-
I think Dumbledore is gay for a reason. But that reason is not support of a gay agenda. If you go listen to JKR’s exact words at the Paper award ceremony, they are somewhat cryptic. I think there is deeper mystery here.
-
John said: “Her readers don’t know and cannot know what she believes so it cannot be what is driving the counter-cultural popularity of these books about the purity of soul and the power of love over death.”
“‘Dumbledore is gay’ no more makes the books an invitation to homosexuality or contrary to orthodox Christian belief than “Sorcerer’s Stone” made them a “gateway to the occult;”
DrWahoo said: “This book was not written in a vacuum. A part of Satan’s effectiveness is that he does use half truths. When he tempted Jesus, he used scripture. Likewise just because Rowlings throws a bunch of scriptures in her book, it doesn’t make it any less of a potent weapon for Satan.”
I agree with DrW and with his follow-up statement. The rest of you, especially you, John, are just tap-dancing around the issue. Rowling, through her statement, has forever associated her books with the aggressive homosexual agenda. I have destroyed my books, my John Granger books, my wand and my robes, while at the same time beating myself over the head for being such an abject fool. Too bad Granger and the HogPro ilk can’t see that’s what they are, too. Self-deception is, after all, self-perpetualizing.
-
Maggie:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts as frankly and honestly as you have. We disagree, of course, but I appreciate the concern and reserve of your note.
John
-
Honestly, if JKR is pushing any sort of pro-homosexual agenda, she’s done a pretty poor job of it. The one character portrayed as homosexual shows no evidence of ever done anything besides *thinking about* *one* member of the same sex. We have no indication that he was not a lifelong celibate.
And Maggie, I hope you haven’t already destroyed your John Granger books – they can be quite useful if you have a table with one leg too short. (The Potter books are probably too thick for that, but they can be used effectively as doorstops!)
By the way, John, rumor has it that you’ve done an interview on the topic that exists as an mp3. Do you know if it’s available for download anywhere?
-
I think that it’s important to notice that if this were another moral issue, it might have been seen completely differently.
If I were to say that my friend is angry and he resisted acting out in his anger, people would probably commend him and treat him heroically.
If I were to say that my friend is a glutton, and he resisted the ice cream that was placed before him, people would likely cheer him.
If I said my friend had feelings for his daughter and secretly wished to make love to her, the very thought of it, culturally, would be so revolting that nobody would give this guy any slack for being open and honest about it.
It may be true that some people want to jump off a bridge at times, and others would like nothing more than to kill their boss in cold blood, and it’s obviously a desire in some people, being that it happens from time to time, but even the tenancy toward such a horrible crime is not tolerated. It is treated very seriously.
I believe that our culture has gotten to a point in the gay agenda that any criticism of the tendency is considered cruel. Telling people it’s wrong makes you worthy of ostracization.
Where’s the pity for the man who likes little boys — or little girls? What about the man who wishes to progenerate with many partners? I suppose that’ll come next in the culture.
I happen to have a deep desire to view pornography. I happen to know that the desire for it leads to the act of viewing it. Likewise, if a person entertains the fantasy of love between himself and another of the same gender, that feeling, that fantasy, may eventually lead to the action.
I asked my wife the other day if it was ok for me to fantasize about other women. She said no. Why not? If it’s ok to fall in love with someone of the same sex, why not fall in love with someone else within a marriage? We all know, instinctively, that it’s wrong. We just need to translate it into our intellect.
I want you to notice that JKR’s words and all the articles that covered them refer to Dumbledore being gay in a present sense. It never says that Dumbledore had been gay or even that he resisted the feeling.
To me, it’s very disappointing to see that DD had this problem. I still love and will likely ever love the books, but it is very disappointing, indeed.
-
“I’m beginning to see HP as one of those cases where the book is not only to be taken more seriously than the author, but also, in an odd way, as one of those cases where the work, in some regards, is wiser than the author. We’ve all read of cases where an author complains because his or her characters, once created, refused to do what he or she wanted them to do… well, once JKR started building her story, and her characters, around an alchemical framework, it may be that they settled themselves into a pattern of greater traditional wisdom than she herself consciously espouses.”
Helen, thank you so much for saying this. I’ve been thinking along the same lines, but hadn’t found words to express it…which you do so beautifully.
Looking at Dumbledore’s youthful sins and temptations, and the brokenheartedness and grief that resulted, as his personal “nigredo” — that is also a tremendously helpful lens, reminding us and pointing us back to the alchemical framework of the books.
