In which I'm again disappointed by JKR explanations

[sistermagpie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

Great to see you posting HP meta again. :D

*bangs head against keyboard*

Dumbledore's anti-Muggle attitudes sprung up from his little sister being attacked to the point of insanity by 3 Muggle boys; his father going to Azkaban for avenging her; his family being forced to hide said sister's insanity or risk her certification; and his mother being murdered by said sister.



The plans for Muggle dominations were not just Grindelwald's crazy ideas, they were also ideas that Dumbledore's horrible life had caused him to have.


What I'm trying to say is that Dumbledore already had intrinsic reasons to hate Muggles and wish for Muggle-domination. Grindelwald shared his ideas, he did not inspire them. And - (and this is where I see red) - in the context of the story, Dumbledore never says that his Great Love for Grindelwald caused him to almost turn evil.



Or in other words: Dear Rowling, have you actually read your own book?

[raisin-gal.livejournal.com]

Or in other words: Dear Rowling, have you actually read your own book?

That made me spurt out my tea. *g* Word.

It does sometimes seem like there are two JKRs, the one that writes the books and the one that goes out and tries to sabotage it, doesn't it? And sometimes those two JKRs seem to switch mid-sentence. Weird...

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

It does sometimes seem like there are two JKRs, the one that writes the books and the one that goes out and tries to sabotage it, doesn't it? And sometimes those two JKRs seem to switch mid-sentence. Weird...

It's a real-life Stephen King story - the multipersonality disorder suffering writer who plaigarizes from her own alter ego. It would certainly explain a lot of things. ;)

[serriadh.livejournal.com]

Well, given that in the same interview she claims not to have re-read ANY of her books (EVER, as far as I can understand it) except Book 7 which is 'her favourite', I think 'have you read your own book' is a fair question.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

OK, that would expain things but... And this is where I whimper with the pain of my brain breaking --- isn't she supposed to have plotted out the whole story like 10 years ago, with a little notebook filled with all the stuff that eventually makes it into her books? Or is that another Rowling myth busted?

[serriadh.livejournal.com]

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.

[eir-de-scania.livejournal.com]

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.

[t0ra-chan.livejournal.com]

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.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

Well at least she owns up to that one. I'm actually surprised. It's a vast difference from how she handled the prefects docking points issue and Marcus Flint's extra year.

Edit - It's a funny thing but I still link to an essay you wrote once about JKR and her inability to own up to her mistakes.

[t0ra-chan.livejournal.com]

Well, owning up might be a bit too much, more like she cannot blame it on the fans this time. She still doesn't say that she made a mistake, only that she misremembered it, which of course only proves that she goes by memory instead of actually looking at her notes.

Here's the part, btw:

JKR: Hannah Abbott?

MA: Yeah, there's a line in "Deathly Hallows" when Harry sees someone that he thinks might be Hannah Abbott's long-lost relatives, what's her deal? Is she a Muggleborn? Did she lose her family...

JKR: Oh, you mean the grave?

MA: Yeah.

JKR: Uh, no, she's not Muggleborn. No, I'm pretty sure Hannah's a pureblood. I know her mother died...

MA: In that old documentary, you showed a picture where they had like all the family associations and Hannah appeared to be Muggleblood in the fans' careful reconstruction of--

JKR: Did she? Because I'll tell you what, if that's the case-- and I've got that notebook and that's one of my cornerstone notebooks, in that case, then I've been misremembering that, because I thought she was pureblood. Interesting. I've certainly written about her, and thought about her for years now, as pureblood. So that's interesting. Maybe we'll just split the difference and call her halfblood. (laughter) Yeah, that's how decisions are taken in the fairly random world of J.K. Rowling. (laughter)

It really looked like she tried to deny the Muggleborn claim, until they told her that they can prove her wrong. I admit, it's a bit nitpicky, after all it doesn't matter one way or another since Hannah is such a minor character, but it does show the kind of attitude JKR has, which I pointed out in my old essay. I wish she would give an interview with people who would actually challenge her on some of this stuff she pulls out of her ass, but it will probably be a cold day in hell when that happens.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

I don't disagree with your reasoning but my point is that an in-universe explanation was already given for DD's reluctance. The issue is not whether it's a good one or not, it's JKR contradicting her own story via her "out" universe explanations.

Which takes us back to the question of if she ever reads her own books.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

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."

[serriadh.livejournal.com]

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.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

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.

[infinitegraces]

Or in other words: Dear Rowling, have you actually read your own book?

As she has claimed to have not gone back and read (except apparently Book 7...), I would love to see someone ask her "Why not?"

Because I think she could, if she went back and reread the others books, see what those of us who don't completely worship her and hang onto her every word see: The potential events that totally did not happen.

Intent and Result are two completely different things and I think she (and her rabid fanpeoples) have managed to combine them.