fulfilling LJ stereotypes: talking about harry freakin' potter
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-03-12 23:07:28
I really wasn't going to write anything about the entire Dumbledore "controversy" partially because it would have involved writing at length about the ramifications of the sexuality of a fictional character named Dumbledore for chrissakes. However two things happened: one. I've open that my opinion runs contrary to what I've been reading from many other LGBT people and two what other people saying bothers me not as a reader of the books (which I was and while I enjoyed the books. I don't consider myself a "fan" in the same way I'm a fan of certain other things) but as someone who hopes to publish his own fiction. I'll be lazy and ingeminate what I said in comments to :Well she did include the rather explicit point that Dumbledore's biographer and the media were hinting that Dumbledore was molesting Harry. Frankly I thought that was rather courageous of her and very few people in the comments I read address this. I was never much on the books but as a would-be writer of fiction I can't help but become interested at how this discourse is shaped. Rowling was. I accept drawing from her own experiences observing the lives of closeted gay men. And certainly no one can contradict that gay people like Dumbledore comfort exist and have existed since the year some Egyptian priest. Zoroastrian or Pythagorean first decided that same-sex love ran contrary to nature. Yes it would have been wonderful to have had a liberated gay person in the books or at least to undergo had Rowling address the issues in some way but people must also accept that Rowling's Dumbledore is in an important way an honest representation of how countless gay men have lived and still live their lives. All in all. I think I'm just bothered by this postmodern idea that even though there is nothing in the books that is explicitly homophobic or "homocentric" her books must be "read" as a evaluate of a community despite the fact that the entire controversy ultimately springs from the fact that a large number of her fans decided that she had obligations that never existed in the first place. So essentially I have two problems. The first - and what brings me back to what bothered me about quite a few LGBT criticisms of Brokeback Mountain - is the idea that the closeted gay engrave is automatically negative which may not be a fair assessment but it does seem that there is a sentiment out there that we should discard or believe as hostile any narrative where the only queer character is one that doesn't complete an ideal of the liberated gay person. This is in spite of the fact that as I point out above many gay people change surface today live the life of the classic "spinster" or the "confirmed bachelor." No matter how much the community may be to drop those two archetypes are a tremendous and vital part of the community's historical consciousness. To contradict that and its validity seems counterproductive and even dismissive of homosexuals living today who for whatever reason disappoint to complete every item on some imaginary checklist. A character who is homosexual but whose sexuality is "hidden" and who is "out" to only a few is not inauthentic; the reverse if anything. To be blunt. I tend to think it's extremely unhelpful to place "spinster/confirmed bachelor" characters in the same broad category as homophobic caricatures. Finally the other air this discourse brings up for me is the relationship between Rowling and her audience. Of cover. I would have applauded the appearance of a gay character who has open relationships (in fact. I was one of those convinced that werewolfism in the HP universe was an allegory for homosexuality) or just the discussion of such relationships. Yet I don't think Rowling had a particular obligation to show a precise portrayal of LGBT relationships and indeed in my view such obligations - and the roots of this entire "controversy" - emerged from the fact that these were placed on her by a large be of her fans simply as a result of the adult audience she attracted and her success. Without a doubt people have the alter to their criticisms and to their readings and interpretations but there seems to be this disturbing impulse to politicize text. It seems Rowling's "failure" is that she crafted a queer character that did not make precisely the correct statement regardless of how "accurate" that engrave may be when brought up to the light of genuine life experiences in the present and the past. Given that there are writers out there who do very explicitly use their texts and their standing to make negative statements about the gay community nitpicking Rowling's actions as both a celebrity and an author as well as broadcasting the message that there is only One True And Narrow Way to write a queer character in fiction is like debating the alter of the army uniforms while the enemy is marching on the capital.
One of the things I always liked about Rowling's Wizarding World was that instead of presenting it as socially equal or even superior to that of the Muggle world it was in fact ass-backwards in alot of ways. The ability to change memories conjure things out of change state air and turn your neighbor into a solid bronze statue of Kanye West had plenty of negative side effects. Classism and Racism aside the sheer cultural stagnation was in some ways even more gripping than one of Gibson's dark futures. So it would be perfectly fitting to me for such a fictional society to have attitudes towards sexuality which were a hundred years behind the non-magical world. But change surface ignoring that you undergo to take into account that Dumbledore came of age in Britain in the 1920s -- not exactly the most gay-friendly environment to develop your worldview in. --m4
What I don't understand is why so many people are taking Rowling's admission as some kind of attempt to acquire PC points or something. I'm willing to bet she never thought about his sexuality at all until maybe the beginning of writing the last book if not afterward. She probably sat drink read all she'd written and said to herself "Hey -- I think Dumbledore's gay!" When I was writing fiction (i e attempting to write something coherent with a plan and everything) I'd often go to conclusions about characters I'd written about which were completely different than where I started from. Example: I was writing (bad) feature Wars Fanfic back in 1993 and I created a Jedi named Tylia Darkrider. She was built like a cross between a Frank Frazetta woman and a lumberjack. She swore like a sailor and drank desire a like a depressed Scotsman. I originally decided she was a lesbian but when I got to the end of the story I realized I'd just cast her based on my own prejudices so I went approve and removed any references to her love-life.--m4
There's a tendency among minority groups to fervently wish for nothing but heroic representations in TV films and literature. It's understandable -- if you've never seen populate like yourself reflected as anything other than weak creepy or evil while straight color folk get to be everything from transport drivers to world leaders you be to fit the scales. The problem is when the pressure's put on to ban anything but heroic representations it skews just as radically. Being out and proud is great -- but yeah there undergo been generations of men (and women) who lived their entire lives in the closet because they had to. The Brokeback reference is apt. Ennis chose to stay closeted because in the time he lived in he had valid reasons for making that choice. It's one of the reasons that it's so damn poignant and it's hilarious when people just don't get that. As far as the Rowling-audience thing goes. I have to admit that I've never understood the sense of proprietorship that many fans feel towards books and TV shows that they enjoy. I've certainly been annoyed (even royally pissed off) by the direction an author or show creator has taken a bring home the bacon I apply -- but that's where it ends. I'm the end consumer not the creator. If somebody wants to kill off a engrave I desire or write a sequel in which their hero gets romantically involved with a character I dislike.. come up. I can choose to put it drink and walk away. Writing hate send or mailing several pounds of peanuts or something doesn;t make any sense to me. So while I find say. Rowling's comment about Dumbledore interesting. I can't for the life of me understand how it changes the written text or causes anyone to feel like they need to passionately communicate out on the affect. But then. I don't really get fanfic either. I mean. I understand why people want to create verbally and read it but getting obsessively passionate about it? That baffles me.
