Heh, I just sent you an email about this, Mark. It looks like we had similar thoughts.
Mark,
Here's my prediction for how this exchange is going to go.
First, you deserve credit for the perspective to admit this is a bombshell.
But as has been the case all along in this discussion, the Potterite defenders are not going to be able even to countenance your mild sanction of Rowling.
For ever since about five minutes after the book came out, the Potterites have reacted to criticism of the books with brinksmanship.
They've responded to considered indictments of the book, like Jack Ryan encourages the President to respond in Clear and Present danger--the books are not just harmless, their positive goods! They're not just imaginative, they're Tolkienesque! In fact, they're better than Tolkien.
But the reality is, this admission vindicates Fr. Aquilar's and others fundamental Gnostic critique--that Rowling identifies with the adolescent reaction to reality and authority--to pretend its not real, and has invented a Gnostic realm to allow people to escape it.
This is what the "gay" label does.
It allows people to escape the sanction implied and expressed in normal heterosexual culture for the maladies and pathologies, and pretend they are "special".
So, of course Dumbledore is "special" too. Just like Harry. And normal breeder brutes don't understand.
But the exchange in the press is going to go places you won't be able to.
The defenders are going to come up with all kinds of rubbish, the first, readily apparent down below, that Dumbledore might be some SSA afflicted "chaste" saint, and how dare you say otherwise, and isn't that judgemental, and how can you know anyway, and plus your a pharisee, and on top of that your mother told me you were adopted. . .
Eventually you'll be forced to remonstrate with the ludicrous extremes that Potterites will be forced to go to, to deny some fairly obvious implications: that they've been recommending a bad book, and calling people prudes and everything else, who were just making some sensible points.
the Potterite defenders are not going to be able even to countenance your mild sanction of Rowling.
That is a baseless smear and I wholly reject it. I just spent the past three days rewriting Gilbert Magazine's editorial on Harry Potter (finished the first version at 1:30 a.m. Friday, then THIS happened), and I most certainly do take Rowling to task, while at the same time saying pretty much what Mark just said.
This is why, more and more, you cannot count on Harry bashers to ague honestly for even two seconds. They talk out both sides of their mouths and repeatedly ignore the textual context of the HP books -- just like, surprise!, the mainstream media and the gay lifestyle advocates.
Too, one should consider that Rene Girard considers the model/rival relationship to be fraught with homoerotic funny business: two rivals vye for some object of desire (magical ascendency in the case of young Dumbledore and the "laughing boy" Grindlewald); as the rivalry escalates, the object becomes less the focal point than the rival; the fascination with the other "somatizes" into sexual feelings, the "canary in the mineshaft" of Girard's mimetic theory, signaling the sacrificial crisis becoming acute; the sacrificial event, finally, occurs, in this case, causing the death of Dumbledore's sister.
With that, we see the rupture of the relationship that may be called "gay", but in actuality is a model/rival relationship that led to human sacrifice which, Dumbledore rued the rest of his life.
There are no ostensible or surreptitious "gay relationships" mentioned in the HP opus, to my recollection.
Eventually you'll be forced to remonstrate with the ludicrous extremes that Potterites will be forced to go to, to deny some fairly obvious implications: that they've been recommending a bad book, and calling people prudes and everything else, who were just making some sensible points.
No, we've been recommending very good books. And you people are still prudes.
I forgot to say, Mark, that was an excellent analysis and worth the wait. Thank you.
There are no ostensible or surreptitious "gay relationships" mentioned in the HP opus, to my recollection.
I should have said, no ostensible or surreptitious "gay relationships" after the Grindlewald affair involving Dumbledore mentioned in the HP opus, to my recollection. Mel culpa
This is why, more and more, you cannot count on Harry bashers to ague honestly for even two seconds.
Frankly, Sean, you do yourself no credit whatsoever by assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily dishonest and uncharitable.
I don't think we need to "assume" that al is being uncharitable. He's being uncharitable right here in this combox to the other posters.
Thanks, Eileen.
Frankly, Sean, you do yourself no credit whatsoever by assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily dishonest and uncharitable.
Even this comment is highly dishonest.
Al,
Grow up.
If Sandra Miesel still reads this blog, I would love to hear her reaction.
This is why, more and more, you cannot count on Harry bashers to ague honestly for even two seconds.
