Should Harry Potter author, JK Rowling, have announced that the character Albus Dumbledore was gay?

No

1 of 23

by Mick Marten

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

I have to admit that Harry Potter books are really not my sort of reading; however, I have followed their progress, since they represent the most exciting and positive development in children's literature in decades, getting kids interested in reading, which is wonderful.

With the power that Rowling has shown to get children interested in reading, even children that had little interest before, I was very disappointed with her decision to assign Dumbledore any sexuality at all.

Let me explain why.

First, and foremost, this is a children's book. Children (and I DO mean CHILDREN, here) are heavily invested in these characters, and the story. What exactly is J.K. Rowling trying to accomplish by dredging sexuality of any kind out of the seemingly child-friendly series of the decade? Well, that's simple. The Harry Potter books have attracted a huge amount of attention; given this attention, someone obviously feels that it should be used for something more than getting kids to read Harry Potter books. Whether this someone is Ms. Rowling or not, I haven't a clue, but since these decisions obviously must filter through her, she owns the outcome, nonetheless, good or bad. If she has done this on the advice of another, perhaps she will listen to some more advice; Please, don't use these books as a springboard to something completely unrelated. It would make as much sense to say that Dumbledore was an NRA member, or that he advocated for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq; it has nothing to do with the story, and adds no value to it. That being said, all it can do is diminish it, and Ms. Rowling.

If Ms. Rowling chooses to be an advocate for any cause, and I mean ANY cause, that is fine with me, but she should leave her defenseless characters out of the mix, as well as the innocent and un-indoctrinated children who are enjoying those characters so much. Isn't it enough that those characters, and these stories, have gotten so many children to read? Isn't this the sort of victory these characters were intended to bring?

We have seen this time and again; the people with money and influence attempting to steer public sentiment, and whether it is in politics, or in social matters, anytime that strategy is used, it is wrong. Public sentiment should be turned only in the appropriate media, and venue, and at the appropriate time. Sneaky tactics are the methods of propagandists, and shock-artists. I'm not saying that Ms. Rowling is one of these; I don't believe that she is or isn't, because I don't know. What I do know is that when someone, like an new, hugely successful author, gets public attention, like Ms. Rowling did, the propagandists come out in droves, and try to persuade, coerce, pressure, or trick them into furthering their cause, even though that is often not in the person's best interest. These people are attracted to the spotlight, not by the value of what is being spotlighted; they will shove the books out of the spotlight, and shove their pet cause into it, with regard only for their cause.

The theory is very simple: if you convince the public that something is popular public sentiment, they begin to believe it is so, and are pressured by the fact that they feel differently, even though, oftentimes the opinion they already hold is the truly popular one, and they have merely been convinced to believe otherwise. Peer pressure is incredibly effective, even if it is only perceived, and not real at all. This is the root of all marketing, and all propaganda, and I believe that Ms. Rowling, like Ellen Degenerous, and many others, has fallen victim to this, and to those who approach people like her, with a momentary wealth of attention, and trick, pressure, persuade, or coerce them into using for something other than that which brought it in the first place.

Whether an individual waves a banner for a cause because they believe in it, or because they have been duped into doing so, matters little. In the end, if that cause has nothing to do with their life's work, as in Ms. Rowlings case, not only does it cheapen their art into something little more than utilitarian, it makes it appear that they, as well, are for sale; and that's not a very attractive way to be seen.

What I mean is this: sexuality has no more to do with Harry Potter than it had to do with Ellen Degenerous' sitcom years ago. While I don't think that the Harry Potter books will dry up and blow away like the Ellen show did (after she attempted to bring sexuality into a show that had nothing to do with sexuality), I do believe that this announcement comes from the same motivations, and whether those are pandering to a powerful pro-gay sentiment in their particular media, or working under the belief that these completely gratuitous and inappropriate disclosures will help them financially, the effect is the same; the artist has stopped practicing their art, and become a prostitute, using the attention they have at hand to sell whatever they believe they stand to gain most from selling. Even worse, in this case, Ms. Rowling has instead pimped out poor Dumbledore, and offered this impertinent sexual twist in her character's background to, of all of the possible audiences, children.

