It's FICTION, people.

JK Rowling announced Dumbledore is gay. http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

Sigh. I really wish I could go with my own reaction: "Who the hell cares?" but I have been asked about it, and quite frankly it is a very interesting issue to kick around, when you strip away the layers.

I will start with (and probably come back to - frequently) the bottom line. This is a work of fiction. The characters, even if they were based on real people, are fictional. They are made up. They are the fabrications of an author and do not exist. Their patterns of behavior, their personalities, their appearance, their actions, everything about them is made up. What this means is that you can't make inferences or extrapolations about other people because of these fictional people.

Look, how many times have you played the game with your friends of "who are you in this movie" or this "series" of movies? How many times have you come up with a perfect match - a character you didn't have to change in any way? One that was everything positive (and negative) about you without having some quality that wasn't part of you or that you had to overlook? How often has everyone who known you agreed with your selection? Typically it goes like this: you choose someone you feel is best associated with yourself. Others not only refuse to pick that person, they choose someone else who, to their mind is either better suited or a funnier association, and to your mind is nothing short of offensive.

For me there are several, unfortunately sad, issues here. The saddest is that, from what I can gather, gays and gay activists (at least the ones who bother to write articles or have the luck to have a voice in the media) are thrilled with this revelation. I can understand why they might feel that way - Dumbledore is a lovable, powerful, likable, popular character who is solidly good. Good people like Dumbledore (meaning that anyone who doesn't like Dumbledore is probably someone you wouldn't care to know either).

Return to bottom line: Dumbledore is a fictional character. Assumptions about reality based on Dumbledore is just as fictional. Bluntly: you cannot assume that all gay people are like Dumbledore simply because an author in danger of losing a fraction of the intensity of her limelight has announced he is gay. Some gay people (just like some non-gay people) are probably very much like Dumbledore. How many other drivers on the road have the same car you do, or a car the same color? Are they the same kind of people you are? Do they even drive the same way you do? Do they even take care of their car the same way you do?

Further sadness: The incredible capacity for short-term, limiting thinking (yes, I believe that statement approaches oxymoron) many people have astounds me. Doesn't anyone else see that if it takes an author's announcement, after all seven books have been read, re-read, analyzed, talked through, round-tabled, and a full five of them have been released as major movies, for anyone to realize that one of the characters -- who might be argued to have as much attention and love from his fans as Harry himself (possibly more, as Harry isn't always as likable) -- is gay mean that she is saying you have to be so far "in the closet" that not even the dust-bunnies know you're in there? Isn't this actually damaging to the gay image? Didn't an author just say you have to be able to successfully hide yourself despite years and years of millions of people examining you with a microscope? True support for the gay community would have been to announce it at the beginning, or even in the books - best from his own statements and actions. Instead what we have is more hiding and deception. He has to be so thoroughly un-gay in his outward actions and appearance that the author's post-series announcement is a "shock".

Baseline sadness: In order to promote itself, or to feel good about itself, the gay community has reduced itself to trying to associate itself with fictional characters "after the fact". Due to a culture in the world wide media (traditional-entertainment and news-entertainment alike) authors and fans alike are trapped into reacting in only one way: unqualified support. Otherwise, they are labeled as homophobic bigots. She herself seems to take this action in order to feel good about herself, either by supporting a group of people she feels compelled to pity (again, a sad failure of the gay movement itself that pity is their main tool) or by throwing a sensational wrench into the works (which in itself would either be a sad statement on her literary confidence or the evidence of a dangerous megalomania). If it is the former, the gay movement had better take a good, soul-searching look at itself as it means they are doing more to ostracize and separate themselves than to integrate and be welcomed by others. If it is the latter, someone had better start popping the popcorn, Rowling is going to be quite something to watch as she implodes.

Well, to tell you the truth, I simply don't care what Rowling says about her characters. I do care what she wrote in the books, because I enjoy sharing them with my friends and trying to wrest out the neat nuggets of mystery that tied the series and the characters together across seven books. There are many other series of books out there much better at this than hers, but none of them are so widely read and cross so many reading groups. It is easy to find someone else who likes the Harry Potter series, and to talk about who you do and don't like. Unfortunately, as we stop sending in money for new books, and as the movies finish their (spectacular) run, the focus does become us instead of her or the publishers (Scholastic or Warner Brothers). In order to force themselves back upon us, they have to say or do something sensational or titillating.

