The Intimate Friendship

For those of you who have read Charles Dickens "Great Expectations" or "David Copperfield", you may be familiar with this concept. Surprisingly, it even made an appearance in J. K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" series. Although, Rowling had to confirm the rumours that Dumbledore was gay, before it was actually realised by the billions of fans.

Looking at these two books, and series, (in particular), at some point the reader is presented with the theme of initmate friendship. This friendship is shared between two people of the same sex. Dumbledore and Grindelwald, David Copperfield and his patron and good friend Steerforth, Pip and his Mr. Matthew Pocket. By today's standards such "Intimate" friendships are considered homosexual. What i fail to see, or notice, is why. Why must friends be afraid to share a level of intimacy, for fear of being labelled homosexual? I don't think that such friendships come anywhere close to being "gay".

Take a deeper look at Pip and his friend Mr. Matthew Pocket. They are friends like all others. What makes their friendship different from most, nowadays, is that during the Victorian era, it was, somewhat, common- practice for boys and girls to "stick together". As the saying goes "Birds of a feather flock together". They were roommates. They shared their up's and down's. Is it, perhaps, this sharing of life- style which makes their friendship, seemingly, homosexual? Maybe. Do i believe the insinuation should even exist? NO! (Then again, this is only my opinion!).

In no part of Dickens "Great Expectations" is there ever the narration, or insinuation, of a friendship between Pip and Matthew that went beyond the boundaries of decent behaviour. Niether by former, or latter, standards. The same can be said for David Copperfield and Steerforth. David's admiration of Steerforth, at the beginning of their aquaintance, founds a strong friendship between the two. Despite the age gap, pointed out by "David", through some authorial intrusion by Dickens, Steerforth becomes a patron to "young Copperfield".

I remember reading an article in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2006. It was an article predicting the top ten celebrities that could be homosexual. Among the article's top ten, surprisingly, was Julie Andrews. At first i was shocked and horrified, and made no secret of this either. However, i was enlightened by a good friend and close relative of one little factor. Julie Andrews is among the few great actors, today, who would have been brought up with a similar concept to that of Dickens Victorian era; Only befriend those of your sex, when you're ready to be married, then you may think about boys, or girls. Even then, the choice was never fully that of the parties involved, it was mainly the job of the parents, namely the fathers.

Of course i am not, but had i been J. K. Rowling, i don't think i would have quite accepted the rumours, or given in to them. Despite the fact that most of the fans, or those that claim to be, would probably still think of Dumbledore as gay. I would have persisted that, in nature, no; His intimate friendship with Grindelwald was innocent. A friendship that was founded in a time when others were dictating the social mores and parameters of decency.

Perhaps the only criticism that stands out for me, in regards to Dickens and his novels, is: The imagery he depicts, of Victorian England, is so realistic, (as some of the images come from Dickens own experiances), that they depict a truth to cruel for the mind. His images paint a picture so real in the readers' minds that the truth is only amplified, and the emotion, it sky- rockets. Insomuch, that some readers can't help but cry when reading of Oliver, or Pip, or David. This criticism, coupled with the fact that Dickens may have also gone through what some of his little heroes do, makes it clear for one to see the psychological damage the Victorian era may have had on Dickens, himself. Thus, it becomes clearer to see the psychological damage the events that take place in "Great Expectations" and "David Copperfield" could have had on the heroes of the stories.

Undoubtedly, friendships, and the nature thereof, have taken a turn since Dickens Victorian England, and the worlds of David Copperfield and Pip. Even J. K. Rowling confirmed the change of heart. Yet i fail to see why, or how, these intimate friendships have to be labelled as homosexual by today's standards. There is no indecent behaviour evident, that suggests or insinuates such an inclination in niether Dumbledore, David or Pip, and their companions. There is, however, an innocent love that they all share for their companions, who've prooven to be worthy of the trust, loyalty and friendship of their counter- parts. One thing stands out amongst all this. All the friendships are founded at early ages. Thus, the companions all grow up together. Hence, their bond of friendship goes far beyond the boundaries of the norm. This in no way, however, constitutes for the labelling of such friendships as homosexual.

I think that the boundaries of a physical, sexual relationship differ greatly from those that define an intimate friendship, by the standards and ways described in such novels as Charles Dickens "David Copperfield" and "Great Expectations", and J. K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" series.