This is why I love Potterite fanboys.
James, she wrote a lot in the thread down the page about HP. About half way through it, someone breaks the news about the Dumbledore revelation. Just scroll down.
He's being uncharitable right here in this combox to the other posters.
People are accusing me of being uncharitable just because I disagree with them too.
I think Rowling has single-handedly called "game over" here, for all practical purposes. There is no need for someone who enjoyed the series to "un-enjoy" it, as if such a thing were possible; but on a future-looking basis HP is now just another turd-bomb in the culture wars, like it or not. Its author has clinched the matter, seemingly deliberately.
Even this comment is highly dishonest.
You know what Sean, in my opinion you deserve this day. I've never said a dishonest word to you or anyone else in these discussions.
Jerk.
I'm not sure why the opinion that Dumbledore lived a chaste life should be met with derision, btw. I really don't think that Rowling, who probably is an unquestioning liberal on homosexuality, also believes in casual sex. She seems to have set this up as Dumbledore's great love, his life-long tragedy.
Zippy, yes, you are being rude. You seem to be very upset, so perhaps we should give you some lee-way. But could you please stop barking at other people to shut up? For instance:
"This is indefensible. Game over. Rowling very publicly screwed every Christian who has supported her and her work. Let it go."
If your only contribution to this discussion is going to be to mock the other participants and tell them to shut up and admit defeat, why even bother?
You seem to be very upset,...
I'm not upset. That was I believe the sixth time that Sean has falsely accused me of dishonesty in the combined threads. Ergo, he is acting like a jerk.
If your only contribution to this discussion is going to be to mock the other participants and tell them to shut up and admit defeat, why even bother?
I'm not mocking anyone. My assessment of the objective state of things is "game over".
And it's also your objective consideration that everyone here should agree with you.
"this is indefensible and people should stop trying to defend it."
But, really, I could say the same thing. I think you should agree with me too.
In a discussion box, we shouldn't be storming against the other people daring to discuss, even if we think they're wrong. And when you end every post with an injunction for us to STOP, it's very annoying.
Al (if you're still around, and frankly, I hope you're not)
The fact that a fan had to ASK Rowling whether Dumbledore ever had a romantic relationship is pretty good evidence that he is indeed celibate in the book; fans are so good at reading between the lines, and they would have sussed out even the mildest hint at such a relationship if it were there. Some might have guessed the truth about his relationship with Grindelwald, but nobody has seen or said anything about a relationship other than that.
Is this going to "ludicrous extremes"? I think not.
Very good analysis, Mark. I only wish the rest of the Christian reaction were so balanced.
Give it up, Mark. Likeable gay character = antiChristian agitprop. You lose. Next you'll be telling us Brideshead Revisited is acceptable reading for Catholics.
And when you end every post with an injunction for us to STOP, it's very annoying.
I think you guys should stop. I think you'll end up regretting not-stopping later if you don't. This is just the very beginning of the use of Potter as a way to crush Christians under the bootheel of "tolerance".
Obviously you disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't think you should stop.
"No, we've been recommending very good books. And you people are still prudes."
Something wrong with prudes? Prudish of you.
Hmm, your latest comment makes something clear to me. It's not about the book itself that you're talking, is it? You're reacting to people's appraisal of the story with annoyance that they don't seem to see how the book will be used by the general culture to poison kids' minds.
I, for one, would say you're absolutely right. I really liked the way the book itself dealt with the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship, and guessed correctly that Dumbledore's infatuation with Grindelwald had sexual elements, but the revelation in the interview? Not nice at all in terms of what the results might be.
You know what Sean, in my opinion you deserve this day. I've never said a dishonest word to you or anyone else in these discussions.
Zippy, Mark in his post pretty much said what Sandra and I have been saying all along -- except that he said it much better than I ever could -- and I have yet to see you address his comments. If you're mad because Mark does not agree with you, then quit calling me the jerk. I did not accuse you of being uncharitable. Eileen said Al was uncharitable. And he was.
I did not call you dishonest for disagreeing with me. I am a bigger boy than that. I think it is dishonest to:
1. adhere to the drive-by media version of Friday's announcement, when TWO eyewitness accounts are available (and have been linked to) for people to see what really happened.
2. to blurt out "game over; rowling stabbed you in the back" when the game very obviously is not over, and we were not stabbed in the back.
