In The News
Leaky Interview with GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
BooksSince Friday evening's revelation that Prof. Dumbledore is gay, we've seen a lot of confused and oftentimes hurtful response and commentary on the topic. So, we called up GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, an organization that works specifically with the representation of gay characters and people in media, to help clarify some of the issues and talk about what this fact about Dumbledore means for our culture. A transcript of our interview with Sean Lund, the organization's director of Messaging and Communication Srategy, follows.
(Please again be reminded that debate is welcome but disrespectful, name-calling, hateful comments are being routinely deleted.)
~*~
The Leaky Cauldron: Thank you very much for taking the time to speak to us. Can you tell us more about GLAAD and what you do?
Sean Lund: GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, is an organization that has at its core the fundamental understanding that words and images matter, that what people see in the media has a really important impact on how they view the people in the world around them and how they treat the people in the world around them.
I think we have a really great opportunity here to have a longer discussion about Prof. Dumbledore, about the characteristics and the qualiites that he embodies and to talk about the fact that one of the most beloved people in the Harry Potter series is gay.
TLC: What's the reaction been like for you?
SL: Most of the reaction that we've been hearing from folks as we've been talking about it with various media outlets has been very positive. We've seen, as I'm sure a number of your readers have, some of the message boards at The Leaky Cauldron and elsewhere that have been largely very supportive of J.K. Rowling's decision. There have been some of those who have seized on the opporutnity that the conversation provides to engage in some stereotypes and some slightly unkind behavior, but overall I think the conversation has been positive.
TLC: What do you think is the most important thing to urge people to remember as they are dealing with this revelation?
SL: I think it's important to remember that Prof. Dumbledore is exactly the same wise, loyal, kind character that those of us who have been reading the books have always known. He still embodies generosity and integrity and courage and the importance of protecting others. Just because he happens to be gay doesn't make him better and doesn't make him worse. It's just one of the parts of who that character is, which his exactly what being gay is in the real world: it's just a part of what makes each of us unique and each of us different.
TLC: One of the things we're noticing is that there are some real misconceptions out there about what it means when you say that somebody is gay. There is a bias toward, an unfortunate assumption that gay means other things, such as child molestation and pedophile. Is this common?
SL: I think any time you're dealing with the misconceptions and myths and stereotypes about gay people you tend to be coming from a place of ignorance or more commonly fear about what it is like to be gay. I think one of the most important messages of the Harry Potter books is how fear, whether it's fear of what's different, whether it's fear of losing power, whether it's fear of change, can lead people to do and say things that are at best unkind and at worst sometimes even dangerous.
Some of the comments that we've seen about Prof. Dumbledore and some of the other comments that we've seen over the past several days relating to this story have kind of crept into those areas of stereotypes and misconceptions, and I think that the really valuable thing that folks like you and other folks that are really Harry Potter fans and other folks in the media are doing, is really raising the level of conversation so that those stereotypes and myths aren't allowed to go unchallenged.
TLC: Can you remember a recent time when another fictional character has been revealed as gay that has had this kind of impact?
SL: I think that probably the one that springs to mind most readily is the character of Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," back, I think it was probably about six years or so ago now when [the show's creator,] Joss Whedon, who revealed in a very gradual way and in a way incredibly authentic for that character that she was gay and introduced her girlfriend Tara, and the two of them became a really wonderful couple on that show. That was a really perfect exmaple of how to do this sort of storytelling and how to create these characters right. When you take a look at how the audience reacted to that, there was such an investment in those characters and in that relationship. The Willow and Tara relationship became in some ways the moral center of that show.
I think very much with how J.K. Rowling has brought Dumbledore out, I think that sort of quality of maintaining the authenticity and maintaining the truth of the character really goes a long way in terms of making sure people stay invested in those characters, and in fact that people could keep even more invested and feel like they have additional points of identification with those characters.
TLC: The Willow comparison also touches on something else - we've been getting a little backlash from gay people as well, who complain that it's yet another gay character killed or was lonely (Tara, Willow's girlfriend is shot in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"). Is this a common theme in gay culture as represented in the media?
SL: I think that we have definitely seen some of that criticism and I tend to think about the fact that for many people who have read these books since the very beginning - I happened to come in around the time book three was published - for many readers who are coming into these stories now, they are coming into a series of books where the character of Dumbledore will always have been known to be gay. There are other people who just finished the series with the release of Deathly Hallows who are now able to go back as readers have been doing since the books came out, and go back into the stories and view the characters through this new revelations that have been in the new book or in J.K. Rowling's recent interviews and really come to a deeper and richer understanding of these characters.
