50 responses so far ↓

• 1 revgeorge // Mar 11, 2008 at 8:38 pm

  I was wondering when this would come across. I saw it a couple of days ago & there are a lot of things to comment on, including her definition of fundamentalism. Ah well.

  My dilemma is that I have time to post my thoughts but I don’t have time to reply to the counter arguments I know would arise. Guess I’ll wait till I have more time to do both. Sigh!

• 2 reyhan // Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm

  Those who dread further extra-textual revelations must be relieved: she didn’t (try to) add to the canon.

  Interesting that she considers Dumbledore’s sexuality very peripheral. I think that’s what many people here thought as well, so again, I’m guessing much relief all around.

  Didn’t catch the reference to fundamentalism. What did she say?

• 3 revgeorge // Mar 11, 2008 at 10:40 pm

  The link above only has part of the interview or report that was given. She said more than just the stuff about Dumbledore. I think Leaky Cauldron may have the full article on their site in one of their links. I think that’s where I first saw it.

  I’d have to reread the bit about fundamentalism to make sure I was getting it right, but I thought it funny that the way she described how fundamentalists are always so closed minded & unwilling to consider other ideas is similar to the way many people react to anyone who raises any issues about homosexuality. Instead, pejoratives like homophobe & fundamentalist are thrown out, which is similar in effect to calling someone a Nazi or a racist. It is used to silence debate. So, it’s sad to see JKR, who has been mercilessly attacked by many Christians who had never bothered to read the books or at least examine what they were about, go & call people homophobic. Seems to me like two sides of the same coin.

  But it’s also disappointing that her comments will probably have much made over them, when, as you said, reyhan, she doesn’t really consider Dumbledore’s sexuality to have been integral to the books at all; it was just more of her own internal back story.

• 4 Eeyore // Mar 11, 2008 at 11:24 pm

  revgeorge, I agree with you. I had the same reaction–that she was doing just what she doesn’t like when people try to label her. Lesson there is that we shouldn’t go round labeling each other. It never seems to come to any good.

  After my initial surprise (shock) about Dumbledore, I began to realize that the biggest problem I had with it was that it just wasn’t important to the story. I still read the references about Grindelwald as two young men with a strong friendship based on a common political goal. But the more Rowling talks, the more I understand her point, and it just doesn’t bother me anymore.

  I find it interesting to read some of her older interveiws where she talked about religion and her own beliefs. It seems to me–and this is my opinion only–that the more she was attacked by the fringe Christians who hadn’t bothered to read the books, the more she has tried to distance herself from Christians and religion in general.

  Problem is, it’s really pretty plainly spelled out in the books. Even while much of what she wrote was about her own struggle, I think she really is a much more grounded and stronger Christian than she herself understands.

  But, as I said, that’s my two knuts worth–and that’s about all it’s worth. The ONLY reason I brought it up was that it was my reaction when I read that article on TLC. (Is it actually posted? I read the scans of the article, which was quite tricky as each scan was of the top of bottom half of the page.)

  Pat

• 5 korg20000bc // Mar 12, 2008 at 2:31 am

  I think Rowling’s gay revelation of Dumbledore has come around and bitten her on the rump.

  Surely Dumbeldore is one of her dearest characters but she has made it so that when ever people read Dumbledore they think “gay man”, and all that that entails for the reader, rather than heroic fighter and epitome of goodness and all the virtues she built into him.

  Surely she must have known that certain groups would nab Dumbledore as a champion when she disclosed about him. She must be more media savvy than that by this stage of the game.

  And, since when does disagreement equate with a phobia. That’s rubbish and I expected more from Rowling.

  Matthew

• 6 Dave the Longwinded // Mar 12, 2008 at 9:07 am

  Matthew, I agree with you…sort of. It seems as though she’s trying to have it both ways with this issue. Her initial outing of Dumbledore may have been an offhand comment, but she did pursue it and had to know how primary it would become for her readers.

  Now, it’s a “peripheral” issue. Reading her comments very strictly, she’s right. Dumbledore’s sexuality is quite far down on the list of defining character traits important for readers to know. I still think Dumbledore’s sexuality only changes a reader’s perception so much as that reader wants it to, or allows it to.

  As for her comments about homophobia, her thinking here seems one more victim of the culture war. I think she has in mind the most vocal and public opponents of gays and lesbians — which sometimes do smack of a strain of homophobia and fundamentalism, at least here in the States. But, then again, I support marriage rights for gays and lesbians — I don’t think the nature of a marriage is something the government should define for a couple. I don’t know if that makes me a liberal or a libertarian…I’ve never been especially comfortable with labels — they’re far too easy.

• 7 revgeorge // Mar 12, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  Dave,

  Labels can be helpful. Certain labels can also be badges of identity for people. But they always have to be used carefully & they’re no substitute for listening to individuals.

• 8 Victoria // Mar 12, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  ‘ear, ‘ear !

• 9 seajay // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:05 pm

  There will always be problems about language between the UK and the US. For instance ‘liberal’ and ‘environmentalist’ have almost the opposite connotations (and to an extent meaning) in the UK and the US - so having a conversation using those terms is fraught with danger. The same goes for the term ‘fundamentalist’. In the UK this is synonymous with the mind-set of those who destroyed the twin towers, whereas in the US it has a completely different meaning. Given that the JKR interview was with a local Edinburgh publication the words used must be understood in their UK context.

• 10 reyhan // Mar 12, 2008 at 8:16 pm

  Matthew,

  JKR may have had a choice over “outing” Dumbledore, but I don’t think she had a choice over his sexuality. A truly compelling character - as DD certainly is - comes to the author almost fully formed.

