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

"I had always seen Dumbledore as gay, but in a sense that's not a big deal...

I've been thinking about this. I'm not willing to buy that this was the case. I'm probably allowing my disillusionment with the series ending to color my response to anything Rowling says now, but I think she didn't think of Dumbledore's sexuality at all until very near the end, and then only to deflect criticism that she knew was coming. How convenient is it to have two things with which to accuse critics: ships that sank, and homophobia?

Because that seems to be what's gong on. Dumbledore was a manipulator, a Machiavelli, a user of people like they were a resource and nothing more. But now he has a pass: he's gay, he was hurt, he closed himself off from love so of course he has some skewed outlook on people's worth. He's injured, damnit, don't critize. If you do criticize, it's obviously because you're a homophobe. It isn't anything about the books, or Rowling, or her convuluted and unhinted-at plot for DHs, it's nothing but your own failing.

Rowling will never get what people are shouting about, because she invents new reasons for our dissatisfaction. If it isn't the ship, it's the gay. It's never her own failure as a writer. Everyone loves her. If someone doesn't, it's because she's "teh awesum" and we're jealous and/or not as visionary. I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality does matter except as a smokescreen to deflect legitimate criticms. She'll play this card until the end of time.

Oh please, concerning RW/HG, they're fictional characters after all and no actual humans were injured.

Of course, that makes abusive relationships good and fine.

"Perhaps there's some kind of "counseling", that's really just love potions or spells?"

Now that's actually an intriguing possibility.

i've been coming back to this and linking it and coming back to it again, reading the comments, getting all fired up and muttering "hell, yeah!" a lot. so, i agree with most of what's being said by commenters here. one thing i haven't seen talked about much is this comment by rowling:

The issue is love. It's not about sex... subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgment in those matters so became quite asexual

this is so typical of rowling's authorial doublespeak. it's not about sex, but dumbledore became asexual because of it, effectively neutered, shut down, a safe, "bookish" man to be in charge of children. the sentiment itself is repugnant, but the fact that rowling can contradict herself practically within the same sentence is so revealing. those of us who were turned off, disgusted, and rolled over by the last book (or, i may say, the last two books) recognize that tendency immediately. it's the same mechanism by which a book about love and the importance of choices becomes a book about unhealthy romantic relationships and predestination and it's vile.

i, too, would like rowling to kindly shut the hell up and let it die. fat chance.

When I think of the wonderful possibilities if Dumbledore had been allowed a significant other, it makes me want to scream.

The tension in the story that was allowed to lay fallow. I can't believe she didn't take advantage of it. All of Snape's angst, that he wasn't allowed to show due to being a double spy, could have been echoed in Dumbledore's love interest. DD could have lost that love interest due to his manipulative behavior. Thereby showing true failings in Dd's character and having DD realize it. DD never learns anything in this story. All his half-assed plans make good. End of story.

No consequences for any of the good guys. Rowling just can't stand to have any spots of mud on their white robes. That is immature. Which is what this series is...ultimately.

It's actually funny to say that it doesn't matter because, well, obviously it didn't matter to you or you'd put it into the books, right? It's just so weird--why go to the trouble creating a story where this isn't included--it's not like there's a hole in this place where when you learn this you say, "Ah! Now it makes sense!" It's more like in the story you get one view of this awful guy, and then afterwards it's like, "Oh no, it wasn't like that. See, what I didn't mention was that any time he did those things he was under the influence of a love potion--only in this case it was just love. But it had the same effect."

It really is an amazing ability--it's like for any question she's got two answers on either side of the fence, but said in different ways. And I doubt she's really thought that out and is doing it on purpose, it just comes out. So it's like, "It's not about sex at all, it's about love..." but then Dumbledore becomes a-sexual. He doesn't stop loving--that's actually Snape, I'd say, who's more about shutting himself off from love because he's the nasty one. Dumbledore seems on the contrary to be all about love, or at least acting as if he loves and wanting to inspire love in others. He's still claiming his problem is that he loves too much in OotP when he claims that's why he kept secrets from Harry. (Snape, meanwhile, is bitterly saying that love is for fools. And that works because it's really Snape who's able to be manipulated by his love for someone else. Dumbledore just knows how to pretend to be a loving person to manipulate others.) That's sort of a tangent, but basically yes, I'm seeing the same contradiction here. It's like once the right thing gets said you can go on and demonstrate the exact opposite and maybe nobody will notice.