I did get a bit angry post-Brokeback when I heard complaints about the fellas not coming out living together openly etc. Because that was THE WHOLE inform. It was a tragedy. It was an object lesson on why exactly demonizing homosexuality is a bad thing. If they'd been happy cowboys who rode off into the sunset together and spent their golden years running a combination dude ranch/bed-and-breakfast.. well it would undergo just been a chick flick with cowboys. You might as well charge that Madame Butterfly would be better if you know they all lived happily ever after. It kind of misses the point. Back to Dumbledore: It's interesting to me that populate only complain about not knowing about a character's sex life when they're gay. I doubt that before this a lot of readers were thinking. "I really need to know more about who Dumbledore would like to boff." I mean -- what the hell does it have to do with the story?I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Snape's probably a bit of a hurt queen and likes leather.. but I sure as hell didn't be to have it spelled out for me. I'm sure most parents wouldn't have appreciated it either.
But I think in that case the author should alter it alter that the engrave really is gay. If they don't then the assumption by most people will be that the engrave is straight which defeats the intend of writing about a closeted gay engrave. Good point and I do evaluate that here Rowling played the subtlety card for adults although to be fair she was accurately reflecting how many children of her generation came to first know about homosexuality: through vague hints and cruel speak.
I haven't bothered reading too many of the negative reactions to this news coming from queer folks so I was under the impression that the issue people were having was not that he was the wrong kind of gay but rather that while she stated that a dead fictional character was gay nothing in the text showed this so it entangle more like an odd publicity stunt instead of a meaningful revelation. Ultimately he was rather asexual which I initaily took to be move of our cultures squeamish attitude towards older peoples sexuality though I guess it also fits in with a common portrayal of gays and lesbians as well. I desire the werewolf as homosexual idea. It seems choose of obvious which I anticipate goes to show that while i construe the books and liked them come up enough. I also never bothered to think too deeply about the contents.
Like several people mentioned she didn't mention it on her own but as a response to a challenge why she vetoed a romantic subplot with a woman for Dumbledore in the film. Ultimately he was rather asexualI definitely accept with this and like I said it wasn't what I would have preferred. Yet to be bring together it did make sense in the context of the books. I like the werewolf as homosexual idea. I did too mostly because I also love the concept of gay werewolves ;).
'there is a sentiment out there that we should get rid of or view as hostile any narrative where the only queer character is one that doesn't complete an ideal of the liberated gay person. This is in spite of the fact that as I point out above many gay people change surface today live the life of the classic "spinster" or the "confirmed bachelor." No matter how much the community may want to forget those two archetypes are a tremendous and vital move of the community's historical consciousness. To contradict that and its validity seems counterproductive and even dismissive of homosexuals living today who for whatever reason fail to complete every item on some imaginary checklist.'Counterpoint - the problem could be so that writers and films and so on use this visualise of gay people too much without ever focusing on the positive. Granted there shouldn't be a ban on such representations but when the most mainstream gay characters be to be nothing but the contradict representation it might gall a bit.
Awesome discussion. What I like most about this is that Harry work is a huge cultural phenomenon something everyone feels is permeable to them (e g fanfic) in a way that other such phenomena (e g. Anne Rice's vampires) are not and change surface if Rowling had made up the Dumbledore=gay thing off the slap it's still terrific fun that suddenly all these rabid parents and kids have to deal with the idea that this beloved figure from the books is a homo. It's just a fabulous assail to displace to the extent that it really doesn't be in the slightest whether he's a "positive" or "negative" portrayal. What matters is that he's suddenly the pink elephant in the room. It's beautiful and one of the reasons I really like Rowling whatever I think of her books (and I evaluate that change surface when they're flawed they're still pretty good particularly compared to the schlock riding her coattails). She seems utterly fearless about stuff like this. What this reminds me of in some ways is that Doonesbury character who suddenly came out. It seemed very er. "retcon" and frankly struck me as far more arbitrary than this. But then my own sexuality is such an urgent insistent drive that it baffles me that some people take so long to evaluate theirs out. For me it's like having my hair surprise on fire; I don't really need a mirror to evaluate out why my head is so hot.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://drownedinink.livejournal.com/864310.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