-
Cigar95,
My interview at Illumined Heart Radio, “Harry Potter: Friend or Foe?”, is now online at http://www.orthodoxspeakers.com/mp3/harry-potter.mp3.
Thanks for asking!
John
-
Apparently, even the actively gay can’t see the connection, so I’m not overwhelmed that young readers are going to be drawn in by a labyrinthine plan:
OUTING DUMBLEDORE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1675622,00.htmlOi, vey!
-
This article, A Lovely Outing, is from Dalton Ross, a gay writer with Entertainment Weekly (last page essay):
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154416,00.html
It’s really worth reading, although the last paragraph is tired. I’d like to see these points written about the representation of Christians in Hollywood entertainment. And if Hollywood’s “job is to reflect the world back to us in entertainmnent,” what about the dearth of people of faith, particularly Christians, who are mostly treated, if at all, as idiots or scammers. And what does this sentence say about the proliferation of porn horror movies such as the “Saw” franchise? Yeah, that really represents America.
Nevertheless I recommend reading the article. He has some good points.
Kitties never “saw” treats they didn’t like…
-
All right, since the subject of Severus Snape has been introduced to this discussion, I feel the need to jump in on behalf of my guy. I think the last few moments of Snape’s life illustrate his transition from nigredo to albedo. Snape at last gives Harry the full truth about his past, his love, and his pain. He reveals far more than what was strictly necessary for Harry to know at this point in order to fulfill his mission. Also, when he asks to look into Harry’s eyes as he lies dying, I believe he sees more than just Lily’s eyes. I like to think that Snape finally sees the aspects of Harry’s character that resemble his mother’s, and is at last able to get past his grudge against Harry. I’m sure he had a very happy afterlife, following a lengthy stint in Purgatory.
I think that the many and varied reactions to the story of Severus Snape illustrate the truth of Roland Barthes’ theory that literary meaning exists in the unique relationship of each individual reader and the text. Some people (like me!) love Snape, others (like my children) hate Snape, and still others, the more rational among us, recognize his good qualities, but still find him upleasant. We’re all reading the same books, with the same descriptions of the same character, yet the individual responses to that character vary so dramatically. Maybe Barthes really was onto something!
-
http://cacciaguida.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html#9220899456316358412
Top Ten Rejected Titles for the Post Before This One
10. Boybatons
9. Those warts aren’t from hogs, my friend
8. Dear me, is that what my hair looks like from the back?
7. Gayvenclaw v. Hufflepoof
6. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Secrets
5. Harry Potter and the Half-Dyed Perm
4. Mad-Eye for the Straight Guy
3. No #3 — writer on 24/7 JK watch to find out what “happens” “next”
2. Pottery Barnand the Number One Rejected Title for the Post Before This One:
BUCKBEAK MOUNTAIN
-
hahahahaha!!!!! lol in every sense of it!
also, if you read a bit further down on the blog, there is a post about the issue itself that makes my points better, even right down to the Courage reference. Thanks for the list, John– perfect! Buckbeak Mountain, ahahaha!
~Zee
-
Helen, I think you NAILED IT!
You wrote “By the time we meet him, not only his name but his character and his life experience have made him emblematic of the Albedo, of purification and of male and female elements held in harmony within himself.”
You mean that Dumbledore is gay because of literary alchemy, right? Rowling always thought of Dumbledore as gay because that would set him up for the resolution of the male and female elements that would work toward the purification of his soul. Harry had Ron and Hermione to function in that way, and Dumbledore had another quarreling couple, only he had them both within himself.
-
I agree with Carrie B. that Helen has hit upon a very interesting “literary alchemy” angle on Dumbledore’s character! What do you think about that, John?
I will admit to stewing over Ms. Rowling’s answer about Dumbledore’s character since it hit the airwaves & reading everyone’s comments on this thread for the past couple of weeks. My honest reaction when I heard the random, out of context announcement on TV was, “What?! You have GOT to be kidding me!” Thanks very much to Dr. Amy for her first-person account, to John for all his thoughts, and to everyone here for sharing their honest feelings.
From the “life’s little ironies” file, I was driving home from a business trip on the Friday of that particular book reading and pondering how my husband & I needed to step up the conversation on sexuality with our older child pretty soon. But I, like other parents here have metioned, wasn’t pondering that particular aspect of sexuality at the time! And I didn’t appreciate the continous “Dumbledore is GAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY!!!” taglines every time I flipped stations. Not helpful.
