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

*wants to point out it rhymes with insane as well*

I agree that a lot of H/D does have a side of Ron/Hermione. Personally, I like them to be there because they are Harry's friends. Doesn't mean they have to be a couple...

Heeh! I like your icon! D/R is not a ship I read, but I certainly don't mind it. I think there's lots of snark and hate to go on between those two as well.

Yes, on both of these issues it's like...as somebody else said, her instinct just runs on ahead of her intellect. Because Dumbledore totally works as a character who's tempted by *power.* In fact, if I were just looking at canon and trying to work out what he said about love--since I can't really make head or tail of what love is really supposed to mean in this universe--I'd say this is a person who *always* chose power over love. Like, even with Grindelwald the great love that he felt was bound up with power. They were both seeking to take over the world together. And in the end, bizarrely, Grindelwald almost seems to be the one who learns his lesson more than Albus does!

But then she's just very clear in interviews that she doesn't really seem comfortable with that at all. It's just like with the authority stuff--there's a lot of stuff about mistrusting authority, but in the end the books are very pro-authority. They really kind of long for the same kind of philosopher king as Tolkien and others set up in their fantasies. Harry should listen to the right guide: Dumbledore. As Montavilla says, there's plenty of children's stuff that says that adults are stupid, but this series is even odder that way because first, the adults really are stupid. I mean, they are all stunted and never grow beyond their high school lives. We're pretty much told that Harry's generation--the members of it close to Harry--are far better and can fix the world, yet they never even have their moment where they surprise the adults by thinking for themselves. Hermione, for instance, seems to be the best model of what they're supposed to be. She thinks independently all the time, but only so far as she's following the person she knows is the right authority figure: Dumbledore.

Re: the homophobia...yeah, I think that she really doesn't think being gay should be a big deal. But she's not exactly analyzing what she's saying here. Since Dumbledore is the only gay person in the series it's very easy to make a homophobic interpretation no matter what she intended. First she herself decides to leave it out of the book, as if it's the one kind of love that can't speak its name. Then she actually binds it up with a temptation to evil. It's funny because one could say Bellatrix LeStrange is similar in that she's in love with Voldemort, only with Bellatrix clearly she has those beliefs outside of Voldemort and that's why she finds him attractive.

Ah, but Harry was born to two parents who were each others' True Loves, so of course he'd grow up to be a good, loving person. If your parents are crap or absent, well, you're screwed. It's all about free will.

Actually, he isn't even a character who happens to be gay, because he doesn't happen to be gay within the story. Which is odd since apparently it's actually so bound up in every single thing he did in his life.

LOL! I know--the book makes perfect sense without any of this. It's just a different book. I think it was Mike Smith who said this well, that the problem with the revelation isn't that Dumbledore is a gay character, but just that there's no room for this motivation in canon. Canon's already provided us with an explanation for his actions. This is literally telling us a different story, revealing that she kind of...lied?...in the actual book. And she doesn't seem to have trouble telling the story outside the book, so one wonders why she didn't just dramatize it if that's what's supposed to have happened.

It does make me wonder what her impression is of the reaction to the book because it seems like the interview answers I've read have often been about defending the characters and making them more "inherently good."

Yes--it actually works very nicely. Dumbledore is the twinkly leader of the good guys but he's got the same temptations as he did when he was a teenager. Temptations that make perfect sense given his background--not only regarding what happened to his sister, but the way he was apparently hailed as a genius his whole life. It seems more like Grindelwald just gave him permission to act on things he was already thinking.

I always thought that was a bit crap. well, at least since she got all the Weasley ages wrong and then went 'oops, maths'. I mean, really, if you've got it all in a notebook, with family trees and whatnot, you'd have WORKED THAT OUT ALREADY.

Doesn't she usually come out with stuff to the effect that 'some people will like and some hate it, because it'll never end how everyone wanted it to end' or something, rather ignoring the view that a lot of people are upset because the morality portrayed in the book is abhorrent.