J.K. Rowling's revelations, could they possibly have happened in the books? I'm not sure, you'd have to ask her. What you'll see is that she set the stage for all readers of these books, be they those who have already finished them and those who have yet to pick up even the first book, to have a deeper and richer interaction with these characters.
TLC: This is the largest, most popular fantasy series of all time, this is a huge and respected character. To make not just any character but Dumbledore, the kind brilliant professor, Dumbledore, gay - is there any way to quantify what this means to the way that gay people have been portrayed in the media or accepted in culture?
SL: At the heart of GLAAD's initiative is a very simple idea, that words and images matter, and I think the idea that J.K. Rowling would reveal that Prof. Dumbledore is gay sends a tremendously important message. It sends a message that heroes and people who we respect, and people that we look up to, come in all different shapes and sizes. And I think for the readers of the books, for the people who will see the movies in the future, I think that's a tremendously important message for them to carry forward.
TLC: Some parents are dealing now with children who are confused about what it is to be gay, and there are children confused because they are taught that it's bad, and they don't want to believe their parents who say that it's bad. What do you suggest parents do, and what do you suggest children whose parents aren't willing to talk to them, do to understand what this means?
SL: I think a lot of that ties back to what we were talking about earlier, which is that a lot of these stereotypes and myths and misconceptions about gay people really are borne out of a lack of knowledge and more specifically a fear of things that are different and people that are different. I think that when you look back at the Harry Potter books, one of J.K. Rowlng's most important themes is about treating people with dignity and respect.
I think one of the most important themes of the Harry Potter books is J.K. Rowling's message about making sure that we treat all people, whether they are the same as us, or whether they are different than us, with dignity and respect. If you think about it, one of the central conceits of the books is that there are purebloods, and muggles and half-bloods, and there is constantly some conflict among those, particularly among those who fear and hate those who are different, and in one very vivid example of that, would call them mudbloods. That's the sort of unkind language, the sort of stereotypes and sort of misconceptions that really do lead people to mistreat and dehumanize others.
You think about Prof. Dumbledore. Even before any of us knew that Prof. Dumbledore was gay, I think that we can agree that his character would never have approved of mistreating or abusing others or thinking ill of others. Now that we know that he's gay I think it's a very important reminder that whether you're straight or gay or are in the process of figuring that out, being the kind of person who treats others with love and dignity and respect, who looks out for other people, who stands up for them, and who protects them, is really what being a good person and good friend is all about.
TLC: What do you think the overarching impact of this revelation will be on the culture going forward?
SL: When a character like Prof. Dumbledore is revealed to be gay I think it has a tremendously influential impact of readers of all ages. J.K. Rowling's decision to allow readers to see Dumbledore for all of who he is, and I think also as importantly, her determination to preserve the authenticity of his character both in the films and the books, is going to enrich the power of these stories for generations to come.
I think that this provides a really great opportunity to remind ourselves and for readers of the books to remind themselves about one of the key themes of the Harry Potter series, and that is how fear of what is different can really lead people to do things that are unkind or dangerous and also at the same time elevate the sort of person that people really want to be in terms of the way they treat others. When you hear someone on the playground say "You're so gay," or, "That's so gay," that's a word that they're using as an insult. They're trying to hurt another person and make themselves feel bigger by making other people feel smaller.
Even before Ms. Rowling revealed that Prof. Dumbledore was gay I can't imagine that his character would ever have approved of mistreating or abusing others. And now that we know he's gay it really is an especially important reminder that whether you're gay or straight, treating other people with dignity and respect really is one of the most important values that we all can share.
~*~
Interested in Books?
Sign up for free Email Alerts
Rachel I respect your opinion, but I have seen many posts where people have used the word “hate” regarding Dumbledore and this revelation. I do not believe that anyone should be kicked off this site for giving their opinion, they are allowed to. I do however have the right to disagree and give my own opinion of their comments. If you believe this makes me intolerant so be it.
People argue that the gay issue is different than race, gender or ethinicity, because one can’t help one’s race, gender or ethnicity. This implies one chooses to be gay.
I believe most condemnation of homosexuality comes from this belief that gays have a choice and as long as they stubbornly persist in “being” gay or engaging in romantic/sexual activity with others of the same gender, they cannot expect to enjoy equal civil rights (e.g., right to marry, freedom from employment discrimination, etc.) or to be regarded with the same respect/acceptance they would if they were straight.