  No, I think her only real choice was whether she was going to out him or not. And as for that, I think I remember her speaking of her relief in finally being able to be honest about him (unless I’m confabulating, which is possible). I sort of remember her saying that they were her own characters and she had the right to say what she wanted about them.

  Can anyone remember the quote?

  Because if I do remember correctly, then her almost certain pre-knowledge of the fire-storm of debat the outing would generate, would be as equally likely to generate defiance as caution.

• 11 Dave the Longwinded // Mar 13, 2008 at 11:08 am

  seajay, those are excellent points. It’s easy to forget that UK English and US English have really different cultural referents for certain terms.

  Could you give us a rundown on the distinctions?

• 12 pip // Mar 13, 2008 at 12:00 pm

  I’m baaack. It’s been a long while. Haven’t had much to say, I guess.

  I’m wondering–if Dumbledore’s sexuality is a non-issue as far as his character, why has JKR made it an issue again?

  I believe the firestorm created by a few so-called Christians involving her books was a bitter disappointment to and a personal attack on a woman frail in her faith. Too bad she wasn’t surrounded by those strong in the faith to help her weather the criticisms. It’s sad, too, that Christians aren’t able to check facts and know what they are criticizing before going on the attack. It’s so common these days–witch burnings again. That’s where the bad press comes in about Christianity and the bigotry and labeling. Misguided Christians are providing the path to the eventual persecution of the faith. This is just my take, of course.

  Jo needs a good Christian counselor to help her sort things out. I would wager that her faith is waivering because of all this. I have much compassion for her. The world at one time affected my walk, but I was surrounded by good people who helped me through and kept me focused on Him. I pray that for her.

• 13 seajay // Mar 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  thanks dave of the long wind! despite your fulsome praise I am ducking out of that challenge, I would not know where to begin and would probably end up in a tangled and confused heap somewhere

• 14 seajay // Mar 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  ..or other

• 15 Travis Prinzi // Mar 14, 2008 at 11:00 am

  Lots of things to respond to here! Here goes:

  I don’t know if that makes me a liberal or a libertarian

  Dave, I think that makes you a libertarian

  I can contribute just a little to the UK vs. US liberal/conservative discussion: Theologian N.T. Wright says that one of the biggest differences is that over here, the perception is that the conservatives want religion in politics, but over there, the liberals do.

  Interesting that she calls Dumbledore’s sexuality “very peripheral” and that there are “20 things more important,” but not so long ago, she was explaining that the only reason she didn’t “out” Dumbledore before was that it was so crucial to the plot. I agree with Dave - there’s a lot of culture war and having-it-both-ways going on here.

  That “homophobia” is a fear of love itself is kind of silly. If it were fear of loving more than “the sexual act,” why isn’t all “love” feared? To frame it as though it’s just love that scares people doesn’t adequately explain the issue.

• 16 Michael // Mar 15, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  Whilst Jo may have made a blunt statement, I do not think she was addressing it towards those who felt disappointed with Dumbledore being gay, if they were disappointed for other reasons besides the fact that he was gay. I think that those who dislike the fact that he is gay, have the right to dislike it, but I would hope that it would be more than ‘he is gay, I don’t like that’.

  Being ‘gay’. I believe is not something to hate in itself. I know gay friends and family. They can’t help who they love, nor should they have to. And I wouldn’t think of them any less because they choose to love the same sex. They are who they are, and I love and respect them for it. The fact that Dumbledore is gay has no effect upon me. He was a good man when he was alive. A flawed man, but a good one who saw his mistakes and did his best to improve upon them. It’s the basis of Rowling’s story. Do not judge who the person is (that being muggle0-born, or gay/straight, or black, yellow or white) but judge the person they grew up to become.

  I respect those who may be disappointed with Rowling’s choice to make Dumbledore gay, but I dearly hope that it is more than just the fact that the man is gay. Otherwise I do tend to agree with her. That kind of judgment is homophobic. As I said, I hope their reasoning has more substance, because that should not matter.

• 17 Michael // Mar 15, 2008 at 12:47 pm

  And I agree with Travis. I do disagree with Rowling. People are not afraid of people of the same sex falling in love, but of the physical act itself. It doesn’t make it any better or worse to me, it is just an observation. I have my own views about the issue, most of which I have stated in the past, in a rather less than elegant matter. I can respect the pinions of others here on this forum as they are very religious centric, though I do have to disagree with some of them. I don’t want to get into a discussion about it, as I doubt any of us will change their mind on the topic, so I’ll respectfully agree to disagree.

• 18 korg20000bc // Mar 16, 2008 at 4:33 am

  Michael,
  You write:
  “They can’t help who they love, nor should they have to. And I wouldn’t think of them any less because they choose to love the same sex.”
  This is an extremely problematic statement. They can’t help it but they also choose to do it? Which one is it?

  I believe your second sentence more than the first. It is a concious choice to persue a homosexual lifestyle. If you go down the road of genetically determined sexual preference you are opening a huge can of worms. If we accept homosexuality of genetically determined what other types of sexual preference must we also accept as having a genetic determinant? Necrophilia? Beastiality? Paedophilia? I’m not equating homosexuality with these things, I am attempting to point out the flaw in the “genetically determined” arguement.