3. call HP "just another turd-bomb in the culture wars" when it so obviously is not. Numerous posts here and elsewhere deal, in great detail, with the very real and evident Christian themes in the HP books. That Rowling is a post-modern Christian is obviouis. That her books are firmly grounded in a Christian worldview is just as obvious. Mark himself said in his latest post that artists often do not fully comprehend their own work.
But none of this matters when it comes to Potter/Rowling bashing.
THAT is what I mean when I say that anti-Potterites do not argue honestly.
And yes, saying, "This is indefensible. Game over. Rowling very publicly screwed every Christian who has supported her and her work. Let it go" is mockery.
For what it's worth, I agree with you totally when it comes to American foreign policy. But you are wrong on this issue.
This story prompts all sorts of nasty insults about British boarding schools and buggery.
What I found notable was the crowd's reaction. Was the ovation thing really overplayed in media reports? If it wasn't, why did they stand for so long?
It's sad that a children's book series and crappy Dan Brown thrillers are the only literary events that rock the culture. Surely we're not that illiterate. I hope.
Too much ink has been wasted on both Brown and Rowling.
If you're mad because Mark does not agree with you, then quit calling me the jerk.
I called you a jerk because you falsely accused me of dishonesty I believe six times, which you still have not recanted. You also called me a pharisee, and suggested that I would like to stone the woman caught in adultery, and made various other verbal assaults on my character. Mark hasn't done any of that. I don't have the impression that Mark thinks that anyone who disagrees with him about Potter is inter alia somehow morally deficient; on the other hand, you certainly give that impression.
I've never completely agree with Mark about Potter - I think he goes to too great a lengths to justify Potter, which at the end of the day even before this latest hubbub was not in my view a story with either the literary or moral value of (e.g.)Tolkien - but he's never accused me of being dishonest or uncharitable just because I disagree with him. And I don't think people who disagree with me about Potter are morally deficient. Wrong, sure, but not morally deficient.
I did not accuse you of being uncharitable.
Really? What did you mean by this? What did you mean when you said this?
Denial: "Dumbledore is celibate -- celibate, do you hear? And I'm sure Rowling meant to say that his homosexuality was a bad thing, not a good thing! Really! And anyway it isn't in any of the books, so we can pretend she never said it at all!"
Bargaining: "I'm going to pray for Jo Rowling, so that God will show her that she's going astray, and make her an even better Christian than before!"
Anger: "$%#% Harry-haters! You'll use this to attack us even more now! I hate you all!!"
Despair: "Okay, so she said he's gay and she smiled and said how glad she was that this made everyone so happy. Waaahhh!! I'll never believe in anyone or anything ever again!"
Acceptance: "Meh, so another pop culture icon turned out to be a liberal humanist idealogue. Maybe I'll read something else for a change..."
st. anonymous, most of us have already been quite aware that Rowling is typically Liberal. She also seems to be a believing Christian. Her belief systems may not mesh very well, but alas, these are the days we live in.
Myself, I've always less defended Rowling personally than opposed her accusers. I've disliked Michael O'Brien's so-called literary criticism since before we'd even heard of HP here in North America. The fact that there are valid criticisms to make of the Potter series doesn't mean that the Potter critics are making them.
It's not about the book itself that you're talking, is it?
Not in itself, no. I'm not a big believer in books-in-themselves, actually, or in the intelligibility of the idea of a book-in-itself. Like the medievals before Wycliffe I don't think a stand-alone text in itself is much of anything other than a rather funny looking piece of kindling. Every story takes place in a greater context and derives meaning only in the presence of a cultural and traditional hermeneutic and a mind which reads/perceives it.
(In fact I am so radically anti-positivist that I think this is the case for even for scientific theories expressed in textual or symbolic form; but I don't think the matter is even particularly debatable when it comes to fictional stories).
I like the HP books and think O'Brien, for one, is way off the mark. But Rowling did stab us here. Maybe not in the back, more like in the side. Very disappointing.
I get your point, Zippy, but the anti-positivist viewpoint could and can be taken to extremes. If I understand you here, the content of a book is not relevant to making a moral judgment of the book, only the readership's likely response?
Really? What did you mean by this? What did you mean when you said this?
I stand corrected, and apologize for forgetting that I called you uncharitable. I did. But because your comments that I responded to in those two links were uncharitable. Your comments that I responded to were holier-than-thou, smug, self-righteous nonsense and, yes, worthy of a pharisee.