That line of Dumbledore's has always been one of the biggest head-scratchers for me. Both of them, actually. Because they're both obviously set up as Important Lines like Gandalf's line about "Many who live deserve death..." But what's weird about them is that they just really aren't at all what the series actually dramatizes. It's totally the differences about what Dumbledore thinks he should say and believe and what he really does.

Though the choices line is interesting. I remember in an interview JKR referred to him as saying "choices make us who we are" when what Dumbledore actually says--and what the book shows--is that our choices *show* who we are. Because the characters in this series are very very static. Their big moments are more revelations than choices. Some characters have limits on how good or bad they can be and that's really it. It's not about making the wrong choices, it's showing whether you're a good guy or a bad guy, and how much of one you are.

Even if you try to look at the important choices in canon they're all shown as kind of fated by character. Peter's choice to betray the Potters is one of the most important choices anybody makes, but everything about Peter shows this is the choice he's always going to make. Even in a flashback it's obvious this is who he is. Snape's choice about the prophecy and his next to go to Dumbledore--they are choices, I guess, but they're not dramatized as such. More like inevitable things that this character was going to do. Like when Dumbledore says he'd "hoped" Snape would overcome his hatred for James enough to teach Harry Occlumency. I don't think the book ever gives any real hope that such a thing could happen. Snape is limited always by his hatred of James and love of Lily. He's just playing out his fate just as Harry and everyone else is.

As I think I said above, it sounds sweet to say they're really afraid of love, but they're not. As someone else mentioned, often homophobia goes right along with a worship of same-sex love--as long as it's platonic. A real man loves his buddies maybe even more than his wife--and don't anybody dare suggest they're queers.

It's almost just funny at this point because you'd think an author talking about their work would make it more interesting or add more layers. I love listening to commentary tracks on DVDs because they add more to it (granted commentators don't tell you what's supposed to happen to everybody after the movie's over!). But she always seems to make it less for me rather than more.

Yeah, what's crazy about this revelation is that it's not just a random "Oh, this character's gay but I never found a place to mention it naturally." I'm sure that happens a lot and while it would still drive homophobes crazy it wouldn't be as much of a big deal.

But instead it's kind of a weird maelstrom of strange ideas--that it's not in the story despite being the Key to Everything about this character's actions, yet it's not mentioned in the story along with every other love story that drives the plot, that the one gay relationship unfortunately winds up being about a loss of moral sense and leaves the character needing to be celibate forever, that it makes all these things the character does somebody else's fault when it's supposed to be about choice--and at the same time in a story where everybody's just revealing their innate natures, somehow Dumbledore gets a pass few others get because what he does under the influence of love doesn't say anything about his real character.

Here via daily_snitch.

So many good comments! It's bothered me for a long time that so much of what presented early on as brilliance and originality has become more and more pat and unsupported the more we find out from Ms. Rowling about her creative process.

Virtually all of her storylines, I thought, were nowhere near as effective as they *could* have been, and largely because of the failing that you and many of the commenters here have cited: the characters' *choices* all turn out to be shoehorned into the plot, either for reasons known only to JKR ("because it just came to me! Because it had to be that way!") or because something within the narrative predestined the characters to behave as they did. The progression of any given character from point A to point B (and even point C) never gets a lot of thought.

This is why I just pay no attention to her interviews. The books were disappointing enough; to see her reinforce the extent to which she doesn't get it, doesn't understand her own characters, and moreover refuses to see the potential, rather than forcing them back into the structure of the story.... It just frustrates me so much.

I also want to add that the thing about women's "liberation" vs. Dumbledore's self-repression is OMG so true. One of the things that I hated from the moment it was clear Hermione harbored an interest in Ron (which was, like, what... Book One, Chapter 8?), was the clear indication that she was grooming him to become her ideal man. And the reason I *hated* that possibility in the text was that it struck me as such a perpetual problem. Intelligent women do sublimate themselves to less intellectual men all the time--I don't quite understand it, but it's such a common mistake for women to make--and they do it while honestly believing that the man they change will grow and reward them for helping them to become a "better person".... Um. No. That way leads to resentment and competitiveness and ugh, just BAD ROMANCE.

