Sayf is right in that we don’t do much reasoning any more, at least not in America, we do emoting. And so we’re especially vulnerable to sound bites that sound good & feel good but don’t necessarily deal with the more complex & even harsh realities of life.

It’s not society. And it’s not just this particular issue. That’s just how the human brain works with everything where there is some contradiction in our feelings. As much as we’d like to, we can’t dictate our feelings.

cent 1 – Amen! St. augustine made the famous distinction so well explained above that we can (and must) both love the sinner but hate the sin

cent 2 – In a society that gets its philosophy from propoganda and lines in movies (as well as confusing the distinction in cent 1), it is inevitable that there are going to be a number of people who are going to accept the homosexual orientation more just because of Dumbledore without giving it any thought whatsoever

Which is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes doing the hard things & expending effort is the thing that must be done.

I’m sure that’s why some people reacted the way they did. No doubt about it. But that’s not the only reason people had problems with the Dumbledore revelation. I think most of our discussion on The Hogshead indicated that there were a lot of us who took issues with it on textual & interpretative grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_theory

And I believe that it would work with cigarettes and evangelicals as well, which is why we no longer see people smoking as much in movies and not at all in children’s shows.

But you are also correct. I don’t think it’s as dichotomous as I made it out to be. I am not an expert on balance theory, but I believe that what would happen is that if someone was opposed to gay people but liked Dumbledore, and found out that Dumbledore was gay, they would think a bit less highly of Dumbledore and be a bit more accepting of gays.

There are two more things about balance theory which are interesting.

First, there are not two but three outcomes: one likes gays a bit more, one likes Dumbledore a bit less, or one denies that Dumbledore really is gay. Which is a position many people took at the time of the initial revelation. And that is cognitive dissonance at work: since I can’t both like Dumbledore and believe him to be gay, I will resolve the imbalance by disputing the evidence of his gayness.

The second interesting thing about balance theory is that the result will be the outcome requiring the least effort.

Not surprisingly I disagree. I think this is a false dichotomy. Although it may be true in that this is the way our modern society looks at this issue. According to current, especially pc, belief, one either accepts & loves everything about Dumbledore, including his extra-textual gayness, or else one must hate Dumbledore & possibly even wish him harm. Those are the only two options presented by the tolerance is everything crowd. Of course, the story might be different if Jo had said Dumbledore was a two pack a day smoker or a denier of global warming or an evangelical Christian. Those are currently things that cannot be tolerated.

But again I think the way you present the issue, as either we must reject Dumbledore because of his extra textual gayness or become more accepting of gayness, is a false dichotomy. I think it’s possible to still like & admire & even love Dumbledore while yet acknowledging his faults & disagreeing with them. I think this is what Harry finally does, too. He comes to terms with his love for Dumbledore & his anger & dislike at the way Dumbledore was manipulative & dishonest with him, but without tolerating or exalting the way Dumbledore behaved.

There’s a lot more I could say but it would probably involve more theology than John might want on his blog site.

But suffice it to say that we tolerate the faults of others without necessarily accepting or agreeing with their faults or their faulty behaviour & we don’t necessarily have to love them any the less. It’s all in South Park, people!

You bring up a good point. Who is allowed to make fun of whom without giving offense? I guess it all depends on history and context.

This is the joke:

“This liberating discovery (not remembering anything about her own Commencement speech) enables me to proceed without any fear that I might inadvertently influence you to abandon promising careers in business, law or politics for the giddy delights of becoming a gay wizard.”

What is she saying here? I understand it as her saying: “I am seen as pro-gay because I created a gay wizard. But listening to me is not going to make you gay.” There are two levels to the joke. One is the reference to the biggest source of public controversy over her works, Dumbledore’s gayness. And the other is to the fear – which she clearly believes is irrational – that exposure to fictional gay people, or even to someone who writes about them, will make the reader/listener gay.

To me, what she’s making fun of is the firestorm of debate she’s already stirred up, and the associated irrational fear. So it’s not a joke about gay people at all. She’s poking fun at homophobia.

When I wrote that she was exempt from criticism by gay people because of what she’d done with Dumbledore, I was thinking more of her joke being inadvertantly misunderstood by gay people. And I believed that she’d be given the benefit of the doubt in that case because of the context and history.

But I agree that there are many possibilities for giving offense, particularly with such a red-button topic as this. I just don’t think gay people would take offense at it.

I do agree with you that she’s using her status to defend causes that she believes in. Not so much for tolerance for gay people, in this case, but for the “voiceless”. In this vein, she talks about the people who write to Amnesty International, about people who were victims of torture, people who were executed by their governments, also “real monsters” and the “powerless”. I read that as referring to victims of tyrannical regimes.

About your statement that she is not above retro-actively empowering her characters with popular causes:

First of all, I don’t think Dumbledore’s sexual orientation was a retro-active decision, and I don’t think his sexual orientation was in the service of a popular cause. But I don’t think that’s what you meant. I suspect what you meant is that she outed him for reasons other than the needs of telling her story, for political reasons, or popular appeal reasons.

I agree that might have been part of it. People have mixed motives, often. But I think the stronger reason was because she wanted to speak the truth about one of her main characters. She couldn’t do so prior to publication because it would have hijacked the story, as I noted before. She was free (freer?) to do so after. And I remember reading her mentioning something about the sense of freedom when she made that announcement.

I think Rowling is not above playing the media for causes she believes in or retro-actively empowering her characters with popular causes. She’s allowed to do it, of course. I also get the impression that she’s not media savvy enough to avoid being used by groups either.

“If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice..” I’d like to know who she means by the voiceless and then whom we mean by that.