And your new favorite mantra, "Game over," is more of the same.
I also listed three reasons why I believe anti-Potterites to be less than honest in their arguments. I stand by them. Anti-Potterites consistantly misrepresent the text of the books, and, just as important, the context. You ignore the very many articulate arguments from the books' partisans (made by others, not me -- I am not that articulate) that are made here and elsewhere, and instead repeat, ad nauseum, the same old canards and distortions.
When you people start arguing honestly, then I'll say so.
One question remains that we might think about: if we accept that Dumbledore kept apart from human love and I think it's pretty clear, because he was so burned and had so much to atone for, then where did Dumbledore get his all-pervasive belief in the power of love that he stresses so often to Harry? I was drawn to this question by something Amy Sturgis said in her eyewitness comment on the meeting. She comments that the press have left out all the context, including
"how powerful Dumbledore’s ultimate faith in love must have been, considering his own early, bitter experience."
So how DID Dumbledore get his faith in love, especially sacrificial love, which he believes in so strongly, considering how badly all his humn relationships turned out - from mother to sister to his disordered love for Grindelwald? He did not have a human relationship to mediate that belief through.
Rowling never really addressed this question in her answer to her fan. I suspect that it's a very, very complex answer. But I also noticed something someone else said in a combox comment on Hogwartsprofessor.com: that this revelation is interesting in light of the fact that Dumbledore was undoubtedly the one who put the scriptural quotations on his mother and sister's tombstones.
In other words, Dumbledore might be the only professedly Christian character in the books. This might be a good answer as to where he got his belief in sacrificial love.
But we do have here the possibility of a deeply flawed person with a same-sex attraction who is also a penitent Christian and a believer in sacrificial love.
Anyone secular-minded person who rushes to this story to hold Dumbledore up as a gay icon is inevitably going to have to deal directly with all the questions this raises.
And nobody will do anything to stem the tide of secularized /gay comments unless we Christians do; unless we point out the truths -- beyond someone's sexual orientation -- professedly put into the book by its author. (Ponder that awhile, al).
You can get a huge amount out of these books as a teaching moment for young people, as Mark says.
I'm still glad that Rowling wrote them, and hope we will all pray for her, because if people were giving her a hard time before . . .
According to St. John of the Cross, at the evening of our lives, we shall be judged on
A. Our views on Harry Potter
B. Our sexual attractions
C. Our orthodoxy
D. Our love
I have never read St. John of the Cross, but I'll hazard a guess and say D.
Which, incidentally, is what Harry Potter is all about.
Oh, she'll make even more money and get even more praise from the people who really matter in this culture. Don't you worry about her!
What an enormous amount of fuss over a bunch of fantasy stories!
The fact of the matter is they have always been problematic from the perspective of orthodox Christianity, and the author's latest revelation makes that even clearer. While the stories are not the epitome of occultism, as some people, mostly of the Evangelical persuation, have tried to paint them, they are not exactly Christian allegories either. There are far better books than these that children may be encouraged to read without reservation. Some of the more recent ones were written by Michael O'Brien, in his Children of the Last Days series, but he's had the temerity to criticize Rowling, so I suppose we must scratch them off the list.
This whole flap reminds me of the right's willingness to embrace Christopher Hitchens, because he wrote the scathing critique of the Clintons, No One Left to Lie To. Somehow it seemed to escape their notice that Hitchen's disatisfaction with that pair of contemptible thugs stemmed from their not being, in his opinion, Leftist enough. Attitudes are very different now that Hitchens has revealed, consistent with his avowed Marxism, his militant atheism. Of course, having heard of his malicious book on Bl. Theresa of Calcutta, I counseled caution to my conservative friends, not that it made any difference at the time.
Similarly with Rowlings. Whether or not she intended the HP series to support the post-modern agenda, there is no doubt now that it will be employed as such by our cultural elites. It would have been better to be a little more clear-eyed about the problematic elements of her books all along, than to embrace them whole-heartedly because at least there was something, legitmately, to like about them. Just as it would have been more prudent of certain conservatives to withhold their admiration of Hitchens because he happened to say things about the Clintons which resonated with the right's (quite justified, IMO) disgust with them.
wondering, I think Lori was talking about Rowling's soul. At the moment, she runs a grave danger of letting herself be more alienated from Christianity than she already is.
