Last word about Dumbledore (I hope!)

[fpb]

Yesterday’s brief contact with the creatures who populate such places as f_w had one positive effect: it made me think again about the Dumbledore issue. And decide that I was wrong at least on one issue.

Comments

#1, #2, #3 and #4

[patchworkmind]

Very well put. Not being nearly as ardent devotee of the series as you or millions of others I haven't felt pressed to write on the newest issue, even though I certainly have given it some thought. I am relieved I don't have to. You've covered here what I pondered, both generally and specifically, and of course you put them down to (figurative) paper far better than I ever could. And then some. And then some more.

Again, very well put. Kudos. :)

[marielapin]

Thanks for the post.

I must admit I have not read all of GK Chesterton's works, but of the ones I have read I don't remember running into any obvious Jew bashing. In which works do these feelings reveal themselves?

[fpb]

I will try to write a short article on the subject, and if I don't manage to (pretty busy right now) I will reprint an article on Chesterton I wrote a while back. Chesterton rarely gave any long or systematic account of his unaccountable feeling about Jews, except when called upon to defend himself; it is mostly a matter of nasty little sneers such as "even the law of Moses/ will let you steal a smell" (and that in The Song of Quoodle, yet!) or his mention of the squire (in The People Of England) "leaning on a cringing Jew", or, in one of the Ballads, of "English country houses filled with Jews". In England, by the way, a "country house" is a country palace or mansion.

[super_pan]

I liked the way you put down your thoughts here, it seemed calm and almost dispassionate, and just pretty darn concise and clear.

And truly, if anyone had even half an inkling of a desire to be reasonable, this should not make anyone angry. I mean, yes, many people would disagree with you that homosexuality is a sin at all, which is of course the fundamental argument, however, it is YOUR opinion, which is your right to have, which you stated rationally, and without invective or actual judgement on anyone. To me it looked like someone who is not willing to change their fundamental beliefs, but who is willing to accept that others have different opinions, and that is more than many people are capable of.

As for your post scriptum: it's obvious some people came to your lj just hoping you had written anything about Dumbledore being gay, just so they could wank on it. I can only repeat what you said and say to these people: get life, you're a bunch of A-holes. 'Cept you didn't call them A-holes, just I did.

[fpb]

You pay me very high compliments, and I hope that, at least in this essay, I have done something to deserve them. As for the postscript, may I point out that, since you-know-who will probably be reading this sooner or later, it is an act of some courage on your part to pin that particular tail to those particular donkeys? With your own name well visible on top?

[super_pan]

Pbbpt!

I don't like hive attacks; it's just not a nice way to behave, and it doesn't say anything good about the participants. Calling them A-holes is immature to be sure, but hey, who's perfect?

[privatemaladict]

I know you don't want to get into a "nature vs nurture" debate, but I can't resist making a comment. I disagree with the assumption that certain traits, like rage, or laziness are inborn. It's true, there's something we might call "temperament", which is considered more or less genetic (mothers will confirm this - sometimes they know even before their child is born whether it will be a quiet baby or a fussy, difficult baby). However, with a lot of the traits you describe in JKR's characters - Harry's rage and Ron's slothfulness being two examples - I don't believe they are really inborn. Harry's rage is likely to have come about as a result of his upbringing. And for Ron's slothfulness, you yourself have named the likely underlying cause - a deep-seated lack of self-respect. It is quite likely that if this lack of self-respect was addressed, and changed - and I believe, very strongly, that it can be changed - then his slothfulness is likely to change too. Harry rage may be harder to deal with, because it has years and years of abuse

[fpb]

I would dearly love to start a debate with you on this excellently written and seriously thought-out response; the problem is that I could not, for a number of reasons, debate the issue of homosexuality in public. I mean, not in order to defend my views - there are things I would not want the lurkers to get hold of. In private, face to face, it would - not so much be a pleasure, but the proper response to something set out with such intelligence and moderation. You have paid me a great compliment by the very tone and content of your answer, and I appreciate it.

I will say only one thing: at forty-five, and with some knowledge both of myself and of my own background, I still cannot get rid of this instinct of rage. If it is not inborn, it is the very next thing - so deeply buried in my individual past as to be virtually ineliminable. So I cannot agree with you there. But I am sincerely grateful for the time you have taken and the way you have chosen to respond to this.

[privatemaladict]

I could not, for a number of reasons, debate the issue of homosexuality in public.

Well, that's fair enough, all things considered. :)

[mrmandias]

I would be surprised if a great many things like rage and sloth didn't have large congenital components. I recall that the twin studies showed much more surprising correspondences than those.

[jennilee]

Although I don't agree with the statements that rage and "other lusts, greed, vanity, envy, cowardice, mendacity, sloth" are inborn, I really enjoyed this essay, especially paragraph four. I almost want to quote it in a letter to my brother. Well, perhaps even the entire essay, save anything to do with Harry Potter (no need to provide a distraction, not to mention ammunition).

[fpb]

As I told privatemaladict, my statement that my own rage is inborn is based on my own experience of myself. Even if it was not actually the case, it would still be so deeply buried in my make-up as to make it virtually ineliminable. I have looked at it in its ugly face for forty-five years, so I think I can have an opinion on the matter.

[fpb]

Otherwise, thank you for your appreciation.