Dumbledore's love life WAS: Canon citation requested

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178525

> Alla:
> 
> Right, I am afraid I see the Headmaster as a teacher all the same. 
> And it seems that Dumbledore talks of himself as teacher to Tom, 
to 
> Harry several times during series. Regardless, I see him as 
teacher, 
> Headmaster in charge of the school to me is a teacher all the 
same. 
> IMO of course. But that is why he is Headmaster not a teacher not 
> working for me at all.> But sure, Dead part is true.

Magpie:
Yeah, I think they're basically the same too in this context--I 
mean, headmaster and teacher. He's just not either by DH.

Alla: 
> 
 But funny thing is I think it still 
> plays out nicely for me. I mean, sure story logic wise, there are 
no 
> constraints now for Harry to learn about their love story ( as in 
no 
> Dumbledore restraining himself not talk to student, etc).
> 
> But but who else would know? As in not implications a la Rita 
> Skeeter, but the **truth** of one teenager really falling in love 
> with another teenager, and suffering over it, etc. Who else would 
> know real story but Dumbledore? 

Magpie:
Absolutely it plays out just fine--JKR's announcement about how she 
thinks he felt about Grindelwald doesn't explain any holes in canon 
at all. She wrote the story without that idea entirely (at least 
explicitly). People might or might not have wondered if he wasn't in 
love with Grindelwald on their own, but it's not part of 
understanding the story as written. 

As for who else would know, I would guess plenty of people could 
have. If JKR wanted to make this part of the story there's nothing 
keeping her from doing it, is my point. There's any number of ways 
she could have found to do it, either by having Dumbledore say 
something or some other way. (Dumbledore wouldn't even have to say 
it outright--for instance, he could have at some point in HBP just 
made some comment about falling in love with the wrong person in 
response to something he and Harry were talking about in such a way 
that Harry thought he was speaking from personal experience. Fandom 
would then no doubt have speculated on who this person was. Then in 
DH it would seem pretty obvious it was Grindelwald.)

But it works for me too, without it. I don't think anybody finished 
DH and said, "Wait, but I don't understand this!" in such a way that 
being told he was in love with Grindelwald would explain it finally. 
It's not a plot hole because the story just answers the question in 
a different way leaving that out. It's not a flaw in the books, imo, 
it's an author's choice to not write it that way.


 Magpie:
> But I don't think JKR was forced to leave it out 
> > if she wanted it in there. I think she's the one who made the 
> > decision to not give us that reason as part of the mix of 
> > Dumbledore's motivations.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Really depends to me on what you mean by *was forced*. If you mean 
> that somebody **else** forced her to not mention in the story, 
then 
> I agree, I am sure right now she is powerful enough to insist on 
it 
> even if her editors will freak out.
> 
> But if by forced one means thinking about the external 
circumstances 
> that can hurt the books, oh yeah, I think that in a sense she may 
> have been forced. Metaphorically of course.

Magpie:
In my case, I was just talking about her being forced by story 
structure or not being able to find a way to fit it in. 

> Alla:
> 
> Oh yeah, totally. And if she will, I think it has a much better 
> chances of staying at least a footnote of canon, if the books 
stand 
> the test of time. After all, Bests and Quidditch are part of the 
> canon, encyclopedia IMO should be too.
> 
> Heee, I am thinking of Aragon and Arven - also sort of a footnote, 
> no?

Magpie:
True--though they're actually in the story proper, we just don't 
know the story of their love, right? She still shows up to marry him 
iirc.

-m