JJG:
Some of the more recent ones were written by Michael O'Brien, in his Children of the Last Days series, but he's had the temerity to criticize Rowling, so I suppose we must scratch them off the list.
JJG, some of us had already judged O'Brien's books as badly-written garbage *years* before Rowling came on the scene.
Yes, Eileen that's pretty much what I meant. Especially if she is struggling with her faith, as she has indicated. She does NOT need more Christians like some I know, but won't name (ha!) carping at her in a hateful way.
And before someone jumps on it, it was quite rash for me to say that Dumbledore might be "professedly" Christian. I don't believe there are any characters in the books who publicly profess a Christian faith, and Dumbledore never does this.
I think that Rowling was carrying out an especially deep "smuggling" operation, a la Tolkien and Lewis, in getting faith into the books. So a professed Christian character in the books would not have suited that intention. But that Dumbledore might have been Christian is a possibility.
I would welcome some comments on my ideas.
You are quite entitled to that opinion, Eileen. Mine is quite the opposite, but then, being a simple physicist, I hold no pretensions to inhabiting the rareified atmosphere of literary criticism.
I'm somewhat surprised, however, to find that anyone actually thinks Rowlings books will somehow become enduring classics of the order of Tolkien, or even C.S. Lewis, however.
Wow.
Prediction fullfilled in under one hour.
In addition to the Canonization of secretly SSA Struggling, quite potentially Rev. St. Dumbledore proceeding apace, we've got the palpably preposterous assertion that a blanket, generic indictment of Potterites is "uncharitable."
I think you confuse "argument" or "logic" with "uncharity."
By all means, if you don't see yourselves in the above description of the manifest mental mediocrity of the Potterites--exclude yourself from it.
Better yet, make an argument why depicting maladjusted adolscents who flout authority under the guidence of similarly-inclined middle-aged maldjusted, "gay" wizards is not what it seems to be.
But whining about being "uncharitable" to a fourth-rate "novelist"'s propoganda tool really doesn't advance your cause.
The wizard in the tower, people say,
Is lean and wise and tolerably old.
His hat is crooked in the old approvčd way,
His robes embroidered with the stars of gold;
And though his mien is jovial and bold,
And those who visit oft are pleased to stay,
His destiny has grown more high and cold:
The newsmen have announced that he is gay.
Of such suggestions many make much hay:
The bulk of men read on in silent shock;
A handful purr “how grand;” some dozens pray;
Still others merely twist their lips and mock.
And through it all, unmoving as a rock,
The wizard simply takes it, as he may,
Immune to all their prim and preening talk
Though newsmen have announced that he is gay.
The boy, in youth, had never been so fey –
“Like brothers” all the matrons cooed and sighed –
The one, his temples prematurely gray,
The other, beaming, always at his side.
Brothers, yes: Cain’s wrath, and Abel’s pride;
A battle that blew all Earth’s dust away…
But he, made chaste forever, never cried.
And newsmen have announced that he is gay.
O Authoress of this wizard’s temporal page:
You gave him love which virtue must dismay;
His heart beats pale with inviolate rage:
So newsmen have announced that he is gay.
==
When I've decided what I mean by this, perhaps I'll post again.
And, actually, for a kid from a practicing Christian home where they teach the faith, I'd be a lot more hesitant to hand them O'Brien than Rowling.
O'Brien isn't just badly written, badly plotted, dialogue lifted from whatever encyclical/Chesterton book he's reading at the time, and peopled with wooden characters.
He also doesn't seem to me to tell the truth about human nature. The last book I read of his "Eclipse of Sun" was a long angry rant against the lamentable tendencies of our Canadian government, and I could agree with all his points, but his doom and gloom vision of the world with its black helicopters and convents of nuns being slaughtered and their neighbours' reaction being "I think we should take the RV south earlier this year." and a guy quoting Orwell and Neitzche in his last phone call to his family.
It was all just bizarre, and had no connection to reality. I think apocolyptic fiction is a dangerous and seductive genre, much more than fantasy, and O'Brien doesn't do anything with it to commend himself. Rather the opposite.
Good intentions don't make for good story-telling.