  Matthew

• 19 Michael // Mar 16, 2008 at 6:14 am

  Very valid point. But I was not implying genetics. Love is love. You can’t help who to love. To me love is not about genetics. And I’m not speaking of the physical for m of that, I’m talking about love in its purest form. When you love someone, you love their entire being. Regardless of their flaws, gender, skin colour, etc. But am I being too vague? I don’t mean the physical attraction. I mean the power to love someone for who they are. That to me isn’t about genetics. And if someone loves someone based on that, and it happens to be someone of the same sex, then all the more power to them.

  That is how I see Dumbledore’s love for Grindalwald (sp?) Whilst Jo has proclaimed that he is gay (and that implies that he IS attracted to the male sex) I did not see his love for the guy as anything more than love itself. And Jo has said as much. He was made a fool of by love. Dumbledore loved the guy, flaws and all. He was blinded by it.

  And I think that is the type of love that Jo is really pushing within her series. We have seen the stuff of teenage romance. It is raw and very inexperienced, but to love, LOVE someone in such a
  pure manner is what drove the series. It is not about ‘hooking’ up with someone one week and then hoping onto what’s better the next (as teen romance can accumulate to at times) but it is about accepting someone, their flaws and all. I believe this kind of love runs within the closest of families, friends and lovers. When that bond is formed, you cannot consciously juts shake it off.

  It changes a person, to the core. Those with families, know of this kind of love. It can certainly blind them as well. Which makes Dumbledore’s speech about love, very touching as he was both blessed and bitten by it.

  However say that it is a choice, I do not entirely believe either. Having spoken to those who are gay, that are within my life, it is not as though they woke up one day in their teens and decided to actively purse the same sex because they wanted to be different, or piss their parents off. They felt very attracted to the same sex. But to say that it is genetic, is quite a stretch as well. The male or female child is made up of X and Y chromosomes, as we know. A male has more Y and a female has more X. When this balance is different with in either sex, this does not mean a child will be born liking the same sex. They may have softer/harsher features, higher/lower voice, but that does not mean the person is gay. So I honestly do not know if it is either choice, or genetics.

  Gosh that was one big rant, just to express that I did not know what I explicitly believed! HA!

  I also do not know how Necrophilia, Beastiality or Paedophilia work entirely. I am more inclined to think that it is a power thing. A form of abuse rather than a preference. A lot of those who have been sexually abused as children can grow up to abuse themselves. It is an anger, control, power agenda that is very sad and terrifying to say the least. But then I have heard of others who are attracted to such things without such agendas. It is a very fine line I believe. I am not educated enough in this field to make any big grand statements (too late though!:) )

  And I hope I hope Matthew you were not putting Homosexuality under the same umbrella as something as disgusting as pedophilia. Homosexuality is about love as much as Heterosexuality is. To lump it with other abusive forms of sexual activity is unfair.

  But that is my two cents. I hope it made more sense. Ultimately was in love, not lust. It blind sided him and put him in a position that was quite morally grey.

• 20 Travis Prinzi // Mar 16, 2008 at 9:34 am

  Thanks for the comments so far, everyone. As with the last time this discussion got started, let’s try as best we can to stay away from the actual debate about homosexuality itself. It’s an important topic, and if it seems like we need to discuss it, I’ll open up a thread on another blog.

• 21 reyhan // Mar 16, 2008 at 10:03 am

  Travis, it’s easy to drift over to debating homosexuality (sin/not sin, biologically determined / personal preference) when debating JKR’s views of DD’s sexual orientation. But I agree that we need to keep the two discussions separate.

  So here’s my attempt to bring the discussion back to what I perceive as being its original focus.

  Accepting that at some point in his development JKR knew, or realized, that DD was gay, should she have kept that knowledge private?

• 22 Michael // Mar 16, 2008 at 10:54 am

  Yeah very true man. Sorry if I got side tracked. Dumbledore rules? Ha.

• 23 Michael // Mar 16, 2008 at 8:39 pm

  Hmmm I think she would have wanted to make that statement but was held back by her publishers. That’s just my take on it. Jo wasn’t afraid to put other stark adult issues within the books. But this is just an issue that her publishers I believe, held her back.

• 24 Travis Prinzi // Mar 16, 2008 at 9:07 pm

  Michael, it’s an interesting thought. Rowling has been a little cagey on this, and has even contradicted herself a bit. On the one hand, she’s said (paraphrase), “It’s not really important that he was gay,” and on the other, she’s said (paraphrase), “The reason I didn’t say he was gay was that it was too important to the plot” (referring to the Grindelwald obsession). So it’s tough to know. My guess is that it was never included in any of her manuscripts, so the editors were never faced with that decision. At the same time, if it was in a book, and the editors did hack it, my guess is that she’s never say so; she’d protect her publisher. (Not biting the hand that feeds you and all that.)

• 25 Michael // Mar 16, 2008 at 11:18 pm

  Exactly, I’m right there with you Travis. If it was as important as it was meant to be, I’m sure the publishers would have wanted to can it. She did initially say that it wasn’t important. This was when the news first came into fruition. I think that was the case as Jo has already copped a huge amount of flack from various religious groups about the books. This bit of information was quite significant I believe that she actually tried to make it seem less so when the initial blow was t be felt. So Jo told us it wasn’t important.

• 26 Travis Prinzi // Mar 16, 2008 at 11:26 pm

  Michael, I think I’d probably lean in the other direction - that she actually doesn’t think it’s important, but that when she was pressured as to why she waited so long, she made it sound more important than she believed it was. Either way, we’re both making assumptions that would be pretty hard to back up!

• 27 reyhan // Mar 17, 2008 at 11:20 am

  My point was not so much about how important she thought it was, but whether she should have disclosed it or not.