As I said before, it is disappointing and sad, and it is absolutely wrong. Helping a child to understand the complicated terrain of sexuality is, in my opinion, the sovereign domain of their parents; not for Ms. Rowling, or anyone else to interfere and dabble in. To do so is a blatant attempt at social engineering and indoctrination, and I for one (and I'm sure I'm not alone) resent it.

Ask yourself this: why mention Dumbledore's sexuality at all, since it has nothing to do with this incredibly successful series of books? There are only two ways to answer that. One, possibly because you are under pressure from pro-gay forces to help in the attempt to mainstream a life-style that is not nearly as main-stream in many places as they believe that it should be (this is done with the understanding that if you displease these groups, you will be smeared as a 'bigot', or a 'homophobe'), or, two, the individual has chosen, free from pressure, to take the our attention that they have gotten through legitimate means, and abuse it to further some social or political cause. Either way, and I'm sure most gay people (judging by those whom I have known, and my knowledge of their character) would agree, a children's book is no place for this at all.

I give my attention to movies, books, and music for the art and entertainment value of them, and not to be 'educated', or to receive a sales pitch, and certainly not for this to happen to my kids. For an artist to abuse the attention that they enjoy in such a manner is tawdry and infuriating, regardless of their reasons, and I'm certain, again, that I am not alone on this, judging by the public reactions when stars of one stripe or another have done this in the past (think: Cruise, Beatty, Barkely, etc., etc.).

And the attempt here in America, to forward certain ways of thinking through reaching past adults and appealing directly to the children is a particularly common and disturbing thing. While it is certainly nothing new (the most recent example that comes to mind is the 'just say no' campaign against drugs), and the practice has historically proved very successful. I feel, however, when children are targeted, it is wrong.

The media's foisting of homosexuality onto the American public is propaganda, and, because of that, we should all resent it; not homsexuality, but the attempt to artificially mainstream it. We should resent this because of the implication that we are simple, and can be so easily directed, and because of the implication that those perpetrating this consider themselves so much smarter than the rest of us that it is their duty to herd us to where they think we should graze.

If no one else resents all of this, I still do.

I hold no malice regarding anyone's sexuality; I do hold malice for propaganda, and those who attempt, for lack of the ability to inform and persuade me, to trick me into thinking the way they want me to by making me feel like I am all alone in the opinions I may hold, or even that I will be resented and shunned for holding them. And I resent even more those who, for lack of success with me, attempt to indoctrinate my children. I couldn't care less what their intentions are.

If the news that someone is homosexual, whether it is a popular celebrity, or someone I know more personally, reaches my children, then I will deal with it as a parent should; because the circumstances and realities of life direct my parenting at times, and that is how things are. I don't resent reality at all; I simply operate within it. Things don't happen in the real world with a mind to generate a specific impact; they just happen. If someone is gay, it is because they are gay, and not because being gay makes them money, or makes them popular; this is strategy, and propaganda. Reality is always just what it is.

But I truly resent these discussions being foisted upon my children and I, and my ability to pick my timing, and carefully plan my efforts at parenting to be undermined by activists seeking the indoctrination of my children to further personal causes.

If Dumbledore is gay, I think that would be no concern of anyone with whom he doesn't intend to be intimate, and, unless it has something to do with the plot of the books (in which case, this 'children's series' would, indeed, be a very different genre), it simply doesn't matter, and should never have been brought up, or discussed. Fictional characters in stories where sex doesn't feature are, for all purposes, asexual. Assigning them sexuality is to use them for something other than the art that gave them birth.

In effect, whether by Ms. Rowling's free will, or because of perceived pressures, Dumbledore has been pimped, and shame on Ms. Rowling, regardless of her reasons, for allowing it to happen.

As for me, I will choose when, where, and how I address intimate and sensitive subjects, like sexuality, with my children; it is my right as their parent to do so, and I will allow no outside interference, whether by Ms. Rowling or anyone else.

And as for the books; as I've said, I'm very disappointed. When such a wonderful and exciting story about children doing right for no reason other than that it is right is turned into vehicle for propaganda, I feel much as I did as a child when my ice cream fell off of the cone, and I stood looking at it, lying there in the mud, soiled and unpalatable; something delightful has just been ruined; not by sexuality of any kind, but by propaganda, using shock value for attention, and guerrilla activism tactics.

I just wish I had a Valdemort to blame for such shameful behavior. It would make it much easier to explain to the kids.

Learn more about this author, Mick Marten.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.