I know that one cannot choose their orientation, straight people do not experience their orinetation as “choosing” to be straight, they just are. Same with gays. So let’s discuss behavior. Straight people engage in straight behavior, from crushes, dating, making out, getting married, having sex, openly presenting themselves to society as straight, etc. with no problem. This is a choice, a behavior. So, fair enough, it is the same for gays. Gays choose to have crushes, date, make out with, build a life with, have sex with, etc. who they are drawn to—a persons of the same gender.
So in this light, yes, engaging in gay behavior or embracing a gay identity IS a choice. The gay “choice” involves a small minority population, is condemned by some denominations of Christianity and is generally out of the societal norm in America (as an American, I will confine myself to speaking about the U.S.).
Since when do U.S. laws or society protect people based on a chosen behavior, rather than an inborn trait like race? I’ll tell you when—since the adoption of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, which is even more of a choice than orientation.
Every Catholic, Baptist, Jew, Muslim, Methodist, etc. chooses fully and freely to be that religion. They may be born to it and adhere to it all their life; they may become full mmebers as young adults, they may convert in middle age, but they attend sevices, observe holidays and fasts, and often marry within the faith. Now say you have an individual bigot who believes sincerely in his heart that all Jews are Christ-killers, stubbornly resisting the true Gospel and headed straight for hell. Mr. Bigot is free to believe that, to teach it to his children, to teach it in his own church or to shout it on a street corner. He is free to not associate with or allow his children to associate with Jews. But in America, Mr. Bigot cannot deprive Jews of the right to legally marry in their faith or to be protected from discrimination. Mr. Bigot wil find his views shunned by most of polite society.
Wy should it be any different for gays? A lot of people are whining that their disapproving views of gays are not being tolerated. My patience has run out. If only it was merely “views.” You see, my disapproving view of narrow-minded, hypocritical bigots may hurt your feelings but they are not supported by laws making you a second class citizen. So, no-when I criticize you with words, it is not REMOTELY the same as when an anti-gay person “criticizes” me by voting to prevent me from getting married. NOT the same thing, not even close. (If anyone out there holds anti-gay views but votes to accord everyone the same equal rights, then I apologize-thank you and please disregard this; but I don’t think there are many.)
And as for the right to hold homophobic opinions, to think and believe a certain way and voice those opinions, you can hold/speak any opinion you want; and some people will disagee with you, and may want nothing to do with you. I personally believe, like many of you do, that not everything is good, not everthing should be free from judgment, not everything should be accepted and tolerated. I harshly judge and condemn bigotry. I refuse to accept or tolerate prejudiced views—I can have compassion for the person, but I don’t have to accept their lifestyle choice as healthy or acceptable or something I would want to expose my children to.
I do not ask for acceptance or tolerance from homophobes; but I demand and deserve to be treated equally under the law, just as you are treated equally despite my lack of acceptance or tolerance for you.
I’d like to state my opinion: I’m not upset about any part of this news. Its all fine with me fangirls new angst!ship
I have a few quibbles:
Does anyone have any ideas about how soon Grindlewald began to regret starting the whole “war”?
when faced with Voldemort he lied about the elder wand (to protect Dumbledores grave?) and then said “there’s so much you do not understand” and he also didn’t seem to fear being killed (like Dumbledore). What changed him? You’d think being in prison would make a person more bitter. or maybe he was intellectual enough to understand that he did wrong??? How did he know Voldemort was the new dark lord? How did he even know Dumbledore was dead?
Do you think DD ever visited and told him he was planning to die?
Minisha, Going by the very very little we can glean from Deathly Hallows, my personal best guess is that Grindelwald felt remorse during his duel with Dumbledore in 1945. Dumbledore told Harry that he (DD) thought he was a bit more skillful. But, Grindelwald did have the Elder wand, supposedly unbeatable. Therefore, my guess is that Grindelwald felt remorse, and chose not to fight. (This interpretation, incidentally, might fit well with another Dumbledore-ism, from Chamber of Secrets, chapter 18, Dobby’s Reward [page 333 of the US hardcover edition to be exact]; “It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”
Rachel, Alex, what do you think?
budb, i don’t thing he felt remorse in 1945, because if he felt, why did he wait for dumbledore to beat him? maybe the 53 years i nurmengard made him remorse…
If he felt remorse then, maybe he thought he deserved that punishment??? after all, lives won’t come back from him just saying “sorry”
Perhaps, and as Me noted, he had over a half century to reflect. I am at the age when I know that all the little regrets, those tiny bits of remorse that concern long ago and very minor things seem to pop up unbidden out of nowhere. Its part of human aging apparently, but still disconcerting. Imagine Grindelwald being imprisoned in the worst confinement of all, his own memories?