Upon reflection during these last few weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that my exasperation is mainly a reaction to the Rita Skeeters in the US media and how they trumpeted their pronouncements — moreso than the actual answer Ms. Rowling gave to an honest question she received. Keith Olbermann, who I generally like, unfortunately falls in the Skeetered category on this one. He didn’t cover this story any better than other outlets.
What drives me batty are the “Culture Wars” and the way our media blithely knock serious issues about leaving no space for real conversation, much less wisdom, to emerge. And that only complicates the job I have as a parent trying to make choices regarding my children and how I choose to handle such issues. The treatment of gay and lesbian people in our secular culture and their roles in our spiritual houses deserve serious treatment and contemplation – including space for earnest disagreement. (*sigh.* steps off soapbox.)
BEFORE I left on my business trip and at the BEGINNING of Ms. Rowling’s U.S. tour that week, I was FLOORED by the early publicized comments she made about Dumbledore’s character, even going so far as to employ the term “Machiavellian.” I naively thought that we’d all be HogPro-blogging away on that topic by weeks end! On HogPro we discussed the MachiavellianSnape angle before DHallows was released, but not Dumbledore! I seem to recall a comment attributed to Ms. Rowling early that week regarding how she was more pleased with Snape’s character arc throughout the 7-book series whereas Dumbledore, who seemed relatively benign for 6 books, actually was pulling alot of strings along the way – including Harry’s strings.
Dumbledore’s treatment of Snape and Harry has been bug, bug, buggin’ me since finishing Deathly Hallows. John’s big DHallows topic list post- DHallows’ release includes the “Life & Lies of Albus Dumbledore” where some of us have muddled through the topic. I was really hoping that we could pull that one back out & have a go at it again in light of Ms. Rowling’s new M! tag on Dumbledore. I think Bob Trexler has mentioned this issue on one of his posts????
Anyway, I think the timeline of Dumbledore’s knowledge regarding Harry’s potential fate is extremely important to how their relationship develops over the storyline, and I would love to hear more about what other serious readers think. Also, the Dumbledore/Snape relationship deserves more scrutiny. I think Helen also pointed out in the L&L of AD thread how Albus closed his eyes (= protect against leglimency) when he told Snape the last whopper about Harry having to die. It was apparently critical that Harry believe he was completely sacrificing himself with no hope for return to physical life. And Dumbledore was willing to yank that one loyal, albeit warped, heartstring of Snape’s in order to have that plan carried out? And what about the very dangerous things Dumbledore allowed Harry to engage in prior & up to Voldemort securing Lily’s blood protection in his reconstitued veins in Goblet of Fire???
I’ve blustered on way toooo long. So John, how about a Machiavellian Dumbledore discussion or more thoughts on Helen’s literary alchemy interpretation of Dumbledore’s character?
-
I’m coming in on this a bit late so I might be repeating something (as I didn’t read ALL the comments)… But, why can’t Dumbledore love someone or have a “fascination” with them and not be guy? David loved Jonathan in the Bible and David wasn’t guy (we know this for several reasons that I won’t get into here).
I guess it makes sense that so many people would think he’s guy (even the author) just because of his intelectual love with another man (though I can’t see anywhere in the text that it was a physical love) simply because our society cannot accept a love that isn’t sexual. Friends could once hold hands and not have it look like it’s implying a certain sexual orientation or another. I think it’s unfortunate that so many people have gotten caught up by a trivial opinion that isn’t even in the text. I could see how hard it was for Dumbledore when the person whoes ideas he so admired turned bad and he had to duel with him to stop him. Isn’t it more tragic in an intelectual sense though rather than mearly if their love was physical? Obviously both kinds would be hard, but in my opinion the intelectual admiration would be harder when he saw how that brillance could be corrupted and how he could no longer admire the person whoes ideas so excited him.Unfortunately, because of all this it is now completely imposible for me to convinse my mother and several other friends and relatives that the books are good to read and so forth… I almost had them accepting the fact, but now… nope.
-
.. and unfortunately… I’m no longer interested in defending the books. Not that I think they’re bad… I’m just tired of having to defend it from so many different angles (and now even from what the auther has said)… pardon me for saying so, but they are fiction. Really interesting (and I think over all wholesome) books writen for entertainment. *shrug* I don’t need to feel like I HAVE to defend it in every way like a religion.