The fact is that all of us, "straight or gay" alike, want to know that our way is right. For a few, the "right" way is determined internally, without reference to others and their foibles. For most, unfortunately, the only measuring stick is determined externally - usually through acceptance by others. This leads, ultimately, to enforcement. The inability to accept that our own approval is sufficient comes from insecurity, typically generated by our own doubts - that in fact perhaps we are wrong! This answer being terrifying, it becomes all too easy to lash outward, finding ways to "convince" others that our way is right. While this may start gently enough, the fact still remains that because people are different, what is right for one person is not right for another. In the end, the person who can't survive on self-approval alone must force others to approve of them. This leads to double-speak, filtered intake, and self-delusion, followed by brute force.

This cycle is bad enough when based on the truth - which in this case is "who you are". If you're gay, so be it. Be strong in yourself, present yourself as a model of gayness to the world. The bad cycle of forced acceptance would at least be based on who you really are. But to return (for the final time) to the bottom line, basing this oppressive (yes, I just implied the gay rights movement is oppressive, which is ironic for one so rooted in the concept of pitying its adherents) cycle of forced acceptance (which is not really acceptance at all) on an illusion - that of a fabricated character in a work of fantasy-based fiction - carries with it the oppressive danger an element of the pathetic.

And, if you are not careful, it also carries the seeds of your own destruction. You risk exposing an incredible foundation of desperation, causing us to wonder just how many of your other assertions are based on illusion.

Hemispheres and Sacrifice

A friend of mine recently proclaimed that she is a Democrat, and also mentioned that, while she was still trying to investigate and learn politics (understanding that it does affect us, not because she wanted to start a political career) she pretty much responded to things emotionally.

To my observation, the two are somewhat intertwined. Whether or not it's right-hemisphere vs. left-hemisphere of the brain, it does seem that there is often a struggle between emotion and reason. This does not mean that Republicans don't fly off the handle and get emotional about their opinions, nor that Democrats refuse to reason out their arguments, but merely as a general statement, liberal solutions appear to be based on emotion while conservative solutions appear to be based on reason.

Classify it as cold logic or far-thinking, the difference is that with reason you actually get a solution, while with emotion you get only a fix. There may be some pun in that, as emotional solutions are often designed to give emotional stimulation, be it assuaging guilt, happiness high, or some flavor in-between. They are often short-term, not intentionally but accidentally. Some emotional solutions turn out to be the right ones, but usually by chance.

Modern politics, though there have been a very few other examples in history, gives "power" to a great number of people. We all have a voice through our vote, and through a few other very limited opportunities (which we often avoid, such as Jury Duty). The problem is that being informed on political issues is basically a full-time job. Those of us who have not chosen a career in or around politics don't want to spend that kind of effort remaining informed. We would much rather focus on what makes us happy or what is our breadwinning career.

Unfortunately, this created a fertile ground for manipulation. We just want to be ourselves, living our lives in a way that is stimulating to us. We want the issues, when it comes up to our need to affect them through our vote, laid out simply and clearly.

Enter the bad politician. While good politicians will attempt to do just what we want, the bad politician is in the game like the stereotyped evil business tycoon - they want money and power and everything that goes with it. They know that, if they spend the time, money, and effort on manipulating the facts (or creating outright illusions) they can make their answer seem simple and clear. It may even be simple and clear, but in all likelihood it is not what we thought we were getting. We happily go into the voting booth, vote for something, and find out later (if it comes up at all) that we have actually voted against common sense and an easy, effective solution.

Emotional manipulation has a much higher success rate and requires much less effort than manipulation of logic. If you're asking people to feel, they act emotionally, impulsively. If you ask people to think, they may just do it and reason things out for themselves.

Unfortunately the solution is not easy. You have to start by trusting yourself - trust your instincts, not your emotions. The line is often blurry (and I believe it is made blurry intentionally). Follow common sense. Then you have to take it to the next level. Start with your instincts, but if you feel there is something hidden, something that doesn't make sense or match up, you have to spend a little time and effort either thinking things through to their logical conclusion, or researching the issue further. It takes an informed public, which takes time away from the public - time the public doesn't want to sacrifice, and doesn't feel it should.

The fact is, we live in a republic democracy, and that means we have signed on to sacrifice some of our time to the running of our country. We do not sacrifice as much time (nor get compensated for it) as politicians or those who work in and around politics, but we must still do it. It is our responsibility, part of the price for being a citizen of this country. Eliminate this sacrifice, and the manipulators will reshape your government so that you not only don't have to sacrifice your time, you are no longer allowed to. The decisions will be made for you.