I like Ron, I've always appreciated that of the trio, he's the most realistic, the one who consistently behaves like whatever age they are, and I was rooting for him to come into his own strength in the series. And I'm glad he did. But I didn't want to see him do it at the expense of Hermione becoming even more insufferable and domineering, only to finally melt into his arms in a classic, "My Hero!" Jeanette MacDonald/Nelson Eddy pose.

As for Ginny, again, I always believed that there was a spunky, scrappy, strong female in there, but I liked her best when she seemed to have finally gotten over Harry (both as the icon and the boy) and moved the hell on to boys who liked her and didn't see her as a surrogate sister. To throw that strength away and shunt her back into the protective, supportive girlfriend role, content to wait while the hero braved his fate, was...well, it was a backslide every bit as damaging to young women readers as Hermione's character arc.

But back to Dumbledore (and Snape).... I said around the time of OotP that I thought the Wizarding World was outstripping JKR's ability to wrap her arms around it, and I still think I'm right. I think that she backed off what might have been a very interesting backstory and made it a footnote in the heteronormative Judeo-Christocentric monogamarchy(TM). Even if DD had been so shaken by being "led astray" that he pledged himself back to the "right," that's still a nod to the way homosexual characters have been marginalized for a long time in literature and film.

As for Snape, well, I still don't like Snape-->Lily. It could have been a lot worse, but I still don't like that his "love" for her was the only thing that convinced him to change sides, the only thing that kept him working for Dumbledore and against Voldemort. The whole thing leaves me very "Eh," I'm afraid... except that trying to figure out the why's and analysing the inconsistencies will give us things to talk about for a long, long time.

Canon's already provided us with an explanation for his actions. This is literally telling us a different story, revealing that she kind of...lied?...in the actual book. And she doesn't seem to have trouble telling the story outside the book, so one wonders why she didn't just dramatize it if that's what's supposed to have happened.

Rowling ~~lied~~ contradicted herself about something in the book? Now, that's a shock. :P

It does make me wonder what her impression is of the reaction to the book because it seems like the interview answers I've read have often been about defending the characters and making them more "inherently good."

Honestly? I think Rowling is giving all these interviews and going on and on about her books because that there will no longer be a long wait for the next Harry Potter book; and no longer a need for indepth analysis of the teasing hints and clues she drops in her interviews. In short, there is no longer a reason for anyone to pay attention to her as opposed to say, the actual completed book series. And Ms Rowling misses the attention.

Perhaps not the best venue, you might be lynched by a bunch of irate Jo-devotees. I wonder what would happen if an interviewer would ask the questions from this thread? A late-night visit by the Bloomsbury Men in Black?

why is the solution to a mistake in love closing yourself off to love forever?

Actually this needn't be an odd reaction for Dumbledore, in his historical context. He was a young homosexual in a very repressive environment (assuming that the sexual mores of the wizarding world are similar to the Muggles'); if he had been brought up to adhere strictly to the values of his age, and had a certain character make-up, his reaction to a knowing transgression gone wrong could very well be to close himself off from love - he might have thought that homosexuality and Grindelwald's evil nature were related, especially if they actually had sex. He may have reasoned that if he wanted to be a good person, he must renounce to his "evil" (and punishable by law) urges. I'm not saying that his context automatically made him like that (because there certainly were happy homosexuals), only that it *could* have.

BUT ... I would definitely say that in order for this explanation to sound genuine, JKR would have had to think it out and have a whole, clear, specific backstory in her head, and judging from the comments she gives - genre "the issue is love, not sex", when the issue is VERY MUCH sex in a historical context - she so hasn't thought it through. :/

The last book still amazes me because I was so waiting for all these *choices* to be important. I honestly never doubted that we'd have to see all these examples where characters who lived on the edge chose one way or the other. And I know that these were characters I liked so one could just accuse me of wanting her to write the story to my tastes, but it honestly just seemed like the obvious dramatic set up.

