jesurgislac : I swore I'd never look at her blog again, but I just can't resist it

sarah_frost
2007-10-22 14:41 (link)

Oh, dear. Thanks a lot for the links. Dumbledore's gayness was completely relevant to that whole Grindlewald subplot, and his parallel with Snape/Lily and the relationship with Snape that had so many consequences--and it's a shame it wasn't mentioned in the books, but at least the head-explodey after the fact is awesome. Vox Day mentioned it too, and his commenters went on from priaising a "dumb gay fag" parody by one of their sons to how Cho Chang has an Asian Soul (C) and she and Harry weren't supposed to interbreed.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

jesurgislac
2007-10-25 01:06 (link)

Oh, dear. Thanks a lot for the links. Dumbledore's gayness was completely relevant to that whole Grindlewald subplot, and his parallel with Snape/Lily and the relationship with Snape that had so many consequences--and it's a shame it wasn't mentioned in the books

Yeah, I think Rowling wimped out there.

o, and his commenters went on from priaising a "dumb gay fag" parody by one of their sons to how Cho Chang has an Asian Soul (C) and she and Harry weren't supposed to interbreed.

Yes - one thing Rowling got right (and the movies get wrong) is the normal racial mix at any British school.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Why was it necessary?
(Anonymous)
2007-10-25 08:57 (link)

Albus Dumbledore was a creation of Miss Rowling's mind, and thus, if in her mind he was gay, then he was gay.

But it clearly wasn't necessary for him to be gay in the books themselves, or Miss Rowling would have used it directly. And even the reason Dumbledore agreed with Grindlewald's positions does not have to be a homosexual love for Grindlewald; it could be deep respect and admiration, or the kind of close love between great friends or brothers that often occurs without the first hint of sexual feelings. Indeed, it could have simply been that Dumbledore, not nearly as mature at the time, saw Grindlewald's arguments as persuasive.

Any of those could have sufficed; that Miss Rowling said it was a broken homosexual love (I don't think she ever specified that it was a returned love) is controlling.

But our esteemed hostess' statement that she believes Miss Rowling "wimped out" demonstrates three things: first, it demonstrates a failure to understand that these were children's books, and this was not necessary. The crossover appeal to adults does not mean that they ought to be written for adults and not for children. The group she addressed when she mentioned that in her conception Dumbledore was gay was a group of adults.

Second, it demonstrates that our esteemed hostess has a political agenda in promoting Professor Dumbledore's homosexuality; since the books were perfectly understandable without the direct reference, no particular purpose is served by lamenting the exclusion other than a political agenda.

And third, it demonstrates that our hostess simply has not thought about the repercussions for the story had such been specified. The books were about Harry Potter, and his long struggle with Voldemort; to have had Dumbledore tell Harry, when he was explaining everything else in The Deathly Hallows, "I swallowed Grindlewald's arguments because I was hopelessly inlove with him," would have put the brakes on the narrative as part of Harry's quest, and turned both the story and the concentration of the reader onto Dumbledore.

Dana (http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com)</a>

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Why was it necessary? jesurgislac 2007-10-25 09:13 (link)
	Dana, I'll respond to your comment at more length later: right now, I'm just finding your sleezy, patronizing "esteemed hostess" comments too irritating to bother with, cupcake. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Why was it necessary? (Anonymous) 2007-10-25 13:19 (link)
	Now, surely you know that I have referred to others as "our esteemed (or honored or some other adjective) host (or hostess)" previously! Dana (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Why was it necessary? jesurgislac 2007-10-25 15:17 (link)
	Yes, and it always looks sleazy and patronizing, and is certainly always irritating. Excuse if I don't reply properly till Monday: looks like a busy family weekend. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Why was it necessary?

sarah_frost
2007-10-25 16:27 (link)

[T]he reason Dumbledore agreed with Grindlewald's positions does not have to be a homosexual love for Grindlewald; it could be deep respect and admiration, or the kind of close love between great friends or brothers that often occurs without the first hint of sexual feelings.

Like it or not (and there are reasons either way), partnership love is regarded in Rowling's, mine and presumably your culture as the highest form of love, above familial or friendship. Dumbledore's love for Grindlewald deepens that aspect of the story--and parallels Snape/Lily's similarly Dark-affected lost love, and we all know how relevant Dumbledore, Snape and their relationship was to the books. Livejournaler Marauderthesn has a perfect take on how it could have been placed in the books:

"I was frustrated with my family responsibilities," Dumbledore said. "I was desperate to feel as important as I had at school, I was taken with Grindlewald's ideas, I was in love - "

"You were in love?" Harry said, confused.

