sistermagpie | In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

Current Mood: disappointed

Entry tags:

In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

So here's what JKR has recently said about Dumbledore, getting more into his sexuality:

"I had always seen Dumbledore as gay, but in a sense that's not a big deal. The book wasn't about Dumbledore being gay. It was just that from the outset obviously I knew he had this big, hidden secret, and that he flirted with the idea of exactly what Voldemort goes on to do, he flirted with the idea of racial domination, that he was going to subjugate the Muggles. So that was Dumbledore's big secret.

Why did he flirt with that?" she asks. "He's an innately good man, what would make him do that. I didn’t even think it through that way, it just seemed to come to me, I thought 'I know why he did it, he fell in love.' And whether they physically consummated this infatuation or not is not the issue. The issue is love. It's not about sex. So that's what I knew about Dumbledore. And it's relevant only in so much as he fell in love and was made an utter fool of by love. He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgment in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and bookish life."

Clearly some people didn't see it that way. How does she react to those who disagree with a homosexual character in a children's novel? "So what?" she retorts immediately "It is a very interesting question because I think homophobia is a fear of people loving, more than it is of the sexual act. There seems to be an innate distaste for the love involved, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There were people who thought, well why haven't we seen Dumbledore's angst about being gay?" Rowling is clearly amused by this and rightly so. "Where was that going to come in? And then the other thing was-and I had letters saying this-that, as a gay man, he would never be safe to teach in a school."

So this is how a lot of this doesn't fit with my own interpretation. EtA: It's been pointed out to me that this line caused some confusion--I'm not disagreeing with "He is a character that just happens to be gay" or that Rowling concurs with that idea. I'm saying I had a different interpretation of why he'd be attracted to Grindelwald's ideas based on what I read in canon. So I took out the last paragraph of the quote, which wasn't really needed.

As an aside, if Dumbledore is celibate and maybe never consummated his relationship with the evil Gellert, that actually *is* the point according to many people, because as many will explain, the problem isn't having "gay feelings." The problem isn't love. The problem is you're having sex with someone of your gender. If you don't "choose to sin" by actually having sex, you're not entering into that wicked "lifestyle" they don't like. Dumbledore's done just what a gay man is supposed to do according to many anti-gay opinions. It actually is about sex: a-sexual gay men are always more acceptable than sexual ones.

But the weirdest thing here to me is in the second paragraph, where Dumbledore is apparently an "innately good man" who only flirted with essentially *being a Nazi* because he became a "fool for love." This is bizarre to me because frankly, I don't have any trouble trying to figure out why Dumbledore would have flirted with taking over Muggles. This is a guy who's constantly manipulating everyone, thinks he's smarter than everyone else, treats them as pawns that are morally inferior to himself...why on earth would it be hard to imagine him deciding to dominate Muggles "for the greater good?" Of course he would think the answer was having the right people in charge.

But it's disappointing in a familiar way, the way that once again something that seems to be an inherent flaw in a character on the good side that totally mirrors the evil they're fighting, the author wants to make it the fault of the evil characters. Dumbledore's "love" says no more about him than Harry's Voldemort sliver. It takes the blame for unacceptable behavior. Suddenly Dumbledore's real racist tendencies (unlike Snape's) don't come down to his own desires or his own personality. He's acting unlike himself because he's been vaguely "made a fool by love." And love, as we know, is just some random thing that hits you like Cupid's arrow or the author's pen. It's not even presented as something you can analyze in terms of...well, why exactly did you find Hitler so attractive? Doesn't that say something about what calls to you? (Without even getting into the fact that this most poisonous loves is the one gay one.)

The author here seems to be saying that she needed or wanted Dumbledore to have flirted with all of this, but then needn't to figure out why he would do it. Rather than looking at the character and saying, "Ah, I can totally see how this guy would be attracted to this." Instead it "just came to her" that "he fell in love." It's about someone else, something beyond his control. It's about this other person. He "lost" his moral compass because he fell in love (which was beyond his control to begin with)--his compass never truly pointed to this.

