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

The homophobia comment boggles my mind too. Because she says, in the very same interview, presumably in *criticism* of homophobic people:

"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."

And in the same interview, she very nicely squashes the idea of Dumbledore ever having loved again, didn't she? "Don't worry, folks, we spooked it out of him."

ellid, you've hit the nail on the head. Totally agree with this summary.

I could really see them getting married and, as you say, having absolutely nothing to talk about but Harry and school. Like Ron would want to talk about Quidditch or whatever and Hermione would want to talk about her career and they would just inevitably come back to the same stories over and over until they're both going insane with boredom. And then maybe they have kids to try and save the marriage, because they would actually have something in common, but that only makes things worse, until one or both of them has an affair, leading to their inevitable divorce...

The only way I can see them still married like they are in the epilogue is if the Wizarding World doesn't allow divorce. Perhaps there's some kind of "counseling", that's really just love potions or spells?

My honest feeling (and it's just a feeling, I don't think there's any way to verify it) is that JKR works a lot on instinct in her writing. She isn't doing a lot of thinking about it. Which is great. I don't think a writer ought to overthink their work.

But then, she's put into the position of having to answer--over and over again--questions about the work. She has to come up with reasons for why Harry does such and such. Or whether Snape is evil or not. Or whether he was loved. And her relationship to the work is very different from our relationship.

It bugs me that the series is so flawed. But in an odd way, I'm glad that it is, because it does make me think. I think someone else, far smarter than me, compared it to a symphony that you think is going to come to a resolution, and instead it goes all discordant. Because of that, the audience is forced to create their own resolution or else remain unsettled.

Discordant music can bring about riots. It did when Stravinsky debuted The Firebird. So, maybe we're just in a midst of our own riot... we can't help throwing bricks.

Oh. Dear. Gawd!

I've read it before (and snickering all the way), but it just hit me:

quote:
"So then Harry goes and talks to the Goblin they rescued from the Malfoys (did I mention the goblin? There was a goblin). The Goblin is all "you totally rock Harry Potter, because you sometimes treat other races with the barest minimum possible level of decency when you remember to." You see, it's because Harry understands love.

So Harry goes and talks to Ollivander about his broken wand. I mean seriously, it's not even worth doing jokes about, is it.

Having got his penis-metaphor out of the way, Harry then talks some more about Wand-Lore with Ollivander. Here we learn that it is the wand that chooses the wizard, not the other way around, and that if you take somebody's wand by force, that wand will work better for you than one you just picked up somewhere.

In particular, the discussion goes like this:

"I took this wand from Draco Malfoy by force," said Harry. "Can I use it safely?"
"I think so, subtle laws govern wand ownership, but the conquered wand will usually bend its will to its new master."

end quote

It just struck me; the wand chooses the wizard. If you take the wand by force from the wizard, the wand will like the forcible wizard better. Substitute 'witch' for 'wand' and you'll understand why I find this whole wandbusiness so unsavory. Apparantly, wands are like those fickle women. They'll say they'll love you, they're your *bestest friend*, but when some forceful bully beats you in a fight, she'll find that bully so *totally* sexy that she'll drop you for him in a second.

No wonder she'll insist that Lily is a Very Nice Girl; if she thinks that the whole wand business makes sense, she'll think Lily is a saint.

*gack* *spew*

When they baked that woman's head, they were out of brains and they used a cauliflower instead.

I love the commentary on DVDs, too. Especially British movies that have commentary from the writers. The commentary on Gosford Park is great, because the writer tells you all these interesting tidbits about the period and how his own experiences blended into the story.

Director commentaries aren't as interesting, I find. It's usually about how difficult it was to get that location. Or how annoying it was to light... Although Robert Altman is more interesting than most, because occasionally he'll talk about the characters or what inspired a particular image. Or, of course, how delightful it is to work with British actors because they (apparently unlike American actors) actually memorize the lines and thus can go more than thirty seconds without having to check their scripts....

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.

I wouldn't have minded the melting if it had made any sense. I thought--truly thought--that Hermione and Ron had done all that back in HBP and that Rowling just didn't show it because it wasn't any of Harry's business. When she shows Ron and Hermione holding each other at the funeral, I thought they must be together and how cool that it was so understated.

So, then, what was DH? Was it what happens when the honeymoon is over and you start throwing eggs at each other over the breakfast table? In other words, were we getting the third act of Private Lives? Then it seems like, no, it was all foreplay leading up to that "big" kiss. I put that in quotes because it seemed like such a non-event at that point that I didn't even realize it had happened the first time I read the book.

