Beedle the Bard: Dumbledore’s Commentary

This quick-fire series of initial thoughts on Beedle would not be complete without a discussion of Dumbledore’s commentary.  The real meat on this will be in John Granger’s promised forthcoming post on Dumbledore’s writing on two levels.  Still, I hope to add a little bit of fuel to the conversation here.

Rowling did get a couple of slams in via Dumbledore, who took shots at Mrs. Bloxam, an advocate for santized fairy tales, and Brutus and Lucius Malfoy, the bigots and racists.

Mrs. Beatrix Bloxam I take to represent all those who would remove the frightening, Gothic elements from the fairy tales for the sake of not scaring children.  A number of years ago, Rowling recounted a trip she took to the United States.  I’ll quote in full here, and do note that this section immediately follows the most clear endorsement of Fabian-gradualism that Rowling has ever made:

E: And you’re working in these issues that, for you as a person, are obviously crucial to your life. I mean, these issues about race relations and civil rights.

JK: You know, children are interested in those things. They are. It’s not just me. I think they are.

E: So, are we protecting our kids too often from those kinds of things? Because certainly in North America, there is a sense that we ought to protect our kids from…

JK: On my last tour I was there over Halloween. And I was stunned that on my hotel television…you see, my daughter was in this hotel room, and three programs in a row were concerned with ‘how do we stop our children being frightened by Halloween.’ Three in a row. These daytime chat shows. ‘Well, make sure you watch them putting up the decorations, so they can see it’s not real. Explain to them it’s all for fun.’ And I’m sitting there and I’m thinking, you are trying to protect children from their own imaginations, and you can’t do that. That’s how you turn out frightened children, in my opinion. You turn out frightened children by saying, ‘It’s not scary. There’s nothing there to frighten you.’ Kids will get scared and they’ve got to live through that and then to deal with that. You can’t stop them being frightened. A happy child is not one who has never experienced fear or who has never been allowed to experience fear.

E: Fear is a healthy thing?

JK: It is a healthy thing. It’s a survival thing. What then happens to the child who has been so protected that their age…I mean how could a child grow to age 14 never having experienced fear, but let’s say that were possible? It would be a destroying experience for that boy or girl the first time they felt fear. You have to learn that.

I think Mrs. Bloxam represents these people who want to protect kids from their own imaginations by telling sanitized fairy tales.  Interestingly, this discussion flows right out of her advocacy for gradualism, and comments on race and the ability of children to comprehend and care about such matters.

Which sums up the key elements both of Beedle the Bard’s tales, and of Dumbledore’s commentary: Social Justice and Gothic Fear.  Dumbledore’s commentary frequently emphasizes the moral issues of social justice (he flat-out calls Lucius’s request to ban “The Fountain of Fair Fortune” immoral), and he’s an advocate for letting the stories have their frightening elements.  As John Granger has noted in the comments, and I’m sure many have observed, there are Gothic elements all over these stories.

Here’s a case study in how I read Dumbledore.  When explaining his conflict with Lucius Malfoy, he writes, “This exchange marked the beginning of Mr. Malfoy’s long campaign to have be removed from my post as Headmaster of Hogwarts, and of mine to have him removed from his position as Lord Voldemort’s Favorite Death Eater” (p. 42).  I take it to mean that he wants, by any means, to pull Malfoy away from that ridiculous life which fuels the hatred and bigotry at the source of their conflict, and open up the possibility of redemption for him – which task he accomplished in the saving of Draco.  In other words, Dumbledore is the kind of bloak who acts on the moral lesson of “The Wizard and the Hopping Pot” – love your enemy.  Too rosy?  How do you read that statement?

The most controversial bit of commentary is “The Tale of the Three Brothers.”  I opened that conversation here, and it’s a good one.

On the whole, Dumbledore’s commentary is a delightful read, with lots of funny moments, and several windows with views into his character, into the Wizarding World, and into the art of story.

The other matter of interest is the validity of Dumbledore’s interpretation.  Is he correct, as revgeorge asks, that the son in “The Wizard and the Hopping Pot” had his conscience re-awoken?  Or did he just want the stupid warty pot to stop vomiting on him?

More on Dumbledore’s commentary in forthcoming posts.

Tagged as: Albus Dumbledore, Tales of Beedle the Bard