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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.