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

[mollywobbles867.livejournal.com]

She was asked if DD had ever been in love, so she told the truth. Gasp! How horrible of her! Telling the truth to a fan! The horror!

How'd you hear about the clubhouse? Someone's getting flogged tonight. And not in the fun way.

Yeah, criticize all you want, but there's no need to bash the author. That's just bad form.

[jollityfarm.livejournal.com]

Telling the "truth" to a fan and yet saying something completely different in the books, after the series is done and dusted, so that the shocking gay revelations wouldn't hurt sales. And you're going to tell me that's not why she did it, that's not why she had Dumbledore give Harry a completely different explanation for his actions in the actual book. Because you know her (on first name terms!) and you know what she thinks, and plus you are a writer which means you know more than anyone else how all writers think!

And I'll criticise the author if I think she'd done something worth criticising. You wouldn't be all "that's bad form!" if we were talking about someone like Anne Rice or Terry Goodkind, why is Rowling so special?

[mollywobbles867.livejournal.com]

How is it completely different in the books? DD has no hetero relationships in the books, so how is it completely different?

You don't know her either, but you certainly feel free to put thoughts in her head and motives behind her actions. I can have an opinion as well and if it's not the same as yours, if it actually sees someone in a positive light, that somehow makes me pompous while you being critical makes you right? That's some fucked up logic.

I don't give a crap about Anne Rice (she's a bitch to her fans in the first place, unlike Jo (which she asks her fans to call her)). I've never read anything by Terry Goodkind in my life.

[jollityfarm.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore gave Harry a reason for wanting to join up with Grindelwald, which was nothing to do with "I was in love with him." He wasn't gay in the books, he was asexual, as were all the characters who displayed no sexual attraction to anyone at all, until proven otherwise. Which isn't many of them, considering we got snippets of the heterosexuality of about 95% of the cast, major and minor players (Hagrid's relationship with Madame Maxime - truly vital to the plot!). But this major piece of information that was supposedly quite vital to the plot, was glossed over and discreetly hidden, because while being quite a large part of Dumbledore's life and much to do with the whole Deathly Hallows plot, it is simultaneously "unimportant".

Also, I have my opinion and I go by what I see. If this looks like someone subtly reinforcing the more popular prejudices about homosexuality (it's not so bad if they're celibate, it's not so bad if they keep it to themselves, gay relationships lead you to ruin and despair, don't talk about it lest you corrupt the children with your unnatural sins...sorry, I mean "disrupt the plot with unimportant information") am I supposed to fake a positive spin on it and try to make myself believe it's not what it looks like because it's her? Because she can't do any wrong? Because "some of her best friends"? Sycophants coming in her to tell me that (a)it isn't important and I should stop being so interested and (b)that I am the homophobe for not being delighted with this news and the way it was presented don't make things any easier for me. I repeat: I'll criticise the author if I think they've done something worth criticising - and apparently you think this is only a sin where Rowling is concerned because she has the benefit of being marginally more sane than Anne Rice. Well done to her.

[mollywobbles867.livejournal.com]

Had the purpose of DD's character been to make gay people more acceptable in the mainstream, then yes, he should've told Harry that in King's Cross. The thing is: is King's Cross really DD talking to Harry? Or is it all in Harry's head? That Harry figured it out in that state between living and dying? To keep the ambiguity about that, DD couldn't reveal something so personal. Everything he said could possibly be inferred by Harry from everything he learned from Snape's memories, the biography, and Aberforth. I doubt Harry's thoughts would go that route, so, there you have it.

As for the Hagrid/Madam Maxime thing? How else would Ron and Harry found out Hagrid was half-giant had Hagrid not talked to her about it and they overheard? Also, they're funny and therefore comedic relief.

The only thing important about the Deathly Hallows business is why DD wanted them: "The Resurrection Stone--to him, though I pretended not to know it, it meant an army of Inferi! To me, I confess, it meant the return of my parents, and the lifting of all responsibility from my shoulders."

