In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

[sistermagpie]

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!

Comments

[arrogant-sage.livejournal.com]

I was pretty late to the game, I'm not surprised you may have missed it. I appreciate the response, though.

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.

No, he hasn't become distrustful of his own moral compass. Dumbledore has always had a high opinion of himself. Holding himself at arm's length from everyone and avoiding closeness fits in with his personality perfectly. He carries a large burden of knowing too much coupled with knowing how to get everything he wants. He sees what he was "flirting" with as ultimately wrong and realizes he could easily have gone down that path. It was an eye-opening experience. Not to mention the fact, that his terrible guilt over his sister's death probably led to his life-long penance.

The "fool for love" information was always meant to be an aside. It's how she shaped a piece of his motivation. His larger motivation for his actions are indeed within the text and have everything to do with his greed. The part about him being in love only speaks to the Muggle subjugation. He was swayed to think it would be for the greater good by his rose-colored glasses.
I admit, I wondered why he took his thrust for power to that level. I could see why he would strive to be Minister or why he would want the Wizarding World to listen to his every word, but I didn't quite see what would drive him to take over the Muggles. You say at that time in his life he wanted power over Muggles, but that isn't in the book. He wanted more than anything to travel with Doge. He wanted to rise in power within the Wizarding World. Even with what happened to his sister and father, he didn't seem to harbor any anti-Muggle views of his own. It wasn't until this kindred spirit moved in that he started thinking that racial domination was a viable path to power.

Now I know and I can even relate (not to that extent though. I swear, I've never subjugated a race of people!) But I have done things I knew weren't quite kosher because of the person I was with.

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.

Is this meant in a sarcastic way? Not towards me, mind, but maybe you feel like JKR is having it both ways? She can say he's gay, but since he's celibate the anti-gay contingent can feel it's okay?
Personally, I think if she says he's gay, then that's it. He's gay. It doesn't matter whether he has sex with a man or not. I'm straight whether I consummate a relationship with a man. I am completely and utterly attracted to men (just like Dumbledore) ;).

So for me, I don't see her words as a way to excuse Dumbledore's flaws as being the fault of the evil side. Clearly, his faults are his own. The being in love and losing sight of his morals speak only to racial domination. As you say, the simple fact that he's attracted to Grindelwald's ideals is more about his own feelings. And those feelings/motivations are simply power. He demonstrates his love by keeping far from this power, by never accepting the position of MoM. Because he doesn't know where his thrust for power would take him.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

No. The interviews just confirm what's wrong with the books.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

You say at that time in his life he wanted power over Muggles, but that isn't in the book. He wanted more than anything to travel with Doge. He wanted to rise in power within the Wizarding World. Even with what happened to his sister and father, he didn't seem to harbor any anti-Muggle views of his own.

I guess I felt like what happened to his sister was enough reason for him to think badly of Muggles even if it wasn't his prime motivation--like, why put it in the book if it's not really a factor while leaving out him saying "I was madly in love with the guy?" I do think that within the book it suggests that without Grindelwald Dumbledore would not have gone down that path himself. I just saw it more that she'd primed him to be vulnerable to that anyway. Sort of like with Snape it seems like he was influenced by his friends in Slytherin and probably would not have wanted to murder Muggles on his own, yet he's also got things in his own character that suggest it wasn't just a case of him listening to his friends and justifying them to himself. It's like the friends pulled out darkness in himself--as I think Grindelwald did to Dumbledore. He's not turning a blind eye to what Grindelwald is saying, after all, or excusing it or playing it down, he's enthusiastically planning it along with him.

It is, I agree, very much in Dumbledore's character to frame it as the problem being that he justified things he knew were wrong, though.

Is this meant in a sarcastic way? Not towards me, mind, but maybe you feel like JKR is having it both ways? She can say he's gay, but since he's celibate the anti-gay contingent can feel it's okay?
Personally, I think if she says he's gay, then that's it. He's gay. It doesn't matter whether he has sex with a man or not. I'm straight whether I consummate a relationship with a man. I am completely and utterly attracted to men (just like Dumbledore) ;).

But unfortunately that's a popular idea with homophobes. Not that I think she agrees with those people. I think if asked about gay people in the real world she would never say they should be celibate or not act on their desires or anything like that. But for whatever reason her Dumbledore answer really imo does treat gay attraction as very different from straight attraction with a particular emphasis on making it as platonic as possible. I understand that when she says "it's not about sex" she means that the important influence on Dumbledore had to do with other things, but she's also saying it wasn't about sex literally. If it's totally not about sex it's different from the many het attractions in canon.

The being in love and losing sight of his morals speak only to racial domination.