Dumbledore himself even agrees! He becomes mistrustful not of his moral compass, not of his own abilities to know right from wrong. No, he becomes asexual, deducing that the problem is that he needs to keep himself pure from others so that he can always be sure he's relying on his own "innately good" moral sense. He's got more reason to keep secrets; he doesn't decide he maybe ought to keep other people around to make sure he's not going down the bad path again. Listening to other people can only be trouble.

Well done, Dumbledore! Way to be morally superior about your own past as a wannabe Nazi!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

She was asked if DD had ever been in love, so she told the truth. Gasp! How horrible of her! Telling the truth to a fan! The horror!

How'd you hear about the clubhouse? Someone's getting flogged tonight. And not in the fun way.

Yeah, criticize all you want, but there's no need to bash the author. That's just bad form.

A thorough author knows more about her characters than she writes. If she revealed everything in the books, they wouldn't be novels, they'd be the encyclopedia.

Her idea that DD was gay just coming to her was brought into question, which is a thought process.

The what song? Again, analyze all you want. There's no need to bash.

Ha! I totally expected to get ripped apart. After all, I have a different opinion, therefore I must be patronized and talked down to instead of just simply disagreed with. It's the way of LJ. It is the only way. *dramatic music*

If it were that way, why the hell did you read the whole damn series (I'm assuming). Something must have entertained you. It must have made sense to you. Or did you not read it? In that case, how can you possibly make any thoughtful criticisms of it?

No, you've been patronised and talked down to because you came here trolling from a wank community and were then openly rude.

I did read the whole series. I found it interesting because of it's ambiguities. They naturally lessened as the series progressed and I found it wasn't to my taste, but wanted to dissect why.

I see nothing wrong with not agreeing with Jo's interpretation as a whole. I don't agree with her assessment of Snape. I just happen to not agree with you on this. That's okay as well, isn't it?

Definitely!

His being gay had nothing to do with his "temporary descent into evil." His being blinded by love did. It would be no different if Grindewald had been a witch and DD had been hetero.

I'm not exactly saying that his gay did have to do with it--let me explain. My own interpretation, like I said, is that I don't think he was really blinded by love. But even in her interpretation here where he's blinded by love, she's not saying "he was gay and that's what did it." Unfortunately, especially because of the way homosexuality has been presented, the fact that this particular love relationship was the *only* homosexual she's mentioned, I can understand people making that connection.

I don't think that was her intention--I don't think it would occur to her to say that homosexuality=evil etc. It just unfortunately mirrors the way homosexuality has often been portrayed by people who did have that idea. This also is why his being gay and asexual comes up--it makes Dumbledore follow the pattern that was "acceptable" for gay characters for years--he shouldn't actually be sexual. Again, I doubt she set out to follow that pattern because she thought we should go back to that, I just recognize it in the character she came up with for her own reasons.

I think Dumbledore probably thought that what they were thinking about was for the better. I don't see how that's out of character considering the long life he has had. He wasn't born a wise wizard; he had to make mistakes and learn from them in order to become wise. That's how one becomes wise.

I agree he thought what they were thinking about was for the better--that's totally what I think, that his passion for Grindelwald may have been a factor, but that that he truly believed it at the time. (It even sounds like it could have been the other way around, that Grindelwald's beliefs made him more attractive for Dumbledore at that time of his life.) It wasn't, for instance, a situation where he loved Grindelwald for whatever reason and saw shut his eyes to what his beliefs were. They shared those beliefs at the time and discussed them openly. Dumbledore changed his mind--so didn't become Voldemort--it just really reads to me in the book as a mistake rather than blindness. Iow, I think the Dumbledore she actually wrote in the book is better than the one she described in this interview!

I actually read those letters DD wrote to Grindewald and thought that the interpretation that DD was in love with him was possible.

Me too. I finished the book considering DD/GG a couple in my personal canon, at least. The canon in my head. I didn't know it was the author's intention--many people thought Remus/Sirius were canonically canon. I didn't see them that way...though ironically DH made me see them that way more than I ever had before.

