“But a man may then imagine in your work what he pleases, what you never meant!

Not what he pleases, but what he can. . . . If he be a true man, he will imagine true things; what matter whether I meant the or not? They are there none the less that I cannot claim putting them there.”
–Professor John Mark Reynolds, from “Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author”; (The quote is from author George MacDonald)

I loved reading this paragraph from Professor Reynolds’ interview, and the fact that he chose this particular quote of Macdonald’s. It’s reassuring to know that there are members of the Educational Establishment who recognize the right and responsibility of any reader to interact with the writer, according to his/her personal milieu (as opposed to uncritically accepting a professor’s or other “expert’s” opinion).

The idea cross-references very neatly to the art world as well, and I always enjoy recognizing ties between areas of learning. Finding out “not what he pleases, but what he can” is an idea that pops up again and again during my tours with schoolchildren at the Orlando Museum of Art, particularly with regard to contemporary art. “But what did the artist MEAN?” (or as the middle and high schoolers moan, “Does every piece of art have to MEAN something?”)

And my reply is along the lines of “What does it mean to you?” or “It may mean something to the artist, but it can mean something entirely different to you. Why do you think that might be?” And that, of course, opens the door to a lot of discussion about the “world of experience” each child brings to the museum with her/him, that a work of art will trigger a response from each of them, and that each response will be DIFFERENT. Best of all, each response is valid, whether the artist “meant” it or not. This individual validity of personal response is the wonder of both great art and great writing.

Cordially,

Sue Boulais
Sort of Serious

Literature forms our views of life and the world, takes us intimately to other places and times in a way film cannot. Children who learn to negotiate the world through TV and movies are more likely to be handicapped when it comes to ploughing through deep issues. TV/films take shortcuts, excising the introspection of characters that help them learn, make decisions, develop interpersonal skills and work through consequences and thorny issues. TV mostly jumps from from A-M-T-Z. In books we find the whole alphabet.

It’s true that some TV/films do take on difficult issues without shortcuts, but those are few and far between. A lifetime of reading has far better served me to deal in a nuanced way with life than any TV/film I’ve seen.

Kitties could care less about nuance, they happily jump from A to Z…

But first Josh, you had stated that no one asks why homosexuality is wrong. If you look to the faith you have adopted, you will find that your church has both asked and answered this question. Pope Jean Paul II has explained beautifully in his talks on the theology of the body why homosexual acts, contraception, masturbation, and pre and extramarital sex, among other behaviors are contrary to God’s plan regarding our relationships with each other and with God. Despite the condemnation of homosexual acts however, the church does not condemn those with homosexual orientation. As I mentioned previously, we are all members of the body of Christ but are called to be chaste according to our station in life (e.g. single persons, married, ordained, etc.). Even within marriage, expressions of physical sexuality can be sinfull if rooted primarily in lust rather than the unifying and procreative functions of marriage.

That young people should consider that the church has lost relevance for them because of these ideals says more about the problem with the ideas of young people than it does about problems with the church. What relevance could any church possibly have if it simply drifted with society’s mores? Upside-down is the notion that the church should be a reflection of society. Our job as Christians is to make society a reflection of the church! I’ll paraphrase some of Chesterton’s criticism of Nietzsche’s idea that the church should adapt its ideals to fit the times. He said “that progress should be evidence that we are nearing the New Jerusalem. What we find in our modern world though is that the New Jerusalem is continually walking away from us! We are not making progress toward our ideals, we’re simply changing our ideals. Its easier!” What did Dumbledore say about choosing between what is right and what is easy?

I don’t think why many of us here have expressed disappointment with Rowling’s revelation about Dumbledore’s sexuality is because we have a problem with homosexuality. The books as written are just as edifying now as they were before this revelation. The disappointment lies in the fact that in a secular world of drifting ideals, a remarkably written story that dares to realign with some fundamental unshifting Christian ideals is dragged back into misalignment by the media hijacking of character backstory that has little relevance to the story itself. We’re upset because a story we love is tainted by the use of “facts” that are not even in the story to drive an agenda. Whether the author has an agenda or not is not at the moment as relevant as how an agenda has been created by the media. If we saw analyses like Dave G.’s above in the the papers and on TV there would be little to be upset over. But alas, that is far from what it is we do see in the papers and on TV.

I have to say, I think it’s a bit silly to try to separate author and work. Without an author, there is no work, and without the work, that person is not an author. We can and should engage the work critically (JKR supports this– the theme is all over the series), and we can agree with some things and not with others. Looking back, my shock was that she announced it, more than that it was true (Josh is right– the evidence is rather clear, though thankfully understated). I don’t have to agree with her on everything to love the books still. One of my favorite plays is Our Town by Thornton Wilder. He was a homosexual, and he wrote a truly beautiful, meaningful play. Does the fact that he’s gay make it any less beautiful or meaningful? Of course not. Just as the fact that Jo Rowling and I don’t agree on everything (likely many things- human beings differ from each other) doesn’t change that she has something worth saying.