Also, Hermione's fling into Ron's arms was based on nothing that made sense to her character. Ron said they ought to consider the elves's feelings, which was the same damn thing he'd said back in GoF, and Hermione goes all tingly. All I can surmise is that Hermione had gone temporarilty insane, due to the stress of the bank robbery, dragon escape, imminent battle.... if Ron hadn't been there, she might have done something worse, like throw off all her clothing and roll around on the floor. Or started singing "I'm a Little Teapot" while magically transfiguring herself into one.

So, then, what was DH? Was it what happens when the honeymoon is over and you start throwing eggs at each other over the breakfast table? In other words, were we getting the third act of Private Lives? Then it seems like, no, it was all foreplay leading up to that "big" kiss. I put that in quotes because it seemed like such a non-event at that point that I didn't even realize it had happened the first time I read the book.

See, I've been wondering if she got them together in HBP, but then realized while writing DH that it would mean dealing with unsupervised teenagers in a romantic relationship, which I don't think she wanted to have to deal with in any realistic way. Obviously they're on this really important quest, but still, if their relationship had been going well the topic of sex or at least some kind of sexual activity comes up given their age and the situation they're in (both the dangerous quest part and the bored out of their mind in tent part). So I think she made them argue building up to a simple kiss, not just because she thinks that's how relationships work, but also because she wanted to stop people from asking "So... what exactly were the sleeping arrangements in that tent?"

a boy who doesn't go out with the girl who wants him to go out with her, even though she's never said a word

She did. She asked him to Slughorn's party and he said yes, previously to the Lavender kissing.

And the hugely important thing about Teddy/Victoire is that they were exchanging spit and that this relationship might be consummated so that Teddy can be a real part of the family. Emotional bonds are for gay people, dangerous as they may be. Bodily fluids are for straight people. You can't have everything, you know?

Apparantly, wands are like those fickle women. They'll say they'll love you, they're your *bestest friend*, but when some forceful bully beats you in a fight, she'll find that bully so *totally* sexy that she'll drop you for him in a second.

So, sort-of like Lily, when James hangs bestest friend Sev by his ankle?

It does seem like the same type of argument.

Yep, that's what I thought, the old "They are just mean to you because they are jealous of [whatever you think they should be jealous about]".

Don't they often pick which questions to answer beforehand? I suppose many questions that might challenge her in an interesting way get sorted out that way.

There’s nothing open-minded or positive about writing an old, asexual dead gay character whose crush on a guy led him to flirt with evil.

Especially since it wasn't even mentioned until the books were all written and finished.

I mean, even when it comes down to the treatment of Susan, I'd say JKR does worse with Lavender (or any girl whose not in it for marriage from age 2, or whatever age they start filling their hope-chest)

I agree, and I say that as someone who has severe issues with Lewis' treatment of Susan (or depiction of women in general.)

And Dumbledore's off-canon UNREQUITED romance (I remember that being mentioned)

A reporter wrote that, incorrectly. They figured it was unrequited because Rowling called it tragic, which is ridiculous.
/shipping

Freakin word to the rest of your comment.

Word to that. All authors need editors. There's a reason why 70-year-old prize-winning authors with 40 books under their belt still thank their editors in their forewords. I wish JKR understood that.

>What's that whole thing doing in there? It's *extremely* consistent and we can easily read all sorts of messages into it *and have them supported by canon* -- if that was accidental, WHY did it happen? HOW??

OMG I know I know! I was whiplashing all over the place on my first feverish reading of DH. I kept getting up and pacing around because I was so confused. I think I was a good 2/3rds of the way through before I really started to feel the ground slide from under me. Even at the epilogue I was... wait, is this like 1984? All is well? He loved Big Brother?

Dumbledore is still the most thrillingly-- and yeah, like Montavilla I find it kind of thrilling-- double experience. Because the character is PERFECT. Even by the Prince's Tale-- by which point I think I'd realized the moral compass of the series had entered the Bermuda Triangle-- I was like, "Oh my god, Dumbledore's an ASSHOLE! That's AWESOME!" And then he's so incredibly creepy in the King's Cross chapter, fawning over Harry in that revolting way and childishly looking for reassurance and slowly convincing Harry to ignore the flayed baby in pain while congratulating him for his Awesome Compassion.. like, whoa. He's just a fantastic villain. A perfect portrait of the charming cult leader and I never saw it coming. Except.. except he's not. Harry loves Big Brother.