-
LilysMom…
Sorry to hear that.I think you are spot-on about our societies inablility to separate eros love and sexual attraction from phileo love and intellectual attraction.
Granted, the intensity of Dumbledore’s friendship goes a little beyond typical phileo, but it has nothing–repeat NOTHING to do with eros.
Indeed, the misconception that Dumbledore had a homosexual “man crush” on “Grindy” truly takes away from the power and message of the whole situation.
Allow me a brief rant—
I know that Mugglenet is not exactly an Algonquin Round Table… but I think I am going to scream if I read one more comment there to the effect of: “Now it all makes sense. Dumbledore’s gay love explains it all!”
NO IT DOESN’T!!! It completely misses and muddles the point!
Ok… I’m back.
In any case, I’ll be honest in saying that I am beginning to fall into the same sort of “not feeling like you HAVE to defend them anymore” pattern.
And I think JKR’s “revelation” simply illustrates an excellent point:
We Christians can fall into the trap of attaching biblical-type significance to secular works of “art-ertainment” (a new word I just invented because as an actor, writer, piano-player, etc. I grow weary of “artistic snobbery”. God is the only true Artist… all of the rest of us are mere entertainers and should never latch onto the delusion that humans by themselves can create true Art).Back to my point now… While secular (and in this case, by secular I mean anything other than the Bible) works can remind us of tye biblical narrative, we Christians must always remember that Harry Potter is not the Word of God. (And one may insert any other work in that sentence for Harry Potter).
Harry Potter is teriffically entertaining and, at times enlightening. At times it is a reflection of the God’s Truth. But on the whole, it is a terribly imperfect tool for teaching Christianity, and was never meant to be used as such.
But now that I have rambled on long enough, I shall depart.
-
Worth a peek: Michael C. Dorf’s article about how Dumbledore’s knitting affects the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Among several interesting points he suggests that lacking a direct statement in canon about Dumbledore’s sexuality, J.K. Rowling is at best “…first among equals….” in determining the issue, implying if two or more fans disagree, then Albus goes straight again.
-
It was indeed an intersting article… (Inked linked to it in another discussion as well). Though obviously written from the viewpoint of an “ultra-loose constructionist”.
I agree with the basic concept that, in a novel, the author is indeed, simply “first among equals” in the interpretation.
Where I would diverge from the article’s thinking is that I think the rest of it is based on a flawed premise: that the U.S. Constitution is a “novel” rather than a “grocery list” (to use his phrasing).
To me, HP and the Constitution = apples and oranges. the way we interpret one has no implications for the way we interpret the other.
But I guess that’s just me.
-
It’s not just you, HallowsFan. John has noted that postmodern literature is big into mixing genres, but treating a governing constitution as if it were a novel—and vice versa—takes that to the philosophical extreme.
The different positions concerning the author and her novel are interesting, but the consequences of accepting a fully postmodern philosophy are scary. Mr. Dorf shows how this plays out. Since *all* meanings are merely social constructs of those in power, then one is justified in whatever one does to achieve power, so that one’s own desires are privileged. In this case, the Constitution no longer limits government: it only is a symbol that all must obey those who have achieved power.
As for Dumbledore’s whatever-she-means-by-gay-ness, it doesn’t appear to be relevant within the story, so any meanings derived from it are meanings outside the story.
-
HallowsFan says:
Where I would diverge from the article’s thinking is that I think the rest of it is based on a flawed premise: that the U.S. Constitution is a “novel” rather than a “grocery list” (to use his phrasing).
To me, HP and the Constitution = apples and oranges. the way we interpret one has no implications for the way we interpret the other.
But I guess that’s just me.
_______________Ah, and me. One big difference is that nowhere– not even on this site– are we expected to regulate our behavior according to the tenets of Harry Potter.
I too say the Constitution is a grocery list. An inherited grocery list, if you like. If my family agreed to use my grandparents’ list, with the right to amend it, I don’t just see “milk” on the list and buy soy milk when I go to the store because I like it better. I ask the rest of the family which they would prefer, and we don’t assume that soy milk and cows’ milk are the same thing. His “dead hand” argument falls apart because the document can be amended… and voting IS a method of determining social consensus.
But this is wandering a bit far from Harry or Dumbledore.
‹ Previous · 1 · 2
John Granger’s Books!
71 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/i-always-thought-of-dumbledore-as-gay-ovation/trackback/