  But I can play with the question as it is: how important was DD’s sexual orientation to the story? Would the story have changed substantially if Gellert had been Giselle? Or alternatively, if Gellert had been a close friend, along the lines of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker?

  Thinking about it from the point of view of a writer, I can speculate about how DD came to be gay. First of all, JKR obviously does not consider being gay as unnatural or a state of sin. From that perspective, a character’s being gay would be one of many possible traits that a good character could have. Second, at some point she saw that there had been a major break in DD’s life: he wasn’t always the humanitarian leader we saw him as in the latter part of his life; he had in fact been a tyrant-in-the-making. She needed a strong reason for why he had gone down that path in the first place, and a strong reason for why he’d turned away from it. A strong attraction to a charismatic friend provided the first reason. Remorse for (possibly) killing his sister provided the second.

  So why not stop there? Why not leave the relationship as a strong friendship, why make it into a sexual attraction? I think the reason is that the strong friendship would not have been sufficient. Think about it: could Anakin have tempted Obi-Wan to turn to the Dark Side, even for a moment? No, I think that the wedge for DD was his loneliness: because he was so brilliant, he had no equals. And JKR said as much, some time ago, in trying to explain DD’s mistakes. Grindelwald was his only chance at human connection, as flawed as that relationship was.

  Now what I would really like to ask is why Gellert wasn’t Giselle. Two answers come to me, one a bit more personally acceptable than the other. First, perhaps DD was “born” gay. That is, from the first moment she conceptualized him, JKR realized he was gay. Thus Giselle would not have been an option. The second, less acceptable explanation is that a female character would not have been as convincing as the charismatic influence, love for whom would lead DD down the garden path. We would not have believed that DD could have contemplated becoming a tyrant-in-the-making for a woman.

  Which is sad. But it goes back to how society views male vs female heroes. And it says that in the end, DD was gay for precisely the same reason Harry was not Harriet.

• 28 Victoria // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:18 pm

  reyhan -

  most insightful analysis here. I appreciate it very much.
  Could it also be that JKR would not find Gellert fitting as Giselle because she thinks her readers would not find the concept of a woman tyrant convincing ? Although I could certainly see it working, there are unsurprisingly little real-life examples of women tyrants.

• 29 reyhan // Mar 17, 2008 at 12:30 pm

  Victoria,

  I thought of that. But then we’re confronted with one of the most masterful depictions of female tyranny in literature: Dolores Jane Umbridge. So we can’t say that JKR could not create, nor her readers accept, a convinving female tyrant.

  No, I think what she could not create - or expect her readers to accept - a female character whom DD could be convinced to accept as an equal, let alone follow as a leader. Take away all the fancy reasoning, and it comes down to the fact that we wouldn’t have believed DD could look up to and worship a woman as he did a man.

• 30 Victoria // Mar 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm

  Granted - hadn’t thought of Umbridge.

  And I have to say that the psychology does work on me too. I hadn’t thought of Umbridge and as soon as you mentioned her I thought: ‘She’s not really a tyrant is she ? She’s not like Grindelwald.’ And although you might say that Umbridge was led by blinding respect for authority of the Ministry and Fudge in the OotP, she definitely developed her own tyrannic regime in DH. Interesting…

• 31 Dave the Longwinded // Mar 17, 2008 at 2:51 pm

  At least on some level, Dumbledore’s sexual preferences might revert back into the definition of love Michael provided above — some form of pure, unadulterated love. What drew Dumbledore to Grindelwald was intelligence, a human trait Dumbledore prized beyond any other at that point in his youth. Thus, Dumbledore lacked several other key virtues, patience and humility chief among them.

  I’ve read this moment in Dumbledore’s life as two traits weaving a very complicated tapestry:

  1) Love as more than purely sexual expression. At this point, Dumbledore’s emphasis of intelligence is shallow, but it is at least pointed in the right direction for future relationships.

  2) That an overemphasis on reason can be dangerous in its own fashion. This moment in Dumbledore’s life is a morality play pointing out Dumbledore’s flaws because he ignores the very essence of his own humanity, and that of others.

  The difficulty lies in rectifying both. At one level, this could be read as an equation condemning Dumbledore’s form of love, whether we’re talking “gay”, “pure”, “impassioned”, etc. It’s certainly condemning Dumbledore’s self-centered nature as a teenager. Either way, Rowling’s answer is striking: just try to love everyone; but recognize some people refuse to love, whether by choice or predisposition.

• 32 Eeyore // Mar 17, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  I do see your point about a woman tyrant, but for me, it’s just not that difficult to believe that Dumbledore would have acted as he did as a youth, captivated by a friendship. Not every strong action has to be based on a sexual attraction. And I have seen people who were so completely captivated by a friend that they acted in a way that was contrary to their former beliefs or family circumstances.

  I agree with Michael that love is a very strong emotion that can influence a person to action. But I don’t think it’s necessary to restrict that sort of love by definitions of sexual preference.

  However, JKR did see it that way. And in all her explanations, some of which are a bit confusing and in conflict, she clearly saw that as the reason for Dumbledore’s choices. Even though I don’t think it was necessary to explain Dumbledore’s falling so completely under the influence of Grindelwald, I can accept that, in her opinion, it was. That is just an issue on which I disagree with her. But since she is the author and they are her characters, I can accept it.

