About Me
- Connor Hamilton
- Hillsdale, Michigan, United States
- I am a junior History major at Hillsdale College in southern Michigan. I would like to write, or teach (or, if God wills it, both), in a way that honors God and benefits men. My interests include writing, reading, foreign affairs and politics, friendly discourse, and outdoor activities like hiking and cycling. I am interested in many historical eras, but I have focused on Europe (particularly Germany and Russia) in the 19th and 20th centuries, as well as the history of the Middle East, and Islam as a whole.
Abort 73
All original content copyright by Connor Hamilton.
13 comments:
Sigh. I was afraid Rowling was going to get a little too self-important.
This is disappointing... I don't expect her to be some great role-model or something or create 'perfect' or unrealistic books, but dangnabbit... Dumbledore?! I think she's getting a bit carried away... the way she talks about the characters like she doesn't have control over them is weird.
Yes, totally ew...
Ew? Why ew? If that's your only reaction to homosexuality, it's really only unproductive prejudice. I don't mean to attack you, but I hardly think disgust is the right approach. Sure, homosexuality seems repulsive. Yes, it seems disgusting. But to be perfectly frank, I think it's only because I'm not gay that I find the thought of it any more disgusting than straight sex.
I'm certainly not a gay advocate, but I do think some respect is due to the subject, as well as the people, even when commenting on a somewhat indirect reference like Rowling's claiming Dumbledore is gay. First of all, to express your opinion as emotional degrades the subject to a purely emotional level. Second, it's downright derogatory to gays. Why do you react to homosexuality with Ew, when you would (I believe) react to obesity, addiction, and mental disability quite differently?
If anyone is ever going to make an effective move against homosexuality, it will have to be made with compassion, respect, and intelligence.
Han--I don't know if it's self-importance so much as a desire to be P.C. She is in the Anglican Church, which is fairly well-known for tending toward the liberal side.
But, yes, I'm rather annoyed that she tried to pull this stunt on Dumbledore. I have heard one person (John Mark Reynolds, founder of the Torrey Honors Institute) say that it doesn't really matter what Rowling says because there is no evidence in the book itself of anything one way or another about Dumbledore's sexuality. The book says nothing more about it than it says whether or not Flitwick ever had an affair.
Nick--thanks for your comment. I think you're jumping to conclusions claiming that this is my "only" reaction to homosexuality; this is, after all, one post on one particular subject. I would also submit that you find homexuality disgusting not simply because you don't have any kind of homoerotic desires, but because it is inherently wrong and contrary to the nature of things (cf. Romans 1).
I think you're reading a lot into a simple "ew" here! I do find it disgusting on an emotional level that Rowling has tried to impose such a politically-correct and saccharine additive to an otherwise decent character.
Do I correctly understand you to be comparing homosexuality to something like obesity? Obesity merely implies too much food. A vice, yes, and a lack of self-control, but not on a par with sodomy. It takes something far more extreme--a man must be much farther gone into sin--to enter into a physical relationship with another man than to simply eat too much.
You are, again, automatically assuming that I have no compassion for homosexuals on the basis of a single word. I wrote this post for the friends who read my blog, not as a reasoned argument against homosexuality itself. I was not addressing the actual issue of homosexuality, but the fact that Rowling tried to pretend after publication that one of her characters had homosexual tendencies.
Before we continue -- and I think we should -- I want to apologize. I've read my post several times, and now I can't shake the feeling of disgust. Though I don't know you at all, though I've always found your posts interesting, and your conclusions insightful (though I usually find myself disagreeing). I have no reason to believe that you're anything but a sincere and upright person, as in fact I do. Please forgive the affect, and I'll post again soon with something more thoughtful.
Oh, apology accepted, Nick! Don't worry about it. I'd be happy to continue this discussion. School is pretty busy nowadays, but I'll try to answer within a reasonable amount of time. :-)
Connor, you seem to be talking as if Dumbledore were involved in a relationship, which I don't think Rowling said, or even implied. Correct me if I'm wrong. And, also, in something of a defense of Rowling... her actual quote was, "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." The quote, "Dumbledore is gay" was, according to my source, a scribble on the screenplay for an HP movie as a forceful comment to the director.
Anyway. I think we can give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she had, as she claims, always thought of Dumbledore as gay. And if Dumbledore were merely gay, and not in a relationship with a man, why would that be a move worthy of disgust? Even if I'm wrong, and Rowling did imply that Dumbledore was in a relationship, would that be so disgusting a move? There have, after all, been otherwise noble people who have done the same. W.H. Auden, for instance. Couldn't we just consider Dumbledore as a flawed hero?
Since I don't read the books or watch the movies, I have a question: Are they saying the character is homesexual or the actor? Either way is gross, but just curious...
-B
B--J.K. Rowling said that she always thought of Dumbledore the character as homosexual. I don't know anything about the actor, as far as that aspect goes.
Nick, I've started typing up a reply to your comment, and will try to finish it soon. :-)
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why are all the newscasters, fans, ect. in such an uproar about this? I am strongly against Homesexuality, but I just don't understand why there is so much argument about a fictional character. Please forgive me for my lack of knowledge on matters such as this.
--Briana--
Connor, you seem to be talking as if Dumbledore were involved in a relationship, which I don't think Rowling said, or even implied. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No, I don't think Rowling specifically said that Dumbledore was involved in any sort of relationship, as I recall. Just that she thought of him as a homosexual—which I would interpret as meaning, in the recent phrase, that he had a homosexual orientation.
Anyway. I think we can give Rowling the benefit of the doubt, and assume that she had, as she claims, always thought of Dumbledore as gay. And if Dumbledore were merely gay, and not in a relationship with a man, why would that be a move worthy of disgust? Even if I'm wrong, and Rowling did imply that Dumbledore was in a relationship, would that be so disgusting a move? There have, after all, been otherwise noble people who have done the same. W.H. Auden, for instance. Couldn't we just consider Dumbledore as a flawed hero?
Ok, I think we're talking about two different things here, which is the price one must pay for writing a one-word post. :-) For one, I don't know if we can so easily assume that Rowling always considered Dumbledore homosexual. She had seven long chances to hint at it, and never did. I've written novels before where I can come up with things about the characters after they're written, when asked, but I'd never planned them at the start.
Yes, we could just consider Dumbledore a flawed hero, although I would consider Rowling’s presentation of a homosexual character in a children’s book as perfectly normal to be potentially harmful. If I had, however, discovered from the beginning that Dumbledore was supposed to be a homosexual, I would have either read the rest of the series while keeping that in mind or else, more likely, not read further.
The main thing to which I object in this little fracas is not so much the mere fact that Dumbledore is a homosexual character, but that Rowling abruptly, perhaps conveniently, brought this politically-correct revelation out of a bag this late in the game. It sounds like a deliberate political ploy to me—a way to be considered ‘cool’ and ‘edgy.’ Also, the sudden associations of a character, for whom there is absolutely no evidence of anything but celibacy or at least a heterosexual lifestyle, with homosexuality, are rather unsettling to me. Does that make sense?
Briana: I suspect it's because Dumbledore is one of the most beloved characters in a series read by millions of people, especially teenagers and even younger children. Christians, and presumably non-Christians who support what they call "traditional values," are upset for various reasons--for those I stated in my reply to Nick and likely for others. Probably those who have argued all along that the series is inherently harmful consider this another reason to use.
Okay. I think I did misunderstand you. So, basically, you have a suspicion that Rowling is being underhanded about this; I disagree, but I can hardly cite any proof either way.
Underhanded, and deliberately "PC," or "with the times," yes.
Post a Comment