The rudest thing I said was the thing about high-horse. Yes, I'm horribly rude in comparsion to everyone's angelic attitudes.

Glad we agree on something.

She can't control other people's perception (obviously). The people who feel that way, that gay is evil will look at this as a possible reaffirmation of that. Those who are indifferent, may say "Hey, the wisest wizard was gay...hmmm..." and those who support gay people will just see it as another aspect of his character. It's not going to change anyone's opinions about homosexuality. They'll see what they want to see with it. Her intention was to have it just be another characteristic of him. It doesn't define him; it's only one facet of his character. In my opinion, that's how it should be.

Okay, so we're pretty much in agreement. So, I'm honestly confused with what you said before which propelled my response.

Why did we disagree again?

Everyone else wasn't starting in on fellow fen.

Telling the "truth" to a fan and yet saying something completely different in the books, after the series is done and dusted, so that the shocking gay revelations wouldn't hurt sales. And you're going to tell me that's not why she did it, that's not why she had Dumbledore give Harry a completely different explanation for his actions in the actual book. Because you know her (on first name terms!) and you know what she thinks, and plus you are a writer which means you know more than anyone else how all writers think!

And I'll criticise the author if I think she'd done something worth criticising. You wouldn't be all "that's bad form!" if we were talking about someone like Anne Rice or Terry Goodkind, why is Rowling so special?

How is it completely different in the books? DD has no hetero relationships in the books, so how is it completely different?

You don't know her either, but you certainly feel free to put thoughts in her head and motives behind her actions. I can have an opinion as well and if it's not the same as yours, if it actually sees someone in a positive light, that somehow makes me pompous while you being critical makes you right? That's some fucked up logic.

I don't give a crap about Anne Rice (she's a bitch to her fans in the first place, unlike Jo (which she asks her fans to call her)). I've never read anything by Terry Goodkind in my life.

On what? I got linked here from ew.net. I'm not a member of any of the wank communities.

Dumbledore gave Harry a reason for wanting to join up with Grindelwald, which was nothing to do with "I was in love with him." He wasn't gay in the books, he was asexual, as were all the characters who displayed no sexual attraction to anyone at all, until proven otherwise. Which isn't many of them, considering we got snippets of the heterosexuality of about 95% of the cast, major and minor players (Hagrid's relationship with Madame Maxime - truly vital to the plot!). But this major piece of information that was supposedly quite vital to the plot, was glossed over and discreetly hidden, because while being quite a large part of Dumbledore's life and much to do with the whole Deathly Hallows plot, it is simultaneously "unimportant".

Also, I have my opinion and I go by what I see. If this looks like someone subtly reinforcing the more popular prejudices about homosexuality (it's not so bad if they're celibate, it's not so bad if they keep it to themselves, gay relationships lead you to ruin and despair, don't talk about it lest you corrupt the children with your unnatural sins...sorry, I mean "disrupt the plot with unimportant information") am I supposed to fake a positive spin on it and try to make myself believe it's not what it looks like because it's her? Because she can't do any wrong? Because "some of her best friends"? Sycophants coming in her to tell me that (a)it isn't important and I should stop being so interested and (b)that I am the homophobe for not being delighted with this news and the way it was presented don't make things any easier for me. I repeat: I'll criticise the author if I think they've done something worth criticising - and apparently you think this is only a sin where Rowling is concerned because she has the benefit of being marginally more sane than Anne Rice. Well done to her.

Had the purpose of DD's character been to make gay people more acceptable in the mainstream, then yes, he should've told Harry that in King's Cross. The thing is: is King's Cross really DD talking to Harry? Or is it all in Harry's head? That Harry figured it out in that state between living and dying? To keep the ambiguity about that, DD couldn't reveal something so personal. Everything he said could possibly be inferred by Harry from everything he learned from Snape's memories, the biography, and Aberforth. I doubt Harry's thoughts would go that route, so, there you have it.