If Dumbledore's plans can turn out right, there's obviously no real logical consequences. It's really interesting to contrast him with Snape. Like I said in the comment above, Snape actually does come across like someone cutting himself off from love because he's unpleasant and bitter and thinks love is for fools--which he should know because he actually loved and got hurt by it. Dumbledore seems to have just learned how to pretend to be a loving person because it helps him be a better manipulator. While Snape was responsible for losing the person he loved because he was unworthy, Dumbledore dumped the guy because he was Hitler, and along with that dumped any potentially squicky Hitler-ish qualities about himself.

*sigh* Yes this is absolutely true. Unfortunately, since Rowling seems to be incapable of remembering that anything even *has* a historical context, it's sort of a lost cause.

Clearly the Potterverse only exists in the "now".

And yet Ron and Hermione interacted more (and more cordially) than Harry and Ginny did in that woeful excuse for an epilogue. I don't think Harry and Ginny had one word to say to each other. They only communicated through the kids

Arsinoe de Blassenville's 'The Golden Age' just ran headlong into this issue. If your fic is a comment on canon, you can't ignore what canon shows you.

The fic isn't over yet.

I noticed that too--but it's not surprising. H/G in the books is always about being told how they're great together, but Ginny mostly just is there to say whatever Harry needs/wants to hear at that moment. People hung onto her "Lucky you" comment in OotP as a sign that she'd disagree with him, but that's just there because the author thinks Harry needs that at the time. It's not really a sign that she thinks he's arrogant or doesn't think about her. It's like just proof that she's supposedly spunky, but most of the time she's just going after people he's annoyed at. Unfortunately this doesn't leave much for them to converse about besides how awesome it is that they're a couple. Ron and Hermione at least have their constant bickering about whatever Ron did lately.

"Oh no, it wasn't like that. See, what I didn't mention was that any time he did those things he was under the influence of a love potion--only in this case it was just love. But it had the same effect."

Yeah, re-writing the series as she (finally!) stops to listen to her audience. If she'd known it would make fans happy, she would have mentioned it sooner? Sounds like she's playing to the crowd in the room.

It's actually funny to say that it doesn't matter because, well, obviously it didn't matter to you or you'd put it into the books, right?

I can actually see not putting it in the books. It was supposed to be a book for kids, who aren't always privy to adults' sexuality, and more often than not, especially in Harry's case where he isn't curious about much of anything, the child protagonist himself or herself won't press the matter. At eleven particularly, the kid would rather snicker over the adult passing gas. No one's asking if Arthur and Molly do it once a week, or twice, or never now that they're older, so what's the deal about Dumbledore?.. except, she found out it makes her fangurlz squee.

I think Sigune brought up a good topic: the era in which Dumbledore grew up. I always thought the WW was a bit more conservative than our world, with the Weasleys' mentions of "scarlet women" and all, so it would be possible that the WW is still not quite as accepting as Muggles of alternative lifestyles. Heck, I thought they still insisted that their teachers be single, like the U.S. used to do in the 1800s. There seems to be no provision for partners of either sex, or for families, for the faculty and staff of Hogwarts. Notice that Prof. Longbottom's marriage and living arrangements weren't mentioned until post-series interviews as well.

The era would also make Dumbledore and his contemporaries less inclined to talk about their sex lives. All of this openness is fairly new. Sex, love, medical, and other personal matters, were private. A Victorian would not talk about such things, especially not with those "little pitchers" who "have big ears."

Oy, I wish she'd given this some thought before blurting! Even, "Yes, he was gay, but due to his upbringing, he would never mention it to Harry" would have gone a long way to making me believe she did think of Dumbledore as gay from early on. As it is, I think she's playing to the crowd now. Either way you slice it, if people read the series a hundred years from now, the author's comments won't necessarily be included in the books. It would have been better to show Dumbledore's orientation on the page.

That was me. How did I get logged out???

I can definitely see not finding anyplace for the guy to mention he was gay--especially to Harry. (God knows the guy keeps enough secrets so it's not OOC.)

It just seems suspicious to say it's "no big deal" when it's obviously treated differently than other tragic romances in the same book. So much of DH (which is firmly in YA territory in a series that's already begun to deal with sex) is about the whole relationship between DD and Grindelwald, yet we don't get this one thing that changes everything--unlike when Harry meets the Grey Lady for five minutes and hear about her Bloody Stalker.

Instead, DH gives us a different explanation--it was all about the intellectual stimulation of having a smart friend for once, DD had this sister that got attacked by Muggles, his father went to jail for it etc. But then in an interview it's all about the romantic love. But if it's all about going crazy for love, why isn't it presented as just flat-out romance--if it's no big deal, that is. If Grindelwald were a woman I have a hard time not believing we'd not hear about it as romance. Heck, even think of that story about the movie where the guy was going to have Dumbledore reminiscing about past girlfriends and she shakes her head and writes "DUMBLEDORE IS GAY." So they take the line out--they don't just have Dumbledore telling Harry about a boy he liked instead.