  I’ve finally come to realize that my biggest problem with JKR’s revelation about Dumbledore is not so much that she thought of him as gay, and it wasn’t included in the books at all, but that I just don’t meet people or characters and immediately focus on their sexual preference. Unless a person (or character) does something that blatantly makes me take notice of his sexual preference, it’s just not something I consider. Chalk it up to my age, I suppose–I’m 58. When I was younger, maybe I paid more attention. Now I just look for other characteristics or choices that a person makes.

  I think that Rowling was wise (or her publishers were) to not include that particular bit of information in the books. It does nothing to enhance the story itself and only serves to distract us from the point of Dumbledore’s lessons imparted to Harry–and to all of us.

  Pat

• 33 korg20000bc // Mar 17, 2008 at 6:13 pm

  Good thoughts, reyhan.

  Something strikes me about the book 7 Dumbledore as being not “as originally conceived.” Rowling said that during the writing of DH Dumbledore was giving her a lot of trouble. I have a feeling that Dumbledore wasn’t fully formed in her mind even at that stage and the trouble was ensuring DH Dumbledore was plausible with the previous 6 books worth. The details of the Grindlewald/Dumbledore relationship feel like after though to me.

  Matthew

• 34 reyhan // Mar 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  Matthew,

  I get a similar feeling, although I think it was more complicated than that.

  I agree that the story wasn’t fully formed until later on. I find it incredible JKR wouldn’t have left more clues in the first 5 books had she had the whole story in her head all along. I think that we first hear of Grindelwald in PS, when we hear that DD defeated him. As far as I can recall, there are no other references until DH. We hear nothing of DD’s family or background until DH. The nearest we get is when Harry asks him in SS what he sees when he looks in the Mirror of Erised, and he blows him off by saying “a pair of socks”.

  But she must have had some part of the hallows storyline worked out while she was writing HBP because DD appears on the scene with his hand already damaged; and also because of what he says after he drinks the green potion in the cave.

  I have gone over that scene many times, trying to understand what DD meant, first just trying to understand, and later on trying to figure out how it fits the story about a battle where Ariana was killed.

  This is what he says:

  ‘It’s all my fault, all my fault,’ he sobbed, ‘please make it stop. I know I did wrong, oh please make it stop and I’ll never, never again …’

  and

  ‘Don’t hurt them, don’t hurt them please, please, it’s my fault, hurt me instead.’

  and

  ‘Please, please, please, no … not that, not that, I’ll do anything…’

  I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound to me like an angry firefight between three teen-age wizards where a witch inadvertantly gets killed. It sounds like something quite different.

  My guess - pure speculation - is that the backstory JKR had in mind for DD while writing HBP didn’t quite work out and she replaced it with another story.

  DD’s sexual orientation fits the story we ended up with, it actually seems necessary, to explain how he almost got pulled into Grindelwald’s mad dreams of muggle domination.

• 35 revgeorge // Mar 17, 2008 at 11:36 pm

  reyhan said,
  “DD’s sexual orientation fits the story we ended up with, it actually seems necessary, to explain how he almost got pulled into Grindelwald’s mad dreams of muggle domination.”

  Yes, perhaps. But plenty of people in this world have been pulled into mad dreams of domination without any sexual motives at all. Apart from Rowling’s revelations about why DD did something, his actions in DH can be explained other ways. So, it doesn’t seem necessary; it’s merely plausible.

• 36 Jordan // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:14 pm

  Dumbledore’s sexuality is great, splendid, and throughly INSIGNIFICANT & UNRELATED to the core meaning & messages
  of the books, and I am not directly referring to the idea that the story is a purely christian, religious story- or plot. Rowling said, according to one of Tracvis’ Podcasts, that she wanted to write a traditonally Christian story but that just means she wanted to use a similar, and admittedly good plot and story when applied to any book, to her own series- she wasn’t preaching gospels in the books, so the sexuality of any of the characters isn’t a big deal because the book doesn’t “Belong” to the Christians, or any other group– so its not as though Dumbledore’s sexuality was aimed to offend distress, bring happiness or sadness, to anyone really. Also I feel that it is a bit hypocritical, or at least narrow minded, for Christians who read & love the books to get so upset about something being revealed that you feel isn’t agreeable to your beliefs yet are able to talk openly about other members of your religion who ban the books because they might be promoting witchcraft- their agrument actually, though ridiculous, actually is more plausible then christians complaining that the books or the author could be promoting homosexuality because they’re 7 whole books about witchcraft that a woman wrote from her imagination (which they might consider to be sinister)
  I am an Atheist and I love the podcast and this website– as well as complete respect for the Christian religion (as well as all others) and their beliefs and I am not trying to upset anyone by criticizing anyones comments because the are stereotypically “christian” or “jewish” “muslim” etc. - all I ask is that people do the same when reading my comments and not shrugging them off as “atheist”

• 37 revgeorge // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:26 pm

  Jordan,

  I don’t know about others, but I’ve never had an issue with Dumbledore’s sexuality from a Christian point of view, although I do hold to the traditional Christian position on it. My objections have generally been based on textual issues. In fact, I think his sexuality has been made too much of by both sides, especially since Jo’s always keeps referring to it as peripheral.

  I also don’t think anyone here has ever said that Jo was writing explicitly Christian books.

  So, I’m not too sure what you’re complaining against, as most of the things you’ve mentioned have been, as far as I can tell, avoided by the commentors on this website.

• 38 reyhan // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:45 pm

  Jordan,

  I believe that homosexuality is regarded as a sin by many (although not all) Christian groups. And the people who visit this site are for the most part (although not all) Christians. So the likelihood is that most of them will not approve of JKR’s revelation about DD’s sexual orientation.