As for the Hagrid/Madam Maxime thing? How else would Ron and Harry found out Hagrid was half-giant had Hagrid not talked to her about it and they overheard? Also, they're funny and therefore comedic relief.

The only thing important about the Deathly Hallows business is why DD wanted them: "The Resurrection Stone--to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents, and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders."

And if I think it isn't all that you infer, I'm supposed to keep quiet about it? You can express your opinion, but I cannot? Personally, I don't see DD as celibate. He is really fairly old and quite busy by the time we meet him. People tend to just lose interest, especially if they were really burned. For all we know he had some tyrsts. I don't see it the way you see it at all. So, don't call me a sycophant just because I happen to agree with the author on this. Besides, to be a true sycophant, she'd have to know I exist and reward me for agreeing with her. I get nothing but the pleasure of having my own opinion on things. You're not a sycophant of sistermagpie just because you agree with her, are you? No, you're not.

I never called you a homophobe. And well, yeah, Jo has at least earned the right not to be insulted by her fans whom she lets write fanfic and make fan art and wizard rock, etc...all without suit. You have basically called her a bigot by saying that she has somehow made being gay associated with being evil. Pardon me, but wouldn't that have been more likely had it actually been in the book as a reason he worked with Grindewald? For the record, though, I wouldn't see it that way.

Anne Rice won't even allow fanfic, which is her right, I suppose. But considering she herself took Sleeping Beauty and made an S&M porn out of it...yeah. Those books are insane.

Dumbledore being gay would be acceptable to me if it were actually in the books, rather than Rowling trying to convince us that she's being really, like, tolerant and shit by tossing it out there as an afterthought and expecting everyone to lap it up like the most delicious liberal cream.

Wordy McWord.

Edited 2008-03-27 14:49 (UTC)

I wonder if people would think that if DD wasn't gay and she had simply revealed DD had loved Gridewald, a woman?

But if Grindelwald had been a woman, the alleged DD/GG love story won't have been revealed in Rowling's apocrypal postbook interviews and hence none of this present controversy. It'd have made it into the story with the rest of the heterosexual love stories.

That's the point being made here.

He's asexual? People who are have no sexual urges at all. They have no sexual orientation.

Umm, yes. Exactly. Dumbledore is never described (even in this interview, in which she insists until she is blue in the face that "sex" wasn't the issue) as having any kind of *sexual* urges.

DD being gay would obviously mean he felt attraction to the same sex. Also, we have no idea if he had sex with anyone. Who knows?

That's sort of my point: he's not "gay", he's asexual.

Actually, no it doesn't. Merope's love for Tom Riddle, Sr. led her to basically enslave him with love potion for awhile. Obsessive love has always been shown in the books to be bad. In fact, that was one point of the love potion in HBP: to show that obsessive love can be dangerous. Besides, how in the world would DD's love life come up in conversation with Harry? Harry didn't even ask what his own parents did for a living.

Obsession, in the books, has always been shown to be distinct from genuine "love". The "love" produced by the love potion, just like Merope's obsession with Tom Riddle, was false and destructive. To lump Dumbledore's homosexual attraction to Grindelwald in the same category is extremely dubious.

She promotes intolerance, bigotry, and homophobia? Honestly? You're whacked. I'm speaking as a person who jumps on anyone who shows any homophobia. She's none of those things. You're exaggerating a great deal to make your argument seem stronger, when all it really is is that you don't like the fact DD didn't get any as far as you know. Oh no! As far as we know neither did McGonagall! That must mean she hates heteros too! Sorry for the sarcastic tone, but it seems to be catching.

It's not about Dumbledore "getting any", it's about presenting an offensive stereotype of a gay man, and presenting her one, single, homosexual relationship as destructive. In this sense she actually does promote intolerance and bigotry. By presenting "homosexuality" as functionally identical to asexuality, by presenting her one gay romance as misguided youthful infatuation, she very, very clearly presents the idea that homosexual love isn't real love - just like the feelings produced by a love potion or Merope's insane, selfish obsession with Tom Riddle.