There's still stuff that I find almost impossible to believe is actually in there, like Harry's last thought after the battle being maybe he could get his slave -- who has just fought plenty harder in the SAME BATTLE-- to GET HIM A SANDWICH. While musing about how Nobody Understands How He Suffers. I was like.. what? Wait.. what? I HAVE to be missing something... surely... this can reverse in the last ten pages, right?

I'd do it. They'd probably cut off my mic, but I'd do it.

Thank you for the correction...but regardless, Hermione's reaction to him dating Lavender would be considered abusive if a boy did it a girl. I wonder why Rowling considered it acceptable for one of her three lead characters to "prove her love" through violence?

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.

Exactly my point, but definitely better put ^_^

In terms of how static the characters are, I think this is where some of her greatest problems come from. She's got characters with personalities that seem to want to make choices of their own from time to time, but she's determined to keep them fit into their boxes. I think that both DD and Snape have the potential to be really fascinating characters, but in the end, they're just not. You've already pointed out why this is true for DD, that GG is actually to blame for everything bad. With Snape, I just have a lot of trouble with the way that she presents his character. He's willing to live and die for the sake of a teenaged love, and that's why it's okay for him to literally be the greatest fear of a 13-yr-old boy? His actions are extremely brave, but he can't face the fact that he destroyed his relationship with Lily all by himself? These *could* be very fascinating twists and turns. Instead, they're just rough-hewn plot device.

Sorry sistermagpie, I love you and all, but this kind of remark gets right up my wrong nostril.
Hyperion is a character from Greek mythology. He was a Titan and the father of Helios (the sun), Selene (the moon) and Eos (the dawn). Since the members of the Black family (of which Narcissa was a member) famously named their children after stars, constellations or Greek mythical characters, Scorpius (constellation) Hyperion (mythical character) Malfoy makes sense.

The Hyperion-named-after-a-publishing-company remark must rank up there with the remark I heard not long ago from somebody who saw 'The Count of Monte Christo' on tv that she thought it weird that somebody would name a character (Mercedes) after a car and the remark (overheard in the cinema after watching Lord of the Rings) that 'the writers totally ripped off Star Wars, man! That Gandalf dude was sooo Obi Wan Kenobi!".

Again, I adore your posts and think highly of your intelligence, but just don't... Just. Don't. Please. I'm sure you're just being whimsical, but.. argh!

I thought she'd stopped speaking. Why has she NOT STOPPED SPEAKING?! Or at least choked on her cake? :P

♥

I mean, the statement itself doesn't even make sense; this love is the only reason a man like Dumbledore succumbed to evil urges (a problem in itself but nevermind), buuuuuuut...we shouldn't be interested in it? The details of it shouldn't be important? It should just be quietly shoved to the side like it's nothing when she's pretty much saying here that it was everything as far as Dumbledore and LOVE (the thing that drove the series) was concerned?

See there is a lot of this whole "love" in Harry Potter that I feel is very much unadressed.

Just to name a few:
- How come Harry knows how to love in diffrence from Voldemort, when his background has been given as much more lacking in love? Sure that Tom grew up in an orphanage, but Harry lived in a closet, was beaten up regularily by his cousin, and to his legal guardians considered a nuisance just by existing.
- If love was so important in defeating Voldie, and Dumbledore greatly stressed Harry's ability to love, why didn't Harry's love seem to have anything to do with Voldie's defeat? Snape's love for Lily? Check! Harry's trust in Dumbledore? Check! In the last minute introduced wandlore, that seems to contradict itself, and that at any rate seems logically flawed? Check! Harry's ability to love? Hmmm, maybe if he on his way to his suicide planned by nice guy Dumbledore, made the decision that he's doing this so that his loved ones would have a chance to live on, but I don't remember reading that. I would have loved to.
- Why all the future marriages seems to be all about equating lust with love... But that probably goes into personal opinion.

Dear Jo: When DD was eighteen, he had a relationship that shaped the rest of his life. Because of that, he spent his life as a bookish celibate, totally lacking empathy. And we're not supposed to be interested? What if Gellert had been Gretchen instead, would our interest have been more understandable?

If he was single in his old age because his significant other had died from old age or something, then I could agree it would be less interesting.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 6 of 14

In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

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

no subject