Dumbledore looked at him and suddenly he understood.

"Oh," he said, feeling stupid. "I didn't know that you and Grindlewald - "

"It felt as though we were compatible in every way," Dumbledore said. "Until the day that - that Ariana died..."

Easy, unless you don't think open acknowledgement of gay relationships is suitable for children. It's unfortunate that gay relationships are regarded as a big deal, because homophobia sucks, but I don't see how you can say this:

to have had Dumbledore tell Harry [he was in love with Grindlewald]...would have put the brakes on the narrative as part of Harry's quest, and turned both the story and the concentration of the reader onto Dumbledore.

Just like to have had Snape tell Harry and the reader he was in love with Lily put the brakes on the narrative as Harry's, and turned the story and the concentration of the reader onto Snape, right? Or Fleur tell everyone she was in love with Bill, because heaven knew that subplot didn't even have anything to do with Horcruxes, or Tonks tell everyone she was in love with Remu, and that was definitely a relationship more for the sake of having one and making the deaths more tragic than anything really defining the plot. All three of those relationships should never have been overtly mentioned in the text because the books were about Harry Potter.

Rowling didn't want to treat Dumbledore/Grindlewald like she treated every other of the two dozen or so heterosexual relationships mentioned in there--with open acknowledgment. It's a shame. Her interviews are secondary canon kindly provided to those interested in hearing more details in her mind about the stories, and feeling more annoyance at Dumbledore/Grindlewald than Luna/Rolf, Luna/Neville, Ron/Jokeshop, Ron/AurorDepartment, Harry/AurorDepartment, and Hannah/Neville is highly inconsistent.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-10-23 05:11 (link)
	Morrissey once asked "is it really so strange?" Not really, considering that Sharon simply hates teh gay. And that's why she botches up the gay marriage argument; like most conservatives, she is not a truth seeker. Instead, she starts off with a grudge, an assumption, or, in her case, a prejudice, and goes looking for arguments to support it. -mg (Reply to this) (Thread)

jesurgislac
2007-10-25 01:04 (link)

Reading Sharon's blog is like eating cheap chocolate: it doesn't taste good, you know it's bad for you, but just the same, you have to finish the whole bar...

I went back to see if she'd done one of her follow-up "OMG how dare people have discussions about my posts where I can't freeze threads and delete comments and declare that means I won!" posts, and found that she is claiming now:

I welcome any and all commenters, regardless of viewpoint, and enjoy a good debate when it presents itself. Please tell your friends and let's have even more conversations!

omg.

Is she deluded, or just lying? Crazy, or dishonest?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2007-11-09 12:34 (link)
	It's a fictional character! who gives a damn what their "sexual orientation" happens to be? There was none of this nonsense in CS Lewis's "Chronicles of Narnia" ... (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jesurgislac 2007-11-10 08:41 (link)
	Agreed! Everyone knew Lucy Pevensie was a lesbian, Caspian and Edmund were lovers, and Peter was hot for dwarves. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-11-18 08:09 (link)

sarah,

Just like to have had Snape tell Harry and the reader he was in love with Lily put the brakes on the narrative...
Actually, sort of yes. Notice how Rowling put Snape's story at the (almost) very end of the book. But then again, Snape and Lily were vital to the plot and to one of the great unresolved questions. Revealing this part of the story earlier or in a different manner would spoil a lot of things. Also, the subject of secrets was very important in Book 7.
Then again, Rowling really could have gone all the way and could have done something similar to what Marauderthesn suggested. There is no way this could have hurt the sales and like with Book 6 and "Snape killed Dumbledore!" we'd have a catchy, um, catchphrase :)

I learned about Dumbledore being gay before I even started reading Book 6 (busy year). I really don't know why, but my first reaction was "Hm, figures."

Jesu,
Peter was hot for dwarves.
Spftmgh!!!! :D

bulbul

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jesurgislac 2007-11-20 04:42 (link)
	Then again, Rowling really could have gone all the way and could have done something similar to what Marauderthesn suggested. There is no way this could have hurt the sales and like with Book 6 and "Snape killed Dumbledore!" we'd have a catchy, um, catchphrase :) Exactly. Spftmgh!!!! :D They didn't call him High King for nothing, y'know. (Reply to this) (Parent)