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

[pippin_999]

Carol:
> "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.

Pippin:
If you type 'infatuation love' into Google you'll get a bunch of articles
about how to distinguish between them, but if you actually read the
articles, many say that most people who fall in love become infatuated to 
some degree. Nor does infatuation  rule out genuine love  as canon 
sees it. Merope was clearly infatuated with Tom Sr, but Dumbledore thinks
she must have truly  loved him and that's why she let him go.  

Carol:
> 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.

Pippin:
So, what you want is for JKR to censor her words because you're concerned
that readers won't or can't think independently about the meaning of her
work? They'll blindly do as JKR wishes? I must say, there doesn't seem to be 
much danger of that! :) 

I'm sure the brouhaha will die down, and we can get back to discussing
really important stuff like Snape ;)


Carol:
> 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.

Pippin:
Harry is not a very sexually curious person, in fact he's remarkably
incurious generally, but he really hates intruding on other people's 
private moments, and he regards adult sexuality as private. That's
very convenient for JKR's story line, but Dumbledore's sexuality
isn't the only thing  that Harry overlooks.


 
> 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"
>

Pippin:
She's said that they have the right to their opinions, and
to keep the books from their children if they feel they are inappropriate.
I am sure that 'tolerance' is exactly what she is trying to promote.
People who already accept her point of view don't have to
exercise tolerance. 

Pippin