  On the other hand, as revgeorge points out, the objections here have been for the most part couched in terms of whether that is a necessary or important plot point, with most people here finding it not so much.

  You will find that the tone of the discussion here is reasonable, mature, and above all, respectful, due without doubt to the influence of the moderators.

• 39 Jordan // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm

  Also, I thought it might be worth noting that 2 of my favorite Artists - and the artists that created the 3 most recognized pieces of artwork in the world, 2 of them COMPLETELY CHRISTIAN.
  Their Names:
  Leonardo Da Vinci (the Last Supper is one of the images)
  & Michelangelo (the ceiling in the sistine Chapel, particularly the creation of adam) AND GUESS WHAT? Da Vinci got in a lot of trouble for performing sodomy on a member of his workshop at the age of 24 and art historians account his highly secretive and paranoid manner for the rest of his life as possible ways in which he could keep his homosexuality private.
  & Michelangelo, who was devout and followed the teachings of one of the most devout religious church leaders ever Savonarola, led a life of great unease and stress because of his homosexuality- something that art historians verify from his own notes, poems, and journal entries.
  They both created great artwork- artwork Christians have prayed to and been inspired by (as well as everyone else) even CLAIMED THEIR IMAGES AS DIVINE- the last supper was deemed divine and Michelangelo was known as The Divine Michelangelo after he unvieled the cistine ceiling and a devout christian women feel to tears and near madness when seeing his “Pieta” Statue, she was overwhelmed with the magnitude of seeing Jesus represented so amazingly, and the Harry Potter Books, have carved just as big of a place in human history as their Christian based, Homosexually Created, Art and will play as big a part in future history and inspirations for generations to come as them so maybe people need to realize that homosexuality isn’t a bad thing, or hinderance to art, or should be something to judge a person or piece of literature by.
  And In my Opinion Dumbledore, though a literary character with many faults (not his homosexuality that is not a character flaw), is one of the greatest characters ever created, with a personality as great as Da Vinci and Michelangelo contributing as much great things to his own world as they did to ours (he played a tremendous, possible as much or more than Harry, in the end of Voldemort- the worst figure ever in the wizarding world) so maybe Christians should start appreciating Dumbledore’s sexuality along with his vast wisdom talents contributions to the wizarding world because it something that he Da Vinci and Michelangelo (as well as a huge huge huge number of other great people in history) all have in common. Homosexuality rules because they rule and if you don’t see that just reread some of the greatest passages Dumbledore is in or go look at some of their artwork if you can’t see the greatness in any of those things because of homophobia then that is your character flaw
  not theirs because all of it- the art and the dialogue, is undeniably extraordinary and amongst the greatest creations and contributions to the world ever.

• 40 revgeorge // Mar 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  Jordan,

  Your first post was worth replying to, as it seemed to indicate room for discussion. Sadly, your second post has revealed that not to be the case. Perhaps reading the posts here would be helpful before commenting, so that you’re not tilting at straw men.

• 41 korg20000bc // Mar 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm

  Keep it together and on topic please Jordan.

  As revgeorge suggests you are only argueing against your own points.

  I don’t define Dumbledore by his sexuality, for good or bad. Nor Da Vinci or Michelangelo. I don’t think these men would like to be defined by their sexuality either. They were extrodinary artist because of their brilliant minds and abilities NOT because of sexual preference.

  And I have never prayed to any artwork.

  Matthew (Moderator hat on)

• 42 Dave the Longwinded // Mar 19, 2008 at 2:54 pm

  Jordan, if I had to choose, I’d claim myself to be an agnostic. Yet, I first came to Sword of Gryffindor/The Hog’s Head because I was interested in finding legitimate discussion of HP that went beyond two things. One was a rather shallow debate about which character ought to be hooking up with another. The other was a rather pointless, constant rehash of whether the books were somehow demons posing as kiddie-lit.

  Oddly, enough I found it here — a site with an openly theological approach. I would in no way classify myself as an adherent to any religion — I’ve just never been “convinced”, “called”, or anything else. But, I’ve never felt discriminated against because my beliefs aren’t those of some of my peers on this site. My views have always been as welcomed as any other — with open arms and a challenge to defend what I think of the books. My faith and/or questions about faith have never been used as a rod with which to pummel me over the head. And my challenges to others have always been met with open discussion and honesty. The first comment I ever left here was a lengthy challenge to some of Travis’s thoughts concerning postmodernism.

  Lo and behold, even though Travis and I initially disagreed on a fundamental principle of how to read these books, he asked me several months later if I’d be interested in contributing as a blogger to the site on a regular basis. That’s the kind of environment fostered here by Travis, and it’s one I deeply appreciate.

  The kind of accusations you’re leveling at some of the regulars here are unfounded. The kind of rampant hate that you’re describing has only rarely ever appeared on this site in my time visiting and working with it. And when it does, Travis and Matthew go far above and beyond to quell it as unwarranted and inappropriate to The Hog’s Head’s purpose. Everyone who is a regular here, whatever their worldview or creed, are good and intelligent. I consider myself to be lucky to be included among their ranks despite the fact that I don’t often measure up to their intellectual standard.

  These people are friends, despite the fact that I’ve never met any of them. Reading their posts and comments are like listening to their voices. You’re welcome here, but please extend the same courtesy to us that we extend to you.

• 43 Travis Prinzi // Mar 19, 2008 at 3:07 pm

  Jordan, thanks for your comments…Dave, Matthew, revgeorge, and reyhan have said all of what needs to be said about the way we try to do conversation around here (and, thanks to the four of you for your comments). I am wondering, as I’ve read your initial post a couple times now - is there something someone said in particular that bothered you?