According to St. John of the Cross, at the evening of our lives, shall we be judged on (choose one)
A. Our views on Harry Potter
B. Our sexual attractions
C. Our orthodoxy
D. Our love
Trick question. In the end we shall be judged by our appreciation of Bill James' cogent writing on baseball.
All kidding aside, Sean P. Dailey, while "D" is the correct answer it doesn't make the Beatles a gospel group.
Al,
in case you were talking about me, I never suggested that Dumbledore was a saint, or a reverend, or anything of the type.
If you are capable of doing anything but hurling unsubstantiated insults, if you are capable of actually trying to discuss our ideas, or prove any of your assertions about the Gnostic elements of the book, I, as well as some others -- would love to answer you.
But I expect not.
JJG:
I'm somewhat surprised, however, to find that anyone actually thinks Rowlings books will somehow become enduring classics of the order of Tolkien, or even C.S. Lewis, however.
Well, I find these discussions difficult because I hold the highly eccentric opinion that C.S. Lewis's books aren't all that wholesome as they're cracked up to be. I'd give them to kids with some comment on the side, pretty much like HP. I've read both to kids.
That said, I think Lewis is a better writer than Rowling.
Going into what I object to in Lewis would be rather off-topic, I think, and it's always a long and laborious discussion since he's gold standard children's lit for a lot of people.
I'm completely indifferent to the childish Harry Potter stories, my feelings neatly expressed by Carl Olson, who pointed out in an NCRegister column that C.S. Lewis was "a wise man, a joyful Christian and a brilliant man of letters. He may have critiqued Rowling’s works but he wouldn’t have denounced them."
Having said that, I'm LOLing over Rowling's tin ear. I don't know how this announcement will play with British boys, but their American counterparts will surely recoil like they did from serving at the altar once it became "a girl thing." Dimes to dollars, pences to pounds.
What a dingleberry! What a nincompip! What a maroon
!
If I understand you here, the content of a book is not relevant to making a moral judgment of the book, only the readership's likely response?
No, the contents are certainly relevant, and the more explicit the more relevant. Just because I am radically anti-positivist that doesn't mean I'm postmodern.
Also I'll reiterate and expand on what I said in the thread below: I'm not against people (including children under supervision) reading the Potter books, I think at least up to now as objects of culture they have been relatively harmless compared to other stuff that is out there, and I think the idea that they drive children into occult practices is looney. The moral consequentialism in them has always been my biggest issue with them: Harry is treated as though a "fundamental option" theory applies to him whereby his actions are always justified because he is the good guy.
I do think though that this incident fundamentally changes them as objects of culture, yes, even though the text itself has not been changed, and that there is no going back from here.
The problem, at this late stage of the game, is that it has just become impossible to avoid introducing 9-13 year-old HP readers to homosexuality. The topic shouldn't even be on their radar screen.
What baffles me is that so many good Catholics failed to see this coming. Not that they should have guessed from the story. But in our times homosexual themes pervade 80% of what is written today, one way or the other. I can't even let my kids read the National Catholic Register (not Reporter) for cryin' out loud.
When you people start arguing honestly, then I'll say so.
OK, Jerk.
What? What homosexuality? Where? What page? How will a 13 year old see it? How would I see it? Because of some interview that will be forgotten? I read them; I didn't see it and I still don't.
I don't care what JKR said. To me, it's not there.
"It's sad that a children's book series and crappy Dan Brown thrillers are the only literary events that rock the culture. Surely we're not that illiterate. I hope."
Hope is a great virtue.
Jeff:
But in our times homosexual themes pervade 80% of what is written today, one way or the other.
It's a larger cultural problem than Harry Potter, yes! Increasingly, anything we watch has to have stuff fast-forwarded, and then you're left wondering, why watch it in the first place?
Me, I would have thought it'd be Star Wars to jump aboard the gay bandwagon. I suppose there still is time. Apparently, Lucas wants to make a TV series.
But I also think there's a case to be made for apropriating popular culture right back at the other side. I'm not going to sit back and be told, "You can't like this or that. The author's for gay rights!" I think we Christians are going to be need to be very forthright in identifying what it is we find problematic, and what it is we don't.
I am broadminded.
You are old-fashioned.
He is a pig-headed prude.
One last thought. One thing I *didn't* expect was the last book's very Christian themes. Or last week's interview.
