Dumbledore's "infatuation"(Was: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay)

[Carol]

Carol earlier:
> > Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an
"infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not
quite the same as being "in love," is it? Or should we even worry
about what she says outside the books?
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Why wouldn't it be the same as being in love? Many people consider
infatuation as an initial stage of love. I took it to mean that he
fell thoroughly in love with GG, and went through a stage in which he
was consumed with his feelings and unwilling or unable to find any
fault in his beloved. 
> 
> Being infatuated doesn't mean it wasn't a real love, IOW, just that
it started off very strong.
> 
> Anyway why "worry" about what she says outside the books? We have no
more control over what she thinks than she has over what we think. It
seems to me she has just as much right to talk about the subtext and
meaning of her books as anyone else. If she wants to tell us things
about the Potterverse that didn't fit within the scope of the books,
so be it. I think it's an interesting sidelight into the creative
process, even if the ideas aren't thoroughly worked out. <snip>

> It seems to me all she's done is say that she knowingly created a
character with a gay subtext, and she's hardly the first artist to
admit doing that, although she might be the most famous. 

Carol again:

Infatuation isn't love.

To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online:

infatuate <snip>
Function:
    transitive verb 
<snip>
Etymology:
    Latin infatuatus, past participle of infatuare, from in- + fatuus
fatuous
Date: 1533

1 : to cause to be foolish : deprive of sound judgment 2 : to inspire
with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration
— in·fat·u·a·tion \-fa-ch-w-shn, -chü--\ noun

"Infatuation" is related to "fatuous," which means "foolish." And
Albus's attraction to Gellert (whom even he sensed had a sinister side
beneath that merry exterior) was, indeed, foolish, as its consequences
revealed. "Consumed by his feelings" certainly indicates infatuation,
not love, in which the lover recognizes the faults in the person he or
she loves and loves them, anyway. (Molly Weasely loving Arthur Weasley
is one canon example.) Snape, I would say, was infatuated with Lily
rather than in love with her: witness his Patronus, which suggests, in
its brilliance and power and beauty, a very idealized view of Lily.
James, who married her, probably had a more realistic view of her--at
least when he got beyond the teenage crush stage.

Love, in contrast, is a complicated emotion that can range from sexual
attraction combined with tenderness and affection to the reverence
felt for a beloved and respected mentor or the devotion of a parent to
a child. Whether or not there was an element of physical attraction in
Albus's feelings for Gellert (certainly, such an attraction existed in
JKR's imagination if not on paper), the attraction we see in the book
is primarily intellectual, between two brilliant and arrogant boys who
see (IMO) themselves mirrored in another person. Albus had no
intellectual equal at Hogwarts. Gellert was the first person with whom
he could discuss his ideas about the Hallows and "the greater good."

I'm probably the only person on this list who has read the letters of
Percy Bysshe Shelley to his Oxford friend, Thomas Jefferson Hogg (some
of which have been doctored by Hogg, but like Slughorn's memory, the
alterations are detectable), but the resemblance of Shelley's early
letters to Dumbledore's is quite striking--a young genius who knows
he's a genius thinking that he has all the answers to society's
problems. Hogg, intelligent but not a genius, writes back, and Shelley
idealizes him and his ideas. Hogg, in turn, becomes infatuated with
Shelley. Very interesting historical parallel, and I suspect that it
happened rather frequently among older boys at English public schools
and universities in the nineteenth century.

And my concern regarding JKR's pronouncements is that we as readers
will allow her intentions and her sometimes ambiguous or contradictory
statements, or her view that the books promote "tolerance," or any
other statement outside the books to control what we see in the books
and how we see them. For example, this statement about DD's sexuality
is getting a lot more attention than her earlier statement about the
Christian themes, and yet the Christian themes, particularly in the
last few chapters (forgiveness, redemption, self-sacrificial love)
were apparent to me in a way that DD's sexuality never was (or I
wouldn't have been surprised, as many other people were, by that
revelation). As I've said elsewhere, authorial intention, to the
degree that it can be determined, is not the sole or definitive
interpretation of a literary work. It's only one component, the text
itself being more important (but even there, the reader's individual
experience and philosophy and the slippery nature of language itself,
not to mention deliberate ambiguity and misdirection by the author
make a definitive interpretation impossible).

At any rate, I was perfectly happy analyzing the books without her
after-the-fact pronouncements. If DD's sexuality was important, it
ought to have been included in the story. As it is, I think she
deliberately left it out because she was afraid that it would spoil
the surprise of DD's tragic friendship/relationship/infatuation with
Grindelwald.

"Infatuation" is, I think, the right word. Whether it's sexual (as
suggested by the interview) or intellectual (as suggested by DH) or
both is less important by far than its tragic consequences. BTW, I do
think that DD felt a kind of love for Grindelwald near the end that
was not infatuation but was not sexual, either--a hope that he
repented at the end, a hope that he felt remorse, which I take to be a
hope for the state of his soul after death (in contrast to Voldemort's
fragmented and unrepentant soul). I see Christianity there, not
sexuality. But that's just what I'm conditioned to see, just my
interpretation, for which I did not need JKR's statements about the
Christian themes in her book or her concern about the afterlife.

I don't want important themes/motifs, such as the power of love or the
importance of remorse and atonement, or (as you pointed out on the
main list and I have also discussed there) Harry's journey to manhood,
from anger and the desire for revenge (you said arrogance, but you
were interpreting a fable within the context of the main story) to
forgiveness of his enemies to be forgotten simply because JKR
identified an important character as gay (without his appearing to be
so in the text itself). We should not forget, for example, that the HP
books are Harry's story, or ignore the lessons that he learns along
the way, including the explicitly but not exclusively Christian lesson
of forgiving his enemies their trespasses.

Side note: I talk about Christian themes and motifs because they
interest me, and because I believe in forgiveness and hope there's an
afterlife, but I'm an ex-Episcopalian who has long ceased to attend
church services and was never a fundamentalist of any variety.

Carol, wondering whether JKR's penchant for tolerance extends to the
fundamentalist Christians who oppose her books and noting that
"tolerance" actually means "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or
practices differing from or conflicting with one's own"