I agree with “Me”. Gridlewald spent half a decade in a prison he built. Man, that had to have an affect. All those years, alone, maybe he finally understood how it felt to be one of his own victims.
That would fit too. If Grindlewald was as smart as Dumbledore said, I guess he could be objective enough… after other more violent emotions got out of the way.
What about him seeming to know who Voldemort was? and what he was after?? and if he was trying to “protect Dumbledores grave” as Harry suggested, how did he know Dumbledore was dead?
the answer could be something as simple as prisoners getting the daily prophet at Nurmengard…
I have a feeling, that given their history, Dumbledore and Grindlewald would have been hyper-sensitive to news of each other. Grindlewald would have found out eventually about Dumbledore’s death. If not through the news paper, then maybe through his jailers.
Posted by Melissa: “I also find it interesting that only now when the revelations include dumbledore as gay, and not after the huge chat she gave just after the book was published, are people so impassioned about thinking Jo should stop talking about it. :) it’s curious!”
@Melissa, Had she revealed this news before DH, this whole controversy would just have happened sooner, but I think the arguments would be the same.
But what if she had said something like “he just never seemed to find the right woman”? We all know the answer to that.
I think those who would like to silence Jo now are angry because they don’t like what she said. She actually chose to make one of her characters gay. I don’t think it even matters that it’s an important character like Dumbledore. It could have been Dawlish and the reaction would have been the same in my opinion. But I doubt she gets many questions about Dawlish’s love life.
I think everyone needs to remember that the books basically take place from Harry’s perspective. And from that perspective, a revelation about Dumbledore’s orientation wouldn’t have made sense.
It’s clear that there was a LOT Harry didn’t know about Dumbledore (or Snape, or his own parents)....but that’s the way life is. It takes time and maturity to discover the truth (good and bad and unexpected) about people we love and admire.
Dumbledore wasn’t perfect-as JKR said, he could be a bit Machiavellian-but I don’t think that his orientation mattered at all except to the extent that it influenced his thinking about Grindelwald, and even then it wasn’t really any of Harry’s business, any more than McGonagall’s personal life, or Hagrid’s personal life would be. So why spell it out in the books?
Overall, however, I think the information about Dumbledore’s orientation makes his character more sympathetic after the revelations in Book 7—it takes a lot of the sting out of the whole Grindelwald episode, because I for one would FAR rather believe that Dumbledore was acting idiotically out of adolescent infatuation than that he was really, truly intrigued by the philosophy of wizarding supremacy to that extent.
As a Catholic, I just want to say that Rachel does not speak for all Catholics. I believe that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by birth, not by choice. I believe that any loving relationship between two consenting adults is a wonderful thing. I also believe that gays and lesbians ought to have the legal right to marry and enjoy all the political and societal benefits of marriage.
But most of all, I believe that it is abhorrent to use religion to justify bigotry. (And I might add that it is hard to view Catholicism as any kind of moral authority on issues of sexuality these days.)
If people think that something like gay marriage is morally wrong, they shouldn’t do it themselves….but unless they can prove a direct harm to themselves (or anyone else) resulting from two men or two women getting married, they should shut up about it because it’s none of their business.
And they should also remember that when they try to legislate their religious beliefs for other people, they’re setting a precedent that could come back to bite them in a big, big way if someone else ended up in charge….they wouldn’t like it so much then. In other words, treat other people the way you would want to be treated…wow, that sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it? Hmmmmm….........
M Jones, I understand it rather well. Agreeing with it is a much differnt issue, and thinking we should bend or kow tow to a piece of public opinion that fosters the idea that we should treat a portion of our population as inferior because of their sexuality, is, again, much different – and not even up for discussion on this site.
IndigoMisfit, Minisha, Me and others interested in discussing HP (sorry, I’m just going to ignore anyone who wants to talk about anything besides Harry Potter…)
Interesting questions…but, if we consider the experiences Sirius had in Azkaban, its doubtful the Owl Post went to Grindelwald! ;-) Tho that is a great image, isn’t it, an owl squeezing in to the cell through the narrow slit of a window, delivering the paper so Grindelwald can do the crossword…
On the other hand, remember that Sirius talked about overhearing conversations—presumably Grindelwald could overhear as well? That would give him the general idea of what was going on in the outside world. And Minisha’s idea of occasional visits from Dumbledore does have merit, actually: think of all the examples of “the two friends who became enemies yet on some level remain friends” one can find in literature and film (the X-Men come to mind…).