I admit I still read him as just not really having those morals to begin with-- I honestly think it's hard to be a wizard and really have those morals. Subjugating Muggles seem to go really hand in hand with being a Wizard. The line is drawn between killing them or not, and I do think Grindelwald was the one that brought that to the table--Dumbledore would not have thought of that on his own and I don't think he really wanted them dead himself. I just see the transition slightly differently than the way she seems to be describing it here. Like, she's saying he was "inherently good" and yet was planning genocide. I don't think he was inherently good. And while I think she sees him as flawed I do think that she also truly believes in the inherent goodness of her good characters and that that's important to the way she understands them.

[arrogant-sage.livejournal.com]

I guess I felt like what happened to his sister was enough reason for him to think badly of Muggles even if it wasn't his prime motivation--like, why put it in the book if it's not really a factor while leaving out him saying "I was madly in love with the guy?"
Well, (IMO) the sister/father problem was put in there to put an air of mystery around their family and make it so after his mother's death, he becomes the head of house. AND it helps his susceptibility to Grindelwald's influence.

He's not turning a blind eye to what Grindelwald is saying, after all, or excusing it or playing it down, he's enthusiastically planning it along with him.
I agree in part. He is actively participating, definitely. But he says himself that in his heart of hearts he knew what Grindelwald was but he closed his eyes (to the racial domination) because he wanted to achieve his own selfish goals (power, recognition and being with GG). Either way, I think we are saying the same thing. He put aside what he knew was right because of his own selfish desires which included being at Grindelwald's side. Perhaps he also thought he could have some positive influence on GGs worse traits?

But unfortunately that's a popular idea with homophobes. Not that I think she agrees with those people. I think if asked about gay people in the real world she would never say they should be celibate or not act on their desires or anything like that. But for whatever reason her Dumbledore answer really imo does treat gay attraction as very different from straight attraction with a particular emphasis on making it as platonic as possible. I understand that when she says "it's not about sex" she means that the important influence on Dumbledore had to do with other things, but she's also saying it wasn't about sex literally.
With all due respect, I think you are reading too much into her answer. She's not talking about how Gay love works. She's talking about DD's attraction. He's one guy and he worked his love life out in this one way. It shouldn't be on JKRs shoulder to represent all gay men either positively or negatively. You understood what she was getting at. I understood what she was trying to say. To hell with the homophobes who can't be bothered to understand anything beyond their own front door.

If it's totally not about sex it's different from the many het attractions in canon.
How so?

I admit I still read him as just not really having those morals to begin with-- I honestly think it's hard to be a wizard and really have those morals. Subjugating Muggles seem to go really hand in hand with being a Wizard.
I don't think this is a fair assessment of Wizards. The clear contrast is Voldemort compared to the rest of them. He didn't have any qualms dominating muggles. But the majority of the Wizarding world didn't have a problem with Muggleborn students entering their ranks or living alongside Muggles. They do a lot on a daily basis to keep the Muggles from noticing them, so I don't think it's a struggle to keep from subjugating them. I certainly see a case for saying they see themselves as superior. And hell, if I had magic, I would probably feel that way too.

Like, she's saying he was "inherently good" and yet was planning genocide. I don't think he was inherently good. And while I think she sees him as flawed I do think that she also truly believes in the inherent goodness of her good characters and that that's important to the way she understands them.
I can see why she would consider him inherently good despite the fact that he's planning genocide. Being a selfish prick doesn't make you inherently bad. It just makes you a selfish prick and that's as far as his planning took him. He spent a lifetime punishing himself for just the planning phase of his young days. He denied himself power and relationships to make up for something he didn't come close to completing.

And can I just mention that it's been VERY refreshing talking about something other than the shipping!

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

keep the ambiguity about that, DD couldn't reveal something so personal.

DD revealed something even more personal to Harry: He revealed to Harry that he may have murdered his own sister. (This by the way, until her interview, was the reason why DD didn't go after GG immediately.)

Unless, of course, JKR is trying to imply that homosexual love is even more shameful than murder...



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.

This is very true. It's also very true that since DD's back-story (from his father's end in Azkhaban, the death of his mother, his brother, his sister, his best friend Grindelwald, even the fact that he lived near Godric's Hollow) took up so much of the 7th book (even though it was almost completely irrelevant to the plot as The Tale of Beadle Bard was enough to introduce the concept of horcruxes), a little note about his love for Grindelwald, also another important character in DD's past would have merited mentioning. This is the same book where Harry doesn't get the 6th Horcrux until the Grey Lady tells him about her ill-fated love affair with the Bloody Baron.



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?

Well, I can't speak for the other user but no one is saying you can't express your opinions. I, for one, am just saying why I don't agree with them.



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.

To quote JKR: [DD] led a celibate and bookish life. It's in the interview that this post is about.




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.


Once again, I can't speak for another user but:

I don't and have never written Harry Potter fan fic or make fan art or wizard rock. However, I have spent close to $200 on all seven Harry Potter books (hard cover, first editions). The way most people would see it - if any of us (Jo, book writer or me, book buyer) owes anyone anything, it's Jo who owes me my money's worth. Short of returning the books and the hours of my life I spent reading them (which would be impossible), I think discussing them critically is not too much for us to ask for.