The problem with Dumbledore’s sexuality …

Posted by Samuel Walters

In the grand scheme of things, does it really, truly matter that Dumbledore is gay? Of course not. At least, it doesn’t matter any more than the fact that Cho Chang was Asian, that Ron Weasley had red hair, or that Filch was a Squib. So why is it a mistake for Rowling to out Dumbledore? Because unlike Ron, Filch, and Cho, this part of Dumbledore’s character was never mentioned in any of the seven books.

And actually, this new revelation merely underscores a bigger problem with Rowling’s saga: With Book 7, she dropped the ball, big time. Remember the debacle that was the Epilogue? Those Deathly Hallows that came out of nowhere? The buildup, and perfunctory dismissal of the importance of the Horcruxes? Rowling rushed Book 7 into publication and has been, ever since, trying to fix her mistakes — after the fact.

But let’s focus on Dumbledore. For starters, Rowling says that Dumbledore’s infatuation with Grindewald was “a key part of the story” (1). Really? Then if that was so important, why didn’t the intrepid Ms. Rowling make the point a bit more clear?

Oh, sure, she has Dumbledore tell Harry, “Grindewald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me” (2), but that was all. That was it. If the moment was that much of a key to Dumbledore’s character, Rowling certainly didn’t make a very determined effort, did she? And is Rowling really saying that if you are inflamed by the ideas of a member of the same sex, that is supposed to imply homosexuality?

And now she is fighting some sort of rear guard action (pun intended?) by re-emphasizing a supposedly major plot point – a point she failed to make when she wrote the book. And if it wasn’t important enough to include in the story, why bother saying anything about it now? The fact is, Rowling made a huge, glaring error.

In her defense, Rowling says, “It is what it is. He’s my character and as my character I have my right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him.”

Wrong.

Or at least not entirely true.

As readers, we’re free to infer whatever we wish about Dumbledore’s character, based on what Rowling has put in print. And as a matter of fact, that is a major part of being a reader: the ability to use our own life experiences, along with the clues left by the author, to fill in the gaps and make the story personal – to make it ours. If an author fails to leave enough clues for us to infer her intentions for Dumbledore’s sexuality, then fault lies not with the reader, but with the Rowling. Telling us now that Dumbledore is gay removes an important, and essential, part of the relationship between author and reader – after publication, readers take ownership of the story by using their own life experiences, combined with the author’s words, to bring the story to life.

Dumbledore remains the intellectual property of Rowling in the sense that we can’t use the character to make money. But that is where her ownership of the character ends. By putting Dumbledore into print, she has given her character to millions of fans around the world – fans who take ownership of the characters for themselves. That’s how author-reader relationships work. That’s how books become successful. That’s how Rowling’s readers made her into multi-million dollar force of business and entertainment.

So for Rowling to now step out there and tell her fans what they can and cannot think of a character is entirely disingenuous. It’s a breach of contract. And it’s representative of Rowling’s failures.