And if I think it isn't all that you infer, I'm supposed to keep quiet about it? You can express your opinion, but I cannot? Personally, I don't see DD as celibate. He is really fairly old and quite busy by the time we meet him. People tend to just lose interest, especially if they were really burned. For all we know he had some tyrsts. I don't see it the way you see it at all. So, don't call me a sycophant just because I happen to agree with the author on this. Besides, to be a true sycophant, she'd have to know I exist and reward me for agreeing with her. I get nothing but the pleasure of having my own opinion on things. You're not a sycophant of sistermagpie just because you agree with her, are you? No, you're not.

I never called you a homophobe. And well, yeah, Jo has at least earned the right not to be insulted by her fans whom she lets write fanfic and make fan art and wizard rock, etc...all without suit. You have basically called her a bigot by saying that she has somehow made being gay associated with being evil. Pardon me, but wouldn't that have been more likely had it actually been in the book as a reason he worked with Grindewald? For the record, though, I wouldn't see it that way.

Anne Rice won't even allow fanfic, which is her right, I suppose. But considering she herself took Sleeping Beauty and made an S&M porn out of it...yeah. Those books are insane.

[(Anonymous)]

Personally, I don't see DD as celibate.

And you are wrong: "He led a celibate and bookish life" says Jo, in the very interview this thread is about.

Dumbledore was asexual. Jo seems to think that "asexual" means the same as "gay", and *that's* one of my big issues with it.

You have basically called her a bigot by saying that she has somehow made being gay associated with being evil.

That's because she did exactly that, and that is exactly what she is. She's not a cross-burning, shaven headed, BNP-voting bigot. She's the much more subtle sort of bigot. She didn't intentionally set out to say "homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love", but she knowingly and deliberately put her one canonical homosexual relationship in the same category as Merope Gaunt's date-raping Tom Riddle.

[leia-naberrie.livejournal.com]

keep the ambiguity about that, DD couldn't reveal something so personal.

DD revealed something even more personal to Harry: He revealed to Harry that he may have murdered his own sister. (This by the way, until her interview, was the reason why DD didn't go after GG immediately.)

Unless, of course, JKR is trying to imply that homosexual love is even more shameful than murder...



As for the Hagrid/Madam Maxime thing? How else would Ron and Harry found out Hagrid was half-giant had Hagrid not talked to her about it and they overheard? Also, they're funny and therefore comedic relief.

This is very true. It's also very true that since DD's back-story (from his father's end in Azkhaban, the death of his mother, his brother, his sister, his best friend Grindelwald, even the fact that he lived near Godric's Hollow) took up so much of the 7th book (even though it was almost completely irrelevant to the plot as The Tale of Beadle Bard was enough to introduce the concept of horcruxes), a little note about his love for Grindelwald, also another important character in DD's past would have merited mentioning. This is the same book where Harry doesn't get the 6th Horcrux until the Grey Lady tells him about her ill-fated love affair with the Bloody Baron.



And if I think it isn't all that you infer, I'm supposed to keep quiet about it? You can express your opinion, but I cannot?

Well, I can't speak for the other user but no one is saying you can't express your opinions. I, for one, am just saying why I don't agree with them.



Personally, I don't see DD as celibate. He is really fairly old and quite busy by the time we meet him. People tend to just lose interest, especially if they were really burned. For all we know he had some tyrsts. I don't see it the way you see it at all.

To quote JKR: [DD] led a celibate and bookish life. It's in the interview that this post is about.




Jo has at least earned the right not to be insulted by her fans whom she lets write fanfic and make fan art and wizard rock, etc...all without suit. You have basically called her a bigot by saying that she has somehow made being gay associated with being evil. Pardon me, but wouldn't that have been more likely had it actually been in the book as a reason he worked with Grindewald? For the record, though, I wouldn't see it that way.


Once again, I can't speak for another user but:

I don't and have never written Harry Potter fan fic or make fan art or wizard rock. However, I have spent close to $200 on all seven Harry Potter books (hard cover, first editions). The way most people would see it - if any of us (Jo, book writer or me, book buyer) owes anyone anything, it's Jo who owes me my money's worth. Short of returning the books and the hours of my life I spent reading them (which would be impossible), I think discussing them critically is not too much for us to ask for.