topics as "What happened to (a specific character) after the books ended?", "Sorry I killed (a specific character), guys!", and most vitally "Did you know wizards used to shit themselves then magic away the evidence? Because they totally did!"
And this has what to do with "Death of the Author?"
Well, it's been awhile since I read that essay, but if I recall, Barthes argues that reducing a text to the author's intentions and biases, we limit the potential for interpretation and turn criticism into a game of finding the "correct" interpretation of a text (I'm sure I've gotten something about this wrong). The only thing we can rely on when interpreting a text is the text itself. This isn't to say that the author's interpretation of their own work should be discounted, just that it shouldn't be considered the only "correct" interpretation.
And what does that have to do with Dumbledore's sex life?
Dumbledore's sex life is entirely extra-textual. It exists entirely outside the boundaries of the Harry Potter books and, notably, the new Fantastic Beasts film series. At least, it exists more in implication than in execution. While Crimes of Grindelwald does hint at the possibility of a romantic relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore, the closest it comes to saying it outright (if memory serves) is Dumbledore saying that they were "closer than brothers." The closest the books come to saying that Dumbledore is gay is a somewhat stereotypical portrayal of him as a flamboyantly dressed, unmarried academic of a certain age.
Are you saying that Rowling is lying to look more, as the young people say, "woke?"
So, I'll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt and say that she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay and that in the 90s she just didn't think that a children's book publisher would be okay with that being explicitly mentioned (you know, like Dumbledore referring to having had a boyfriend at some point). Then 2007 rolls around and she's publishing the last book and people are more accepting and she doesn't see why she can't tell everyone that Dumbledore is gay.
All right.
I'm just not convinced that she knows what that means.
Being gay?
Well, no, I'm relatively certain that she has at least a surface level understanding of the concept. It's just that I'm not entirely convinced JK Rowling knows the answer to either of these questions: 1) Was Dumbledore openly gay? and B) Did/do LGBTQ+ wizards and witches face the same kinds of discrimination and persecution as their muggle counterparts?
Well, the books have a sort of no-big-deal approach to diversity in the Wizarding World, like they've managed to avoid the muggle world's preoccupation with skin color, religion, ethnicity, &c. Wizards are cool with interracial dating (Fred takes Angelina to the Wizard Ball, Harry and Ron take the Patil sisters, Harry dates Cho Chang), the most prominent aurors in the books are black and Irish (Kingsley Shacklebot and Alastor Moody), and nobody comments on any of it.
Exactly, but there's nobody in the books who is openly gay, except (maybe) Dumbledore and only according to JK Rowling's extra-textual assertions. I mean, and the Half-Blood Prince is mostly about who's making out with whom and (if memory serves) nobody is making out with anyone of the same gender, so maybe in this regard, wizards weren't more open and accepting than muggles. After all, there are wizards who believe that muggle-born wizards are inferior, not to mention the casual bigotry towards elves, goblins, and centaurs.
But the whole point of Hogwarts (you know, as a metaphor) is that it's a place that welcomes everyone and that's why Harry feels at home there. Why would JK Rowling write a story that's at least partly about inclusion and acceptance and still make the good guys exclusionary and intolerant?
I'm not saying that she would have done it on purpose. I just think maybe she didn't think through the implications of not having any visible gay characters in her stories. You know, 'cause it was the 90s.
So, you're saying she sucks at world-building?
Kinda . . . and I kinda hate to say that because I enjoyed the Harry Potter books so much. But, looking back, I just don't think the Wizarding World holds up as a real place that makes sense. Everything about Hogwarts is based on rule of cool or rule of funny, and it just doesn't feel real the way that, say, Middle-Earth or Earthsea do.
Well, be that as it may, we haven't really scratched the surface of the question of representation.
No, although, I would say that if you want a more in depth discussion about queer representation (or the lack thereof) in Harry Potter, Nancy (a podcast from WNYC Studios) covered that in the episode "There Are No Gay Wizards." And definitely did a better job than some random straight cis-dude with a silly book blog could do.
Their conclusion?
It's complicated. Some of the people they talk to were happy to hear that a famous author revealed that a beloved character was gay. Some people were frustrated that she still hasn't actually put any evidence of it in the books. Not everyone has to agree on whether a piece of fiction adequately represents an entire group of people. Anyway, listen to the podcast, or if you don't like to listen to things, they have a transcript.
Okay. But you do realize that you're ending your blog post by telling people that someone else did a better job covering the material covered in this very blog post.
‾\_(ツ)_/‾
Comments
Post a Comment