  Apart from that, we do try our best to let all voices be heard, allow this site to be a place where HP is discussed as literature and as a product and shaper of culture, while trying to avoid really hot-button and very divisive topics that will do little more than make the place a breeding ground for trolls and anger. That’s a really tall order. We’ve had heated discussions about race, gender, sexuality, and other topics…but there are certain discussions that belong in either specifically theological or sociocultural/political discussion forums, and the religious discussion about homosexuality is one of those.

  Don’t get me wrong - it’s an important discussion to have, and I’ve tried to get it going in a few different venues before, including my other blog. It’s just a line I’ve decided to draw here, because it’s a hard one to graciously discuss in the comments of a blog post.

  reyhan has been helpful in getting the topic back on track, so let’s see if we can follow that discussion and see where it goes from here on out. If we can’t, I’ll have to close the comments to this topic (like last time).

• 44 Eeyore // Mar 19, 2008 at 9:47 pm

  Well said everyone. And with that, I’ll return to reyhan’s point about what Dumbledore says in the Cave compared to what we learn of his youth in Deathly Hallows. I agree that it doesn’t exactly sound like it matches up.

  But I was wondering (trying to make it work, actually)–could his pleas for it to stop be that he wants the memories to stop rather than a particular incident? And he does then say that he knows he did wrong and doesn’t want “them” hurt, which could refer to his remorse over the deaths of his family. Also, could some of his comments be that he is seeing what happened to Ariana when the muggles attacked her? It doesn’t sound like he was there but if that’s a vision that he sees, he would certainly want them to leave her alone and attack him instead. It seems to me that that is the only plausible explanation for what he is seeing or reliving in the Cave in HBP. At least when I read it that way, then the continuity is better. I think part of the problem is that we don’t really get a clear explanation of what the potion caused Dumbledore to see or relive.

  Really, I think you probably are closer to the truth in saying that Rowling had one thing in mind and then changed it to something else for the final book.

  I don’t think, though, that we needed to hear much more about Grindelwald before the last book to make that particular part of the story work. It seems it was one of those things, when I reread Philosopher’s Stone recently, that was just enough information, repeated several times, that sets up the end of the story. We know early on that Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald, but no one seems to have more information about it than that and so we don’t have it either until Dumbledore talks of it. If we’d had much more information about the defeat of Grindelwald in the early books it might have taken away from the twist that she was going for in the end. Whether or not she successfully set it up is really a matter of our own opinions. In everything that she has said (nothing about the Cave, though), Rowling does seem to think that she did what she set out to do. Maybe she just needed to be a little less cagey with some of the events in the books to make sure we really got the point she was trying to make.

  Pat

• 45 reyhan // Mar 19, 2008 at 11:59 pm

  Pat,

  Like you, I have twisted myself inside out trying to make DD’s words in the cave fit the events revealed in DH.

  If we go just by the words, it sounds like he’s talking to one person. He’s pleading with that person to stop hurting somone (”them”). It sounds like he’s done something to offend whoever he’s pleading with (”It’s all my fault”) And he’s promising to never do something again (”please make it stop and I’ll never … never again.”)

  It is impossible to know what these words referred to, and what JKR had in mind about DD’s backstory at the point she wrote these words. I acknowledge that. But I will try one line of conjecture on you.

  Assuming that the person who’s being addressed is Grindelwald (and that’s only a guess), and that the victims DD’s trying to shield are his family (again, pure guess), then it sounds like Grindelwald was originally more powerful than he ended up being, and Aberforth less powerful than he ended up being.

  So my guess would be that initially Grindelwald was more of a Voldemortian kind of cartoon character villain. And that he became both less powerful and more human for DH. And in the course of becoming human, his power over DD changed from coercion to attraction. So while the original Grindelwald used threats and force, the final version used his charm and considerable intelligence.

  Like I said, all pure speculation. But if there is any truth to it, don’t we all prefer the more nuanced villain to the cardboard cut-out that Voldemort ended up being? And isn’t it more interesting that DD had to fight his own impulses and dark side before he could defeat this new, charismatic Grindelwald?

• 46 Travis Prinzi // Mar 20, 2008 at 12:10 am

  reyhan, I thoroughly agree with the assessment re: Grindelwald, and his being a nuanced, believable baddie.

• 47 Dave the Longwinded // Mar 20, 2008 at 10:24 am

  I’ve puzzled over how memory and imagination work in these books for a while, now. And given that HP is a magical universe with its own set of physical rules, everytime I feel like I get an answer, it fades away — not to sound too much like Gambon/Dumbledore!

  Memory is a constant physical phenomenon in her universe. Harry has stored accurate memories from his infancy (the death of his parents). The Mirror of Erised seems to be able to reflect one’s desires in some kind of literal fashion, whether one has had firsthand experience with the information used in the reflection or not. For Harry, that reflection is inherently tied to this kind of super-memory he seems to have — he doesn’t just remember his parents, but other family members seem to pop up, too. You can literally pull the physical stuff of your memories from your noggin and swirl it around in a stone mixing bowl. What’s more, you can enter these memories as a passive observer and take in all the sensory detail without altering the memory. This seems at least similar to the way a Prophecy works.

  Rowling writes all this so that memory exists independently of the person who possesses that memory. “Possession” isn’t even really the right word; I don’t think the characters really “own” their memories, so to speak.

