What Really Dragged Dumbledore Out of the Closet?

If you've seen the news recently, you know the truth: legendary wizard and Hogwarts Headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, is gay.

Yes, the war in Iraq is still going on. The entire Middle East continues to be on the verge of even more chaos. A couple days ago a child was shot in Chicago. He was ten years old and had gone to the store for candy. His friend heard the shots, then watched him hit the ground just as blood started running out of a hole in his neck. The gunmen got away and the police were left with no answers about why anyone would open fire on an innocent child.

Important as these things might sound, they clearly pale in comparison next to today's most important story:

Read all about it! J.K. Rowling reveals Dumbledore is gay!

I am a devoted fan of the Harry Potter series. The books are exceptional (the movies are pretty good, too), and J.K. Rowling is a great storyteller. Which is why this is so absurd.

J.K. knows how to tell a story; she knows how to captivate her readers. But her masterpiece was already complete, right down to the last period on the last page of her epilogue. So why thrust Dumbledore out of the closet now?

I have a theory...

As strange as I think it is that J.K. decided to "out" Dumbledore at this moment, I'll begin by saying that I'm glad she didn't try to work it into her series sooner. Doing so would have been a distraction from the story. (Anyone who says otherwise must be oblivious to the current response this simple statement has received. If it were announced in, oh let's say, book 3 that Dumbledore were gay, suddenly it would have been the main focus in that particular book.) It may not be fair or right that somebody's sexual preference provides such a distraction, but the truth is, it does. J.K. Rowling would know this. And that might be why she didn't include it earlier. But I don't think that's the real reason...

Upon her completion of book 7, Rowling supposedly encountered criticism for the "heteronormativity" of her bestselling series (or so Alan Jacobs claimed in his review for the September/October issue of Books and Culture). When critics were unhappy that no gay couples were even briefly alluded to anywhere in the HP series, you'd think J.K. would either:

1) Immediately silence those critics by acknowledging that one of her most prominent characters is a homosexual

or

2) Never mention it and let the reader assume whatever he/she chooses

Why stay silent until this moment?

Like I said, I have a theory. But first I want to say that Rowling's outing of Dumbledore changes nothing for me. Sure, it might make some readers wonder about the kids who eagerly joined "Dumbledore's Army," perhaps attracting some pied piper allusions. And it will certainly evoke some ill-humor regarding Dumbledore's role as "Headmaster." Not to mention the inferences some might make regarding Dumbledore's brother and his infatuation with goats. But as distracting as these sentiments might be, the story itself is hardly altered.

But do I think Rowling has altered her role as the storyteller? Definitely. And for the worse.

If Dumbledore were a real person, I would not have a problem respecting him for his many admirable characteristics. Even though I am not a supporter of gay rights, I don't think we should paste a large "Homosexual!" label on someone as soon as they step out of the closet. Individuals are complex and ever-changing, and affixing labels (of any kind) will only hinder interaction with others.

But the rules are different for fictional characters. Labels work. Characters can't change drastically on a whim or the reader won't accept them. We expect our fictional characters to be true to the mold in which they were cast.

But Dumbledore's character was changed after the story was completed. And for this reason (not because he is a homosexual), I cringed when I heard this news. Dumbledore, fictional character that he is, is not a real man struggling with same-sex attraction. Nor is his homosexuality part of a writer revealing her story.

No, this is an epic story being hijacked by an agenda. Or an author pandering to one.

Because I have acquired so much respect for J.K. Rowling, I almost feel bad accusing her of this. But I must.

After completing her magnum opus, book sales (record-breaking as they were) were bound to decline. Fans' intense interest in Harry Potter, though it would renew a little bit with the release of the next two movies, was bound to dissipate. Unless...

Unless Rowling could say something to spark a new and profound interest...something that would make people want to read her novels again... something that would send readers searching for hidden meaning, shadowed themes, undertones... something that would keep Harry Potter in the forefront a little longer... and something that will sell a few more books (I'm sure her publisher wouldn't discourage this).

But what could she say that would elicit such a response?

Well, she could reveal that one of her characters is gay.

Perhaps J.K. planned this all along. Who knows? Initially I said that this last-ditch admission changed nothing for me. But maybe it does change things a bit. I loved it when Rowling surprised me while I was reading her books. But that was supposed to end with her epilogue, not with her rewriting her work from a podium in Carnegie Hall.

The epilogue was supposed to provide closure for her readers. But how much closure can readers feel when the author continues to reveal things about her characters that were never included in the books?

What next?

Is Hagrid Harry's real father?

What about Hermione? Where did her powers really come from?

Maybe Dobby was phony.

Was Snape secretly married? Did he endure a messy divorce?

Maybe Neville is in love with Hermione.

Maybe Lily and James Potter were potheads.

One thing I do know: If any of these were true, it wouldn't have merited a leading story on CNN. Maybe months ago when the Harry-hype was still in full swing, but not now.

But proclaim that one prominent character is gay and America will take notice.

I think Rowling knew that. And I think that's why she did it.

And I also think it's sad that we are so interested. With all the news stories of significantly greater importance, America is captivated by an old fictional wizard slinking out of the closet.

But then again, what news story am I writing about? What news story am I focusing on for this post?

When it comes to misplaced priorities, I'm just as guilty as the next American.

But shame on you, J.K. Rowling, for taking advantage of that. And even more so, for besmirching the beauty of your story in exchange for a little extra press coverage.

And some additional book sales. As if you need it.

As a fellow writer and a fan, I was proud that you planned to refrain from writing a Harry Potter follow-up set years after the end of book 7. I was glad that you knew when to close the book. When to let the story speak for itself. When to let the characters speak for themselves.

...and then you stepped to the microphone at Carnegie Hall and changed all of that.

I hope it was worth it.

--Thanks for Reading