Josh and I chatted a bit yesterday about the whole thing, and I’d really like to raise up again something he mentioned in a beautiful post about story in the other topic. We’ve read these books and taken these stories into us– I don’t know if anyone else feels like this, but I feel like everything I’ve read has become part of who I am. I catch a few moments of a sitcom where someone’s trying to cover something up, and I don’t laugh that much because, well, shouldn’t they have known better? I learned all those little sticky issues people try to cover up are better handled honestly from literature– what if Desdemona had simply said, “Yes, I did lose the hankerchief. I haven’t seen it since I tried to bind your forehead,” or Othello, “Iago says you have been unfaithful to me. Is this true?” Othello was only a tragedy because they didn’t say those things.

Literature can teach us if we let it. Dumbledore being gay has ultimately nothing to do with Rowling’s powerful message about good and evil, moral courage, and truth. Ultimately, her personal opinions, whether I agree with them or not, can’t really add or detract from the books. I love the books and their message. A difference of opinion? I’m okay with that.

~Nzie

Good post, thanks. I heard one of your Lewis quotes recently, but the speaker said it differently and I wondered if you have the book and page reference handy to see which is correct. You said, “love begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god”.

The speaker I heard quoted Lewis as saying: “eros ceases to be a demon when it ceases to be a god.”

It may seem to be nearly the same thing, but to me the emphasis is slightly different between the two quotations. In the second quote, the point is made against prudes who object to sex as being less than legitimate. If he were addressing a point against hedonists he might use the version you gave.

I wonder which is the most accurate quotation.

Bob T

What I learned from reading Mr. Granger’s book Looking for God in Harry Potter and other books on literature analysis is that good literature written primarily for children is rarely exclusively “children’s” literature. However, there are books that many would consider exclusively adult because of there content. The Harry Potter Books are primarily “children’s” books, which are written well enough and are rich enough with the familiar hero’s journey to fascinate and entertain adults as well. They do not contain content that most parents would consider inappropriate for their young children (this might not be said of the film versions). They are children’s books but not exclusively children’s books. This is obvious from their popularity amongst all ages. So the question of why didn’t the author include certain details about the sexual orientation she envisioned for a particular character in a book she meant to be read by children seems obvious. As this was to be a children’s book the subject of sexuality, hetero- or homo- really had no place and would have certainly been a big issue with responsible parents.

I was troubled when I heard from a coworker (who was very amused by the story) that J.K. Rowling declared that Dumbledore was gay. I value the books firstly as children’s books. So now they have brought sex into the books. A real let down! I do not think however that Ms. Rowling intended to reveal this news or any other specific detail unless she was asked about that detail. To her the idea of a person with a same sex attraction to another person was not such a big deal so envisioning a character she created with that particular characteristic was natural and to be expected. It is simply how she saw the character to get him where he needed to be at the end of the story. Although she considered him so she did not present Dumbledore as obviously gay throughout the book because his sexual orientation was not important throughout the book nor was it appropriate in a book she meant to be read by children. There were other characters in the series that became attracted to each other and love and falling in love was important to the message presented but sex and sexuality was not.

My impression of her statements concerning the development of the character and plot ending is that in order for Dumbledore, a brilliant young wizard, to be caught up in an obviously questionable friendship\relationship with Grindelwald, he would need to be blinded to his dark side. To be that oblivious to the dark path he was traveling Rowling felt that Dumbledore would need to be in love (Eros) with Grindelwald.

In his book, The Four Loves, Lewis writes: “Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.” Also, Pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves
It must be noted, states Lewis, that just as Lucifer—a former archangel—perverted himself by pride and fell into depravity, so too can love—commonly held to be the arch-emotion—become corrupt by presuming itself to be what it is not (”love begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god”).

Eros is not about the desire for sexual pleasure but the desire for one particular individual. If we can allow for Lewis’ description of Eros to be non-gender specific I can see a situation where two potentially great and extreamly intellegent young men (Dumbledore and Grindelwald) seeing themselves as intellecual equals become friends. Dumbledore, capable of great love and devotion as we know, is thrilled at finding an intellectual equal and someone to share ideas becomes infactuated with Grindelwald. This infactuation leads to a true desire for the individual (Eros) and ultimatly leading to his blind devotion of Grindelwald. This blind devotion is the elevation of the love to a god status and ultamately the demon that ends the relationship. The tragedy is the dark road traveled, loosing focus of the really important things (Dumbledore’s brother and sister) and ultamately the death of Ariana.

I think Rowling needed this situation. If Grindelwald had been written as a witch instead of a wizzard would anything else have been different? I don’t think so.

I do think the person who wrote Rita Skeeter, though, ought to think twice before speaking to her.

I’d let the books stand as they are…. and be what they are. I hope she will do this, even though it’s her world and her characters. Cuz what came out there in those final pages was wonderful… and enough.

Nice link, Helen and Jayne1955, to the Dallas News article. Pretty much my sentiments, too.

Does anyone think the JKR regrets her “revelation”? Just wondering…..