  If she’s treating memory this way through the vast majority of the books, I think Dumbledore’s experience in the Cave should be read as some sort of literal memory that he really has. Except that this moment is treated so radically different from anything else in the books. As if some disjointed version of our supremely powerful mentor/guide weren’t enough, Rowling so effectively crumbles Dumbledore’s invincibility by writing him in this pitiful, pathetic state, but doesn’t give the reader any sense of what that memory is all about. It’s a simple and subtle move, but she keeps Harry so far distant from any true Dumbledorean account of that moment — and you know that Harry was going to ask before HBP was over.

  I think it has to refer in some way to the Grindelwald/Ariana/Aberforth incident, but I’m no longer convinced the memory is a “literal” memory in the same fashion we’d become accustomed to for several books. If the basin and the potion are read as some kind of symbolic inversion of the Pensieve’s descriptions, then that kind of misrepresentation would make sense, especially in light of Voldemort’s tendancy to misrepresent the facts at every turn. Putting this episode in a Cave surrounded by reanimated corpses conjures so many philosophical and literary allusions, I don’t know where to begin; all of them I can think of from the top of my head deal with the fictionalization of the ontologically “real” in some way: Plato’s alleghory from The Republic, Frankenstein, Dracula; I’m sure many fans read that scene and saw Night of the Living Dead, too; the recent film version of Beowulf altered the confrontation in the cave between Beowulf and Grendel’s mother to reflect this same concern.

  The scene is like a foreshadow of the kind of crisis that Harry will face throughout DH, and I don’t think book 7 really goes out of its way to fully resolve the problem. Dumbledore certainly remembers a version of the Grindelwald confrontation, and so does Aberforth. As far as I can remember, their versions do fully reconcile. And the memories do certainly seem to exist independently of the reader. Rowling’s pomo turn with this seems to be a suggestion that it’s the internalization of these memories that is important — not its pure existence — which would fit in line with the tone of Dumbledore’s private lessons to Harry. Thus, Dumbledore in the Cave could be experiencing a kind of projection of that memory, his internalized comprehension of it, refracted even more while under the influence of Voldemort’s potion. Can you imagine? Screw up a person’s psychology for a brief moment and make the only salvation (water) a trap that unleashes its own nightmarish hell just as you regain your senses.

  Voldy is for sure a cardboard baddie, but he (perhaps Rowling?!?) has one heck of a sense of how to torment people.

• 48 Michael // Mar 20, 2008 at 11:24 am

  Perhaps in the cave, Dumbledore is witnessing a scene in which Gindle is harming muggles. The fact that he went so far to help the guy could suggest that he hated seeing what he saw and that was his awakening to the side of the goon.

  Dumbledore is my favorite character in the book. gay, straight, black, white it does not matter. And that is the opinion I get on this site. Some may be against that stuff but they do not use it as a basis to judge Albus upon. I think the guy is brilliant. True blue cool character.

• 49 Eeyore // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm

  Yes, I’ve thought that Rowling has a rather scary mind to think up some of the things she has put in the books (Umbridge comes to mind)–and distorting one’s memory would certainly be another. The one memory bit that you didn’t talk about is Legilimency. Snape sees Harry’s memories of his childhood, but also sees memories of the visions that Harry had, with no particular explanation of how that works–so that Snape is seeing the actions of Voldemort as viewed from the sidelines by Harry.

  Actually, your take on what Dumbledore is experiencing in the Cave makes it much more plausible. It isn’t a stretch at all that Voldemort would create a potion that would distort reality, turning a person’s worst fears into something that seems to be very real. So it becomes a combination of Dumbledore’s past mistakes and his worst fears–that the students he currently safeguards will be harmed, and all because of the wrongs that he did. Rather than Voldemort torturing him, Dumbledore is then torturing himself. Rather like what people do when they dwell on their past–punishing themselves far more effectively than anyone else ever could.

  Pat

• 50 reyhan // Mar 20, 2008 at 2:23 pm

  Dave,

  I think that you go even further than Pat in you attempts to reconcile DD’s ramblings from the Cave scene with the plot revelations in DH.

  I can see how an author could try to portray a character as pitiful by showing us how his memories are confused. But in order to do this successfully, we (the readers) need to know what the actual events referenced are, so we can know how far the “scrambled” memories are from the actual.

  We are not given this in HBP. And the version of the three way fire-fight we get in DH does not for closely match what we hear in HBP.

  Similarly, in order to understand and appreciate how DD’s statements in the cave reflect his internalized comprehension of what happpened, we would need to know both what happened, and how he felt about it.

  Again, we are given no framework for this, until DH. And the framework we are given does not match except in the most global sense.

  The only common element between DD’s statements at the Cave and the actual facts as we are told them in DH is this: a sense of remorse over a misdeed which has resulted in harm to someone else.

  You could argue that this is the background fact that was transformed by DD’s besieged mind into what we heard from him at the Cave.

  But that argument doesn’t work for me. There is too much detail in what he says at the Cave. It seems, to me, to be referencing some literal fact which has yet to be disclosed.

  You can also look at it another way. Say JKR decided while writing DH that the backstory she had in mind during HBP didn’t work for DH. It was too late to change HBP. She had to find a backstory that was at least superficially compatible with the implied backstory in HBP. What did she do? She took the bare minimum from the HBP-implied-backstory, and matched that to the DH-backstory. And what was that bare minimum? A sense of remorse over a misdeed which has resulted in harm to someone else.

  I’m not saying that’s what happened. But I think it’s a defensible theory.

Leave a Comment