Albus Dumbledore's sexual orientation still a big deal

Apparently, at least, because I've found a plethora of opinion articles all over the religion blogs.

This is a classic case of something becoming a story because it’s a story. I mean, c’mon. I didn’t really comment on it the other day because it took some time to set in.

First, professed Christian David Kuo (who has written on Slate and elsewhere), poses a unique challenge to those who are boycotting based on the sexuality of a fictional character.

He explains: "For all those who are using Dumbledore's sexual orientation as reason for boycotting Mr. Rowling's books, a challenge may be in order. Instead of speaking out against her books and Dumbledore, create Christian characters on screen and in print that are as interesting, complex, and challenging as many of the gay characters we've come to know over the years."

A second article, which is much lengthier than the previous, conveys a similar message, i.e. that Dumbledore is a fictional character, and that Rowling has the right to say any and everything about HER books and her characters, because she created them. I say this in response to a comment from an associate professor of philosophy at Liberty University, who says:

“It doesn’t change my perception of the series, but it does say something about her choice to include this detail at that time. . . Does she have the right to keep giving us details? I wonder what’s the point, other than her staking out her agenda.”

From the same piece, here's a quote from author Neil Gaiman, who wrote a pretty decent book called American Gods, among others, in reference to his own creative license:

“And, truth to tell, sexuality tends to be such a minor thing, if you have several hundred characters running around in your head. You know more than you’ve written. One of the characters in Wall in Stardust, for example, is not what he is pretending to be in a way that has nothing at all to do with sex, . . .

As for withholding information. . . before the Internet, I’d tell anyone anything they wanted to know. . . Not any longer, because one day I may tell those stories. (If I knew for sure I wouldn’t tell them, then I’d happily answer people now.)”

So, in reference to people who think Rowling is doing this for more money, at least here’s another perspective on why that might not be true. Personally, I did feel like it was more an offhand comment than an intricate revelation at a key time for monetary gain. But who am I to say for sure? The most interesting aspect of this is still the fact that the story is EVERYWHERE on the religion blogs several days later.