I think Grindelwald would have recognized who Voldemort was not because he knew him previously, but because who but Voldemort could get in to that cell, and who else would have a motive to do so? As Me first indicated, Grindelwald had a lot of time to think, and as Indigo and Minisha noted G was intelligent: its likely that he could have figure out the V would learn of and want the Elder Wand, sooner or later.
Incidentally, that’s another prediction I had gotten wrong: I thought there was probably some previous direct connection between Voldemort and Grindelwald, and clearly there was not…
And, I really want to check tonight the film version of HP and SS, specifically the scene when Ron and Harry meet on the Hogwarts Express and are eating. The Chocolate Frog Card we (as readers) knew would provide important clues, and that brief reference to Grindelwald would become obviously important somewhere in the story line sooner or later. But…was the reference to the defeat of Grindelwald found on the card actually made in the film version? If not, that will be yet another oooppps in the film making/screen writing that needs to be cleverly dealt with!
After the Ball reveals our agenda? Really? Haven’t read it in years…I’ll go back and look at it (if I can find it)....hmmmmmmm it’s somewhere here with the other 10,000 books…. Oh yes, that agenda! The one that when you are recruited you swear in blood never to reveal to anyone who themselves is not lesbian or gay….. Or the part where you come out to everyone…so that people begin, slowly, to understand that if they have family members/friends/neighbors and colleagues who are lesbians or gays. I agree that the Act-Up action at the Cathedral was wrong. Not all lesbians and gays are members of Act-UP, just as the previous poster said that you do not speak for all Catholics. Vis a vis the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence – they have a long history of philanthropy and good works, raise money for charity, etc. They did not disrupt the Mass, they themselves are Catholic and went in and took Communion. Anyone wanting to hear their side of the story should google their website. Our little Pride parade here in our community is very family friendly, probably because of the proliferating numbers of parents with kids around.
Hmm, regarding Grindelwald. I’m not sure if we have enough evidence from the text to state weather or not he was feeling any sort of remorse for his actions in 1945 (the tradegy of Ariana). However, after many, many years in prison, he did have a lot of time to think about what he had done, what his intentions had been, etc. In the end, he had remorse and died heroically, resisting Voldemort. At that point, what more could he have done? He knew that Voldemort was coming for him and he probably regretted all the murders he had committed and how his ideas found their way into the Death eater’s rhetoric, leading to more death and destruction. Its a tragic end to a character who had many brilliant talents but used them for evil instead of for good :(.
As for Jenn, if you wish to discuss the differences in our views concerning what constitutes Catholic teaching on these issues and more…please feel free to e-mail me.
Susan: Alex has also acknowledged the anti-Catholic mockery of the “sisters” and if you were to see how they present themselves it is clear that they love to deride Catholic beliefs. I am not refering to the incident at Most Holy Redeemer parish but specifically the names that they give themselves, how they have presented themselves in parades, etc. But it seems that I can’t convince anyone of that small fact on here. However, if you want to discuss this further…e-mail me too.
Alex: I would like to continue our conversation (I don’t consider it a debate per se) and if you would like..e-mail me too. I welcome good discourse :)
Melissa and LC: I think you are doing a good job on this site reporting on everything Harry Potter. There is so much to “unpack” in this series and because the themes are about love, death, sacrifice, tolerance, etc…discussions such as these will come up. It is a mark of good art that it encourages the reader to think about these great issues and prompts discussions about them..even if they are heated at times. So, keep up the good work :)
Sorry, comments are closed for this article.
Leaky Poll
Moving the HBP film to July 2009 is:
- Completely unforgivable33 (45%)
- Annoying, but I'll get over it27 (36%)
- Not something I care about.3 (4%)
- Cool; who wants to go to the movies in the winter anyway?1 (1%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 until next year.3 (4%)
- Awesome! I get to save $10 because now I'm skipping this movie!4 (5%)
- I've made a Facebook group, started a protest, called my local councilman, staged a sit-in, started a boycott, and organized a million-fan march because we won't stand for the - wait, what was this about again?2 (2%)
Rachel, your concluding line “As to this revelation, it would be interesting to explore how this obsessive infatuation with Grindelwald effected him as as character and on the plot as it is in the series” is relevant. So, can we shift the conversation to explore the issues you raise?
May I politely ask everyone we stick to the relevant stuff? I do not wish to appear to be addressing Rachel only, I really do mean everyone. Otherwise, we could just as easily be discussing the fiery collapse of the Mets and Yankees, or the silliness surrounding Britney Spears, or countless other topics that have nothing to do with this site’s purpose.