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

[susanmcgee48176]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 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"
>


Carol, I too am interested in Christian themes (as a former Roman 
Catholic)......

I am very impatient with the idea that we should treat intolerance 
and bigotry respectfully...

If someone tells me that they think lesbians and gays are immoral and 
are doomed to hell, well, goodness, I respect them as a person, but I 
think their ideas are bigoted....bottom line...

I think JKR would respect the fundies as people, but would entirely 
reject their ideas...

I know that you're a very nice person, and a good grandmother...

Yet, I would like to respectfully reject your ideas...

As I posted on the main list (and it's interesting that I've had not 
one single response to my post), it is clear (retrospectively) that 
DD was in love with GG.....yes, JKR says "infatuation" in the last 
interview....

I find it interesting..that you, who keeps saying that JKR's 
interviews are not relevant..SEIZES on the word infatuation...and 
then runs with it.....

Susan