Again about JKR and Dumbledore

[fpb]

In her private life, JK Rowling is a fairly typical, though not slavish, member of the moderately educated left. Her honesty to her own imagination, though, has been leading her in all sorts of directions which seem increasingly incompatible with the ordinary sort of left-wing attitudes prevalent in Britain. In her private life, after a few

Comments

[dustthouart]

Susan Pevensie didn't discover sex; she discovered the vapid pleasure of being a pretty object--"lipsticks and nylons". As a feminist as well as a Christian I hope she repented.

[moonspinner]

You know that and I know that and I think fpb knows that. However, JK Rowling didn't - doesn't? - know that and hence her vocal disdain of the Narnia novels.

[fpb]

I certainly do. I took part in a wonderful online debate on rjanderson's journal, after a tremendous article she wrote refuting JKR brilliantly. I only regret I cannot find the URL and link you.

[luckymarty]

http://rj-anderson.livejournal.com/176635.html

[starshipcat]

I agree that she handled the revelation poorly in the interview -- I think it could've been handled more allusively, just mentioning the infatuation with Grindelwald and subsequent heartbreak, but in a way that could be understood either sexually or not, and leave the g-word out entirely. Because Dumbledore is a character we only see from other people's POV's in the canonical literature (primarily Harry himself, but by the omniscient narrator in book 1, chapter 1), we the readers can only surmise his motives and internal life from what we see of him through others' eyes, particularly Harry's. Yes, certain things can be read between the lines, but there's always a question of whether it's really there or if we're reading things into it based upon our own expectations -- and thus a tension. Had she managed to handle the revelation in such a way that continued to keep our understanding of Dumbledore's character "at arms' length," I think it would've been that much stronger. We weould've known that the tragic end of his relationship with

[moonspinner]

But whether or not JKR actually meant it from the beginning, the fact is that the supposed revelation of Dumbledore’s sexual tendencies could not have been worse managed. First, as I pointed out last time, it rests on an odious fallacy, rooted mostly in female suspicion and jealousy - that passionate male friendships must have something sexual at the bottom of them. Second, its impact on Dumbledore is wholly negative. And it leaves Dumbledore with a permanent suspicion of himself - worse, with a sick disgust of himself and his motives - that makes him permanently less effective as an opponent of evil. If an anti-gay campaigner had wanted to present a profoundly negative view of homosexual passion, he or she could not possibly have done a better job of it.

Once again, I applaud you for saying what I feel but could not articulate as well.

[johncwright]

Brilliantly said and well argued, sir.

[super_pan]

I am mostly addressing your last two paragraphs. It was sort of the first thing that came to my mind as well. I personally never liked the whole Grindelwald/Dumbledore connection even before he was gay. It just made him seem so weak minded, to be blinded and swayed by brilliance. And if he was also so affected because of sexual attraction, it just makes him seem weaker. And then of course, since Dumbledore ever after seems to have gone it alone, as if he never loved again, it could give the message that homosexual love is something better left repressed and ignored, lest you attempt genocide. And while I am not making that argument, certainly one could. Again, I just didn't like what she did with Dumbledore anyway. But you know, of course any valid point you make will be lost because people will see and hear one thing: fpb + insert hot topic here= time for wank.

[fpb]

I do not object to Dumbledore being weak-minded in his youth, although to my mind JKR has gone a bit over the edge in the King's Cross scene by having him talk to Harry in a positively lachrymose way. It is clear that the man we meet in Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone is someone who has gone through a lot of effort and changes and may well have been a good deal different - and less attractive - as a youth. And there are a couple of things that, to my mind, suggest a certain weakness: his habit of bragging ("that was a good idea, even for me"; "being rather more intelligent than the average" - I am sure that I got both wrong, but you know what I mean) and his frightened refusal of any position of political authority. Obviously, being old and wise, he is aware of his own limits and takes them into consideration when drawing up his plans. I placed the hint of a comment on this in my fic, The First Nymphadora. I think it was JKR's design from the first to show Dumbledore as flawed, noble but human, not the God-like figure that some

[haikujaguar]

This is harmonious with my first thought when I heard the news, which was to think, "Oh! JKR thinks only dead people should be gay!" o_O