Dumble-bore

Everyone's got an opinion, and here's mine: J.K. Rowling's revelation of Dumbledore's sexuality doesn't merit nearly the reaction it's gotten (either positive or negative.)

I read this article in Time which essentially takes issue with the fact that Dumbledore wasn't more "blatantly" gay (if he were to be gay at all), and I think it brought up what has been probably one of the biggest points of contention regarding sexuality that I've seen.

Specifically, it seems to beg the question of how strongly sexuality defines (or should define) a person. I am uncomfortable with Cloud's implied assertion that homosexuality requires a certain degree of portrayal in order not to seem shameful or derogatory, and even more uncomfortable with the idea that sexuality in and of itself inherently needs to be emphasized. I feel like this view of sexuality and characterization causes a really limited attitude toward mankind's true nature and abilities, seeking more to linger in the realm of uncontrollable biological urges.

On a related note, I also take issue with his contention that LOTR contains "homoerotic" material - he seems to be saying that the existence of camaderie or any sort of emotional connection among people in general is necessarily grounded in sexuality, and I don't think that's automatically true. Maybe it is, but I just can't imagine...

I think that Dumbledore's sexuality makes an interesting footnote, but that's about all. Rowling had a clear intention for her books and their message, and I would like to think that in this "tolerant" modern culture one could respect that and appreciate the worldview created within the books' universe without demanding that it be recast in the framework of some entirely discrete social construction.

(Rant...finished.)