Granted, Lily/Snape isn't presented as flat-out romance either. But it's more so than DD/GG. It's just that if you listen to this version of the story where DD's supposed to be acting totally out of character simply because he's fallen in love with this guy then she's totally left out what she claims the story is and substituted something else. It would be like if she'd written the Prince's Tale as showing Snape being attracted to power and being angry at Lily and turning to Dumbledore because the prophecy had gotten Snape's mother killed and then only in an interview said "Oh, it's all about his great love for Lily."

No, she didn't ask him. They were fighting, she said that she going to ask him, but won't now and he mentioned that he would like to go. They never mention it afterward, so Hermione never truly ask him to go with her, she took away an invitation she never actually gave.

Here I even looked it up:

'We're allowed to bring guests,' said Hermione, who for some reason has turned a bright, boiling scarlet, 'and I was going to ask you to come , but if you think it's that stupid then I won't bother!'
[snip]
'You were going to ask me?' asked Ron in a completely different voice.
'Yes,' said Hermione angrily. 'But obviously if you'd rather I got off with McLaggen...'
There was a pause while Harry continued to pound the resilient pod with a trowel.
'No, I wouldn't,'said Ron, in a very quiet voice.

That's the whole scene and neither of them ever brings the party up again until it's too late. So Hermione never truly asked Ron to come to the party with her and he never agreed to go.

It's just so weird--why go to the trouble creating a story where this isn't included--it's not like there's a hole in this place where when you learn this you say, "Ah! Now it makes sense!" It's more like in the story you get one view of this awful guy, and then afterwards it's like, "Oh no, it wasn't like that. See, what I didn't mention was that any time he did those things he was under the influence of a love potion--only in this case it was just love. But it had the same effect."

It really is like that, isn't it? This reminds me so much of the whole love potion thing suddenly being added to Tom Riddle's backstory. It just came out of nowhere and wasn't at all necessary. I had always thought that his mother had just gotten involved with a muggle (a rich one at that) and he had either wanted nothing to do with her after finding out she was a witch or had never taken their relationship seriously to begin with, and eventually got bored. But I guess that made Merope waaay too sympathetic, so poof! now it was a love potion.

The only difference is that it made it into the books, while Dumbledore became gay in interviews. Maybe when she writes that eighth book (*gag*) he'll suddenly have been gay all along with everyone knowing about it.

And this is how this gets dragged out for 7 books. To be honest, even if she'd asked him I could believe him not getting it--they're best friends so it's not unusual she'd have asked him. Harry asks Luna and they're not dating. But this is even more idiotic because instead of just misunderstanding there's misunderstanding+sniping.

Now look at this situation and multiply it by 100 and you probably get an idea of their marriage. Ron feels inadequate because he's not as good as Hermione. Hermione may be better at most things, but soothing someone else's feeling of inadequacy isn't one of them--on the contrary, she has a talent for making it worse (and most times I can remember her *intentionally* doing that it's with Ron). Ron puts down the club and so Hermione because he feels insecure. So Hermione puts him down using his own insecurity, using the party to punish him (taking away an invitation she never gave).

Then there's the whole next problem with Ginny calling Ron a big virgin especially next to sexually experienced (whatever) Hermione, so he feels inadequate again, and grabs some girl who doesn't make him feel inadequate to get experience (more "I'll show her I can snog somebody too" rather than literally making her jealous, I think), but Hermione gets hurt and punishes him again for something he still hasn't yet worked out. I mean come on, a book later we see he *still* thinks Hermione's into Harry, so what did he make of her actions here?

Yeah, this marriage ought to be just great.

Edited 2008-03-11 21:38 (UTC)

Well, she does have some notes, but apparently never looks at them. In the Pottercast interview they ask her about the wizard graves of the Abbotts in DH, because Hannah Abbott is supposed to be a Muggleborn according to some notes JKR showed during a TV appearance some years ago. And JKR was honestly surprised, she had no idea she ever wrote that done.

so typical of rowling's authorial doublespeak
In fact, I think it is a case of doublethinking on her part. You know, like the typical mother who tells her daughter it is quite alright for her to have several boyfriends and have sex with them as well (becuase this is modern and required!), but at the same time reacts irritated and indignant if her daughter wears a mini-skirt or mentions she finds a boy hot.
Whenever Rowling says or writes anything about sexuality, it tends to got into this very muddled direction. Ginny's famous speech of sexual freedom is a prime example for it, because it contradicts everything else in the books.... (forcibly restrains herself from ranting).

If Ron had done it to Hermione, you can bet that everyone would rightly call him abusive
I think the (really infuriating) point about this was the fact that it only could be deemed "cute" because it's seen as pathetic on her part. You know: a girl CAN'T really hurt someone - just like you sometimes get in film where the female love interest starts hitting the hero with her fists (oh so small and cute!)where it is clear for everyone that she is incapable to inflict any real damage. That's why she sent sweet little canaries instead of an eagle owl...

Why is it all right if *she* does it to him?
I am afraid, the answer is "because a girl can't really hurt a boy", or at least not her love interest. We all know the typical movie scene where the girl throws a hissy fit and starts drumming her (sweet little cutsey) fists against the hero's broad chest, seeming as abusive as a fluffy little kitten, underlining how very sweet and emotional she is. Of course, in the context of witchcraft where physical strength is of little importance, this makes no sense, but there are lots of traits in the WW that, logically, should be different regarding gender roles...

It's like that thing where she was all, "Of course Lily was kind of turned on by James beating up on the omega-male geek! You're a woman! You know what we're like!" "Of course slavery is wrong, but c'mon-- you know you really want an inferior race that lives to serve and fawn on you! You're a human! You know what we're like!" Nudge nudge! There's a dark place that these books mine their fantasy from that few, few indeed, have dared to go in the last fifty years or so. And she only dared to go there because she's so.. okay, totally making assumptions here about someone I know nothing about-- but she seems so totally secure in her position as a Good Person that it doesn't even seemed to have crossed her mind that she's writing nostalgically about racial attitudes somewhere down the river of "Gone With the Wind". It's kind of really perverse and fascinating. You could make a list of this stuff-- like how Harry just hates having power and rejects it, and that's why he's this one in a million Good Guy who then goes on to run the wizarding KGB. Sometimes she comes off as one of those people Orwell talks about, who smugly hated Hitler but fell for Stalin because he dressed up the power and cruelty with vague talk about the Brotherhood of Man.

Sorry, that was so off-topic... Ahaha, I still get such a kick out of hating this series! :D

Oh, I'm kicking right with you! It is fascinating...it's kind of like...so have we gotten to the point now where we just really want this? Like we're far away enough from certain moments in Civil Rights that we should be able to be nostalgic?

It just seems suspicious to say it's "no big deal" when it's obviously treated differently than other tragic romances in the same book.

It's treated like it isn't there until the post-series interviews, then it's all over the place. While it didn't impress me as anything that could have enhanced Dumbledore's apparent natural greed for manipulating things and people during his dalliance with Wizarding Supremacy, it explained a lot to me in Dumbledore's too-long wait to face Grindelwald in 1945. Sure, he could have been ashamed that he'd strayed down that path as far as he did, but not wanting to face the great Love of his Life (TM) adds another dimension to it. I wish it had been in the book, not in some interview where the author yet again expects us to read her mind instead of her books to divine her intentions.

It's just that if you listen to this version of the story where DD's supposed to be acting totally out of character simply because he's fallen in love with this guy then she's totally left out what she claims the story is and substituted something else
*(snip)*
--it was all about the intellectual stimulation of having a smart friend for once, DD had this sister that got attacked by Muggles, his father went to jail for it etc.

I completely bought Mr. Too Smart for Anyone Dumbledore being intellectually swept off his feet by a dynamic, brainy wizard he'd only just met, and buying the whole "enslaving Muggles for their own good" line. It makes sense on its own. The Dumbledore backstory itself supports such an attraction. It wouldn't make a difference to the motivations, I think, if the sexual attraction was revealed or not, with the exception of Dumbledore's not going to bat for the WW sooner. But, to explain his lack of action when it was clearly past time, the affair or broken heart or whatever it was supposed to have been gives a crucial motivation for keeping out of Grindelwald's way. I avoid my ex-husband, and I'm sure a lot of other people do. It's visceral to want to avoid people who have hurt us that deeply. It should have been in the books, and a lot sooner than DH. Hermione could have read something, or Harry and Ron could have overheard something, that was then expanded on in DH. This whole reveal is big news now, but later on, once the furor has died down, it won't mean anything. No one will know that was (part of?) the motivation because it isn't in the books.

Granted, Lily/Snape isn't presented as flat-out romance either.

It was more fleshed out as a friendship and as a crush, at least on Snape's side, much moreso than Dumbledore and Grindelwald was. Don't get me started on the awful way Lily treated her supposed friend Sev, though. Poor guy was given the bum's rush, then crushed, then made to feel eternally guilty. Lily the Saint just doesn't fly, except in a religion where knifing friends in the back is a good thing.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 8 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