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

[lizzyben04]

> Carol again:
> 
> Infatuation isn't love.
> 
> To resort to a dictionary definition from Merriam-Webster Online:
> 
> infatuate <snip>
> with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration
> — in·fat·u·a·tion \-;fa-ch-w-shn,
-chü--\ noun

lizzyben:

By your own definition, infatuation is a kind of love - extravagant or
foolish love. Infatuation is that first stage of "OMG this person is
so perfect & wonderful & incredible!"  And since DD/GG's relationship
only lasted a few months, DD never had a chance to settle into that
long-term love. I'm puzzled by the comparison to Arthur/Molly -
there's a huge difference between the initial "falling in love"
feeling & the solid, boring, stable love of a long relationship. I'm
also puzzled that you now say that Snape didn't love Lily, which
contradicts other statements. He was her best friend, he devoted his
life to her memory, but he didn't love her? 

Carol:
<snip> "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.  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. <snip>

lizzyben:

"Consumed by his feelings" is a pretty good description of somebody
who has fallen in love. IMO. Love is blind, as they say - and it can
blind you to the faults in the beloved. How does being blinded by love
mean it isn't really love? JKR stated that DD's love blinded him to
GG's faults. Yes, over a long period of time, people learn to see &
accept the others faults, but that's not the initial "falling in love"
stage at all. DD learned GG's faults quickly enough. And also, IMO DD
shared GG's faults, so to him they weren't really bad faults at all
(world domination, love of power, etc.) They really had an awful lot
in common.

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. 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). <snip>

lizzyben:

IMO this isn't a huge change & certainly isn't a distraction from the
over-arching Christian theme, any more than the information that Lily
loved Snape as a friend somehow distracts from the major themes of the
series. It's just one piece of info about one character. What's
distracting is the frenzy it's created. Authorial intent is important,
but it's certainly not the only thing that matters. Fans can interpret
things their own way, regardless of what the author intended.

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.

lizzyben:

Totally agree here, should've been in the books. But there again, JKR
has detailed backstories for many characters that weren't in the
books. People weren't offended when she revealed more information
about Dean Thomas' story or Theodore Nott, so how is DD's story any
different? I like getting more info about the characters (as opposed
to JKR's opinions about the characters.)

Casrol:

> 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.

lizzyben:

But JKR has also stated that "tolerance" is *the* most important
message of her series. Whether she succeeded or failed is open to
debate. But it's quite clear that she was intending to create an
anti-bigotry message w/the prejudice against & persecution of
"muggle-borns". Why should we ignore that message? Different themes
can co-exist - and in this series, the "Christian" & tolerance themes
certainly co-exist (along w/some more unsavory themes like revenge). 

Carol:
> 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"

lizzyben:

I highly doubt it. Just like I highly doubt that her penchant for
tolerance extends to people who are opposed to all inter-racial
relationships, or people who are opposed to women working outside the
home, or people who are opposed to any depiction of witchcraft. How
can she possibly reflect the views & values of everyone who reads her
novels? She can only reflect her own values. I'm just surprised that
people think that JKR should "tolerate" fundamentalists who oppose
homosexuality by removing any gay characters from the novels. To me,
it's as odd as expecting her to remove any magic from Harry Potter in
order to satisfy people who are opposed to witchcraft. She shouldn't
have to conform to anyone's values but her own. 

This isn't directed at you, Carol, but fan reaction in general. I'm a
little stunned at the backlash this has engendered. I'm disheartened
that people are now talking about banning the books, burning the
books, not letting children read the books, because there
is one gay character. DD's orientation isn't even *mentioned* in the
books, & his relationship w/GG could easily be interpreted as
friendship. Yet suddenly it makes the novels inappropriate. In
contrast, numerous jokes are made about Aberforth & his goats; that's
*bestiality*, but no one was talking about how shocked & outraged they
were about that. She implied that Umbridge was raped by centaurs, &
people shrug. But simply stating that a character is gay sends
shockwaves across the country. I just don't understand that reaction.
To me, this is simply an interesting fact that helps to understand
this character. 


lizzyben