But in the end all choices were avoided so very resolutely it really seemed like she was making a strong statement. Nobody came across as free to choose anything. In fact, scenes where people were given choices mostly came across like bad jokes on the person played by the manipulators in the series. Like in the final Harry/Voldemort convo where he's all "Here's your last chance! Show some remorse!" It's not a chance, it's a taunt--Voldemort can't feel remorse. It's beyond his ability. Harry's just waiting for him to do the only thing he's able to do, just as Dumbledore watched everybody on his side live within their limits. He makes little superior remarks about "hoping" they might do something else but really nothing is a surprise.

Also word on the shipping.

Yes, that would have been believable given the time period etc. Though hopefully he also would have been proved wrong. Like, if we had a happy teenaged couple in Harry's generation it would show that the sex wasn't the problem. There would be something to off-set it and put it in historical context, for instance.

Although it's always been sort of problematic the way the WW so often falls back on reflections of our society when it's not clear that it should. Based on what I see in canon I've good reason to believe that the WW is actually more homophobic than my world is, at least where I live in it.

I saw DD as a manipulative bastard from book 1. Epitome of goodness - my...posterior.

But it was his OTL! In Potterverse, you can only have one. Luckily for Jo, that's not how it works in RL.

Whatever is in those notebooks, I'm ready to bet there is not a single time line. I wonder if she has any dates on her family trees? Well, not that counts, if the Black family tree is typical.

Couldn't agree more. If professors Sprout and Sinistra were life-time partners, it would be interesting for the fans, but wouldn't do anything for Harry's Story. something that shaped Harry's mentors life? Well, what about a few clues in the earlier books and some more obvious hints in DH?

Word!

Virtually all of her storylines, I thought, were nowhere near as effective as they *could* have been, and largely because of the failing that you and many of the commenters here have cited: the characters' *choices* all turn out to be shoehorned into the plot, either for reasons known only to JKR

Completely agree. Several years of obsessive canon analysis just down the drain....

Jo has created some wonderful, real-life characters. Unfortunately, they often have to act like total morons so not to ruin The Plot. Obviously, the magic doesn't only take over the parts of the brain Muggle use for common sense, they leave you socially inept as well. DDs early life, the Snape/James school feud, you name it, being a secret in a society of a few thousand, many related, who goes to the same school and in many cases work at the same place? Oh well, you can expect anything from a society that lets the ever-revolting goblins be in charge for its economy.

While Jo's characters wouldn't be out of place in an adult novel her world-building is only fit for a children's book, however. Not to mention those parts that are only there for comic relief, like the wizards way of "dressing muggle".

Jo is a talented story teller, too. I'm not the only one to rush through the books to find out what happens. But I'm not the only one to go WTF!?! when thinking about it afterwards.

Her interviews makes me go WTF as well...but I don't want her to shut up. I'd love an interview where all the things bothering fans would be addressed though.

One of the problems is. I think, her editor(s) not doing their job. Now, I don't agree with the kind of editor wanting to be a co-author and the manuscript re-written to be more in their style than the actual authors. But every work needs to be read with fresh eyes. There are always inconsistencies and things that are clear to the author but a reader doesn't get. And if you do a seven-book series with clues from one book getting their answer three books later you need to discuss the whole series.

But Jo has been allowed to keep everyone, even her publishers, in the dark. As far as I know, it's unheard of, and I can only think it's because the HP books have become such a phenomenon. It's a shame, however. Some outside views would not have changed the story much, I'm certain, but it would have made a lot of things clearer for the readers.

It doesn't matter how smart Ron is. Without a base, it was nothing more than a bundle or hormones on both parts. How a marriage is supposed to last 19+ years with nothing to talk about but Harry and school days (all the two have in common) is beyond any sort of reasonable thought. Unless even more development is pulled from the magical land of Rowling's rear end. I wouldn't put it past her to add that oh yes, Ron and Hermione both have a common interest in old castle research and stamp collecting.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 5 of 14

In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

no subject

Re: (2/2)

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