This is, in fact, a problem.

By itself, it's not so much of an issue, but when the woman is actually being applauded for having the "courage" to put a gay character in a children's book, she needs to be called out.

- Dan Hemmens

Personally, I don't see DD as celibate.

And you are wrong: "He led a celibate and bookish life" says Jo, in the very interview this thread is about.

Dumbledore was asexual. Jo seems to think that "asexual" means the same as "gay", and *that's* one of my big issues with it.

You have basically called her a bigot by saying that she has somehow made being gay associated with being evil.

That's because she did exactly that, and that is exactly what she is. She's not a cross-burning, shaven headed, BNP-voting bigot. She's the much more subtle sort of bigot. She didn't intentionally set out to say "homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love", but she knowingly and deliberately put her one canonical homosexual relationship in the same category as Merope Gaunt's date-raping Tom Riddle.

This is an interesting subject. I see a different story. I don't think JKR is attributing Dumbledore's thirst for power with his feelings for Grindelwald. In DH, he admits his own selfish desires (power and recognition). He meets another who shares those desires, but also carries another desire: ruling over the Muggles. It's [i]that[/i] thing that Dumbledore doesn't feel too right about, but he ignores his own feelings about that particular issue because he is in love with Grindelwald. He "assuaged his conscience with empty words" (pg. 716, Am. Ed.)

He justified forcing the Muggles into subservience by saying it was for the greater good. This is what JKR was talking about DD becoming a fool for love. Not because he had his own selfish desires for power or recognition, but that he took it farther than he would have on his own. Although, I do not deny that he could very well have come to the same conclusion on his own years later if he never met Grindelwald. But in meeting Grindelwald that summer, he ignored the parts he was uncomfortable with so that he could bring about his own selfish desires.

He becomes mistrustful of his own moral compass when it's been proven to him that he will take his own selfish desires to the wrong place simply by justifying his actions. His single motivation for justifying the horror he was about to inflict on Muggles was being enamored with someone who thinks those things are just peachy.

But later, it is hinted that Grindelwald was redeemed through his feeling for Dumbledore. When Voldemort goes to him in prison to find out where the wand is, Gellert defies him. Harry senses in the chapter King's Cross, that Grindelwald's defiance was about not desecrating Dumbeldore's tomb.

I hope that all makes sense and furthers along the dialog.

So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you lot hated the books, yeah? Did you like them before you started listening to JKR's interviews?

Thank you! I can feel hope again, or some-such. But that was a lovely argument, and I agree completely.

I can't speak for the lot meaning everybody who's commented, but for me I guess I'd say I always had mixed feelings about them, liked them a lot less after DH--since that was the last book it answered a lot of questions about what was going on. The books have much more weight to speak about themselves than interviews. I don't know whether I'd say her interviews make me like the books any more or less. They're usually separate things. Her interviews about this subject I just think are interesting in themselves. The combination of "He's gay" but also "A sexual" and "it's not in the books" is its own thing.

ETA: I should clarify, I had mixed feelings about the books but loved talking about them, both the positive and negative. Still do.

Edited 2008-04-21 01:54 (UTC)

Sorry I somehow missed this when you posted it.

This is definitely a much better interpretation, though it still seems like what she's clearly saying that he hasn't become mistrustful of his own moral compass, but mistrustful of love's effect on his moral compass.

Now, within canon is a completely different thing because this stuff is just in the interview. What I read in the canon was a lot of reasons for Dumbledore to want power--and you're right, he does admit he wants power--and specifically at that time in his life to want power over Muggles. Grindelwald brings out the darkest sides of himself, and it leads to the death of his sister (which he wanted on some level) and he's horrified with what he saw in himself. That was completely intertwined with what attracted him to Grindelwald. So like I said I think the book presents this story much better than what I hear in interviews--which somehow keep concentrating on the "fool for love" aspect that isn't really there in the book, and the way that he was gay followed by all the qualifications about how he wasn't really gay, he was asexual because of how it was associated with this stuff etc.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 13 of 14

In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject