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

Current Mood: disappointed

Entry tags:

In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

She comes off as someone who has not thought enough about the topic. Which perhaps makes sense since she's been keeping this aspect of the story private, maybe discussed it with her friends, but not had to answer public questions as she has about every other aspect. Maybe hearing the public feedback will help her think more critically, and more importantly, will help others think more critically. :)

Definitely. I have no doubt that she really does think that being gay should be no big deal. Obviously she thinks she's dismissing homophobes. She'd probably be surprised to hear that she's actually that Dumbledore conforms to what they'd want--just for totally different reasons than the ones for which she wrote him that way.

What I'd really like someone to ask her about is the criticism leveled at the idea that the only For Certain Gay Man is dead (and apparently flirts with the idea of world domination), and the man he was in love with was the previous Ultimate Evil.

I mean, did she cherry pick that cliche, or did it just come to her?

I haven't been following the interviews - has anyone asked her that outright?

I agree with what you've written so much. Dumbledore was not a candidate for being severed from morality by loving the wrong person. Dumbledore was self-involved. What he loved in Grindelwald was the reflection of himself and his true ambitions. When he found disaster, he blamed the reflection without ever looking at himself, except to say, "I can't love another personally."

The reverse is Snape, who, while losing his love through his racism and search for power, later clung to the memory of that love like a lifeline to good. Snape acknowledged his errors and tried to change at least some aspect of his beliefs. But he shut himself off from others, as well, and never received love from anyone, especially not Dumbledore -- far from it. That's why Dumbledore's tears at seeing Snape's Patronus and his "Poor Severus" comment stick in my craw so much. What a hypocrite. At least Snape had the courage to love and not reject it as a weakness.

And you are right: why is the solution to a mistake in love closing yourself off to love forever? It does read like a punishment for being transgressive, for both superior Dumbledore, who dared to love the wrong man, and inferior Snape, who dared to love a supposed saint.

As others have said, "the stupid, it burns."

Well, people have already mentioned that JKR only picked DD as her gay character because he's old, single, dead and pretty much asexual. But it's still sad to see it confirmed by her. Also, if DD and GG didn't have sex, GG might not even be gay himself. And DD not having another relationship in his life means that Elphias Dodge probably isn't gay either. I also couldn't get over her comment when asked if Charlie is gay because he didn't marry. She said: "No, Dumbledore is gay." not simply "No, he's just not interested in getting married and starting a family." What does DD being gay have to do with Charlie potentially being gay? Nothing, except for her there can only be one gay person at a time and that person is definitely not sexual in any way.

And there is something else that I noticed and already mentioned at FAP. I thought love was this big power, the power the Dark Lord knows not and what made Harry so special. But you also get the feeling that the characters in HP are only allowed to fall in love once in their lives (crushes not counted here) and if they happen to pick the wrong person for that, well, they never get another chance at love and have to stay single forever. (Maybe that was why Ginny and Hermione were so insistent on snagging Harry and Ron. They knew it was either being with them or ending up as lonely spinsters.)

LOL! Now I'm picturing her saying, "I don't know where it came from. I was sitting at home one night watching "The Children's Hour" and it just came to me!

I haven't really been following interviews but saw this quoted. Somehow I don't think that question's been put to her directly.

Yeah, it's just so...what a weird juxtaposition with those two. I guess because JKR considers it a good quality to be able to love someone, but I don't know what to make of the reversals, because she it's so clear who the "inherently good" people are here. Lily, obviously. If Snape had just become more a fool for love there he might have saved himself because he'd have thrown away his moral compass and taken her own. Instead he bizarrely thinks being a DE will win her love. Dumbledore the good one could only lower himself and learn never to do that again. Well, actually both of them decide never to do that again. Since they'd both already graduated high school I guess they knew Lily and Gellert had to be their one true loves.

He's a very old single man. You have to ask: why is it so interesting?

If that's what it is, why bother? Why make a character gay if it's not going to come up in the books, and why act like you're the ultimate in gay-straight relations when what you've done is actually pretty cowardly, with the "gay men must be asexual to be acceptable" thing, and "well, you couldn't mention it in the books, because there wouldn't be any room for the EIGHT BILLION BILLION BILLION MENTIONS OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE WHO FANCY THE OPPOSITE SEX AND DID I MENTION THAT TWO OTHER OPPOSITE GENDERED PEOPLE GOT TOGETHER NOT THAT THEY WERE RELEVANT TO THE STORY, BUT WHO GIVES A FUCK, TRUE LOVE IS WONDERFUL, BUT GAY SEX IS UNIMPORTANT, THEREFORE WE DO NOT MENTION IT EVER...sorry, I think I had a moment there. Anyway, fuck her.

LOL! I didn't hear that--"No, Dumbledore is gay?" It would be one thing if she thought the person was confusing the characters--like if somebody said, "Is it true you outed Charlie Weasley?" and she said "No, it was Dumbledore." But that's a very telling answer. Only room for one gay person in a cast of hundreds. Only room for one old, dead, a-sexual gay character.

Ginny and Hermione both did seem to get that it was Harry and Ron or nothing, didn't they? They started scheming early. More than that, they're both kind of characterized as knowing this is what's supposed to happen and they just have to wait for the guy to come around. There's frustration, but no real fear that maybe the guy will fall in love with somebody else. I mean, Ginny and Hermone are both "hilariously" jealous whenever another girl looks at their man, but there just doesn't seem to be any real vulnerability (once Ginny changes her personality) that any other girl could be "the one" for him.

Why's is so important? Certainly not so important as how Neville and Hannah got married, and Luna married somebody else, and Draco *didn't* marry Pansy but he married this other chick...and Sirius and Charlie were both confirmed bachelors but in both cases it was because they had some other non-sexual thing they were more interested in. Married or nothing, you know.

I just don't get the "power of love" arguments in the HP books at all. They seem to make sense to JKR, but I wonder if logic or even generosity is her strength. For her, it seems to all come down to innate character. People can't change at all. Dumbledore really didn't. Harry certainly didn't. Snape, from what we can tell, might have a little bit ...and she hates him!

Hagrid's relationship with Madame Maxime was also immeasurably important. Oh, and little Teddy Lupin with Bill and Fleur's daughter, that also really, really needed to be said - how would we know otherwise? It added so much to the story!

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.

Okay, this just makes me laugh. What planet is she on? Homophobia is almost entirely about fear of anal sex and of men being penetrated and taking on the "female" role in the sexual act.

And yeah, the whole "oh, he became a Nazi because he fell in luurrvvv" is incredibly silly and pointless. Silly because it's unconvincing to me psychologically (love is hardly the only reason, or even the most common reason, why decent people are drawn to hateful ideologies!), and pointless because it makes Dumbledore's anti-Muggle past have nothing to do with his true character--it's all because he was brainwashed by love, because his love made him not himself any more, almost as if he was drunk the whole time. IMO that view of it makes that story less powerful.

Homophobia is almost entirely about fear of anal sex and of men being penetrated and taking on the "female" role in the sexual act.

Anti-gay male homophobia, I mean, which is what's relevant to Dumbledore. It's 99.9% about the yuck factor and the power dynamics, not about the love--many people don't even acknowledge that the love really exists.

My take on this:

I think it's yet another manifestation of JK Rowling's own life becoming The Way Things Are in her books. After all, didn't she change her life completely during her first marriage by leaving Briton and following him overseas? And didn't it end badly when he turned out not to be what she'd thought, and she was left alone with no money and a child to raise?

And what do we have in Harry Potter but a succession of people who change their lives, either for good or ill, by falling in love? Dumbledore the quasi-Nazi...Snape the ~~weepy virgin~~ heroic spy...Tonks the ~~blithering eratomaniac~~ tragic mother...James the ~~inexplicably changed idiot~~ loving father and husband...the list goes on and on. For JK Rowling, the Power of Love is inextricably bound up in One True Love Who Changes Your Life, usually when you're a teenager.

That's my understanding of it too. If you're in love with somebody but never touch them, that's fine. You're just suspicious because you might be touching them and lying about it. If you're having sex with a person you barely know then that's really bad. I think it really is about the sex, the gender roles...all sorts of stuff coming together there. It sounds sweet to say they're just "afraid of love" but really no, the "ick" factor of the sex is more than just an afterthought. That's why they'd cry out how terrible it is for somebody to think two men couldn't love each other without being gay. The gay sullies the love.

Well said. She really doesn't get it, does she?

Heh! I love all the characters so much more the way you describe them--the weepy virgin, blithering eratomaniac and inexplicably changed (though it's not visible to the naked eye) idiot. Though I don't think her people really change, it's just if it's good love (with a Gryffindor) it shows you the good person you really are, while the bad love might make you stray from the path before you throw it off like Dumbledore. Or something. But yeah, it does seem like however it happens, it's going to be based on the author's experience.

I also do not for one minute believe that a voracious reader and powerful witch like Hermione would *stay* with Ron for the next twenty years. They have zero in common, and after the sexual fireworks ended and the kids came, they would have had one of those awful marriages where they would stay together for the kids and then either quietly divorce or quietly hate each other after they were alone in the house.

Ginny, OTOH, would turn into a complete Molly clone; she's the first girl in five generations and would have no models of what it was like to be anything other than a wife and mother in her early life. I'm just surprised that she and Harry only had three kids, not eight or nine.

The way I see it is Dumbledore was once a teenager like all of us were (are, in my case) and of course at this age all anyone wants is some glory. I know it's what I want. If some handsome thing comes along and offers to take over the world with me, fuck yeah I'd say yes. When you're my age you don't think about the reality of death. You think you're immortal. Death is just a whisper, not a presence. And you want people to know your name, to love you even if they don't know you.

Dumbledore just had a rock-star-wannabe complex (with a little less music and a little more fascism), in my opinion. No one thinks they're gonna end up being an accountant or teaching at a school when they're young. Who wouldn't wanna be seduced by the dark side at this age?

She comes off as someone who has not thought enough about the topic.

Her post-DH interviews have convinced me that she either hasn't thought enough about a lot of things, or she's worried them to the point where they make sense to her and no one else. I have never in my life seen an author contradict herself so often and so badly, especially when she supposedly spent several years plotting, planning, and writing character backgrounds.

Which is good because it gets into what Dumbledore wanted. As you say, who wouldn't *wanna* be seduced to the dark side at this age? It's not like he fell in love and it was all just Gellert leading him astray--presumably Gellert was being led astray as well. I mean, even if he stuck with it, presumably the two of them were caught up in it together then. If Dumbledore's sister hadn't died he might have stuck with it too.

I have a hard time imagining Ron and Hermione as anything but divorced. It just seems so natural to me--no, for both of them, really.

But Ginny, yeah. She's pretty much just an extension of Harry anyway. Though I admit I imagine the two of them being a pretty awful couple that people would probably want to avoid.

Here's the clip from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXeFQyPw4xw
She said it while drawing her family tree for the next generation. And it becomes rather clear that in big parts she's making up stuff on the spot.

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

You're completely right, this answer is totally frustrating and absurd. And not only because of what you point out about how it's totally in character for Dumbledore to have gone that way, love or no love (especially as a young man), but because JKR herself has pointed out THE SAME THING. Didn't she say he was a very Machiavellian character? How is 'The Greater Good' at all at odds with that?

The thing is, it wouldn't actually be at all annoying if she weren't glorified everywhere for every answer she gives to every question but the limelight coddles her like she some sort of pre-schooler and it's just sickening at this point. I wish someone other than that one reviewer would write an article against her citing every hypocrisy, every statement that makes no sense, everything that, in short, makes her undeserving of all of the honors that keep getting heaped up on her ~~when she apparently has an IQ approx. 2 points higher than Britney Spears.~~

...perhaps an exaggeration, but my God I'm tired of the way everyone seems to lose higher brain function every time JKR speaks.

Even worse about the whole sexual thing is the rank hypocrisy of it when compared with, I don't know, ALL of her statements about how empowering Ginny Weasley's supposed to be as a character for being so openly sexual. It's ok if you're a woman, but not if you're gay? Dumbledore's homosexuality shouldn't be important to his character because he's renounced it and become an asexual old man? We should ignore it like he (somehow) does? 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? WHAT? Like Snape and Lily's story wasn't important?

And that in itself makes no sense either. So it was pure love (with no dirty 'chest' monsters to taint it) that drove Dumbledore in the situation and he renounces it and...becomes asexual? Why does he lose all sexual urges just because he becomes jaded where love is concerned? If anything, it tends to go the opposite way in RL, or if not in RL, then in fiction certainly. And where are the ramifications in his personality from becoming so jaded where love is concerned? They should be there if the series is about how important it is to LET LOVE IN. Romantic love can't be important and have a huge impact on your personality unless you're straight (and Slytherin)? It makes no sense.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 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