JKR goes so far as to say that, at least to her, the religious parallels have “always been obvious.” More important, however, are her comments regarding the scriptures found on the tombstones of Kendra/Ariana Dumbledore (“Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” found in Matthew 6:21; not 6:19 as the article asserts) and James/Lily Potter (“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” found in 1 Corinthians 15:26) in the last novel:
“They’re very British books, so on a very practical note Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones,” Rowling explained. “[But] I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric’s Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series.”
It's a mixed bag.
http://swordofgryffindor.com/200...faith/#more-
529
That's after Bertie Russell, btw.
I am firm.
You are stubborn.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Lori,
Sure I'll engage, though Fr. Aquilar has said it much better than I hope to.
First, Gnosticism is a heresy, and recurs in many forms throughout the ages, so lets just head off at the beginning the argument that Rowling's books can't possibly be gnostic because they don't even mention Marcion, and she doesn't even live in the 5th century. . . by stipulating a quick, easily acknowledgeble definition.
Gnosticism is fundamentally, as Mark is fond of pointing out on this blog, any attempt to posit a secret, esoterically-known meaning to reality which evades some of the possibly unpleasant corrolaries of encountering that reality head-on, as it is, with its Supernatural warts and all.
Adolescents, because they are not adults, don't like reality. Because it's fond of pointing out that they are not adults. And because they aren't, they don't get to do all the fun stuff adults do, like driving cars and paying bills and deciding when to go to bed. . . .
And so they make up fantasies for themselves--that they are the real sane people, and the seeming-adults are just mean, or callous, or out of touch with their emotions, or "phonies". . . .
Back in the olden days, we used to recognize this behavior of the, shall we call them Holden Caufields of the world, as an immature, but a developmental (that is transitory) stage.
We would then discourage them from identifying with their disaffectedness, and encourage them to recognize in the commonplaces and conventions that responsibility and society inevitably require the tools of their development.
Those who refuse to grow up--lets call them the Peter Pan's of the world, would generally receive some additional and constant sanction. This is because persistant Peter Panism is patently anti-social, if those societal strictures are required to do things like, say, raise children, and avoid the consequences of always acting like a child.
But the feminists and gay activists, because they saw they were always going to come up against such societal sanctioning and disapproval, along with other recalcitrantly anti-social types, decided that the adults really had it wrong all along, or at least they were going to have develop a pretty convincing myth to that effect, to argue that they could still do whatever they wanted to do when they wanted, and never had to become grown up phoney's anyway, thank you very much.
And so they staged sit-ins, and protests, and love-in's. . . . and danced and preened in front of the mirror of the idiot box, and marvelled at how neat it was that they were the ones that finally got it so that recess could go on all afternoon, and makebelieve could become real-life!
Ergo, Harry Potter.
THE CITADEL
A common flat, the kitchen green,
Fluorescent was the light, obscene,
A single kitchen tap ran cold,
Disconsolate but rent controlled
But somewhere in the nether rooms
A smoke of sandalwood perfumes,
A Russian Merlin had a suite:
A white magician’s dark retreat
He fabricated elf devices,
Motor powered paradises,
Rods and clocks and balances,
Artificial valances
Gears that shifted, gears that turned,
Rainbow lights that winked and burned,
Levers that articulated,
Orreries of stars rotated
Ebony and teak and oak
From the far abroad bespoke,
Joined by craft of carpentry
With brass and lead and ivory
Palaces that belled and chimed,
Gongs mechanical kept time,
Running wires fast and slower,
Hatted roofs that raised and lowered
A citadel made animate
That lived inside a dying state,
A carnival a man designed
That might have stayed inside his mind
And on the wall tsarina, tsar
To patronize machine and star,
As if within this citadel
The past were living, loved and well
There is a fortress in us all
That will withstand, the last to fall,
When other citadels let in
All powerful the level wind
-- Pavel
"Adolescents, because they are not adults, don't like reality."
Adults like reality?
"How will a 13 year old see it? How would I see it?"
Mimi, your 13 year old will "see it" because it will become part of the universally known backdrop to the story. The HP text doesn't exist in a vacuum. The cultural references to Dumblewhomever's sexual orientation will soon be ubiquitous.
In theory, I suppose, you could simply not allow your 13 y/o to talk to anyone else about HP, or read anything else about HP, or listen to anything else about HP, or be exposed to situations in which the gay theme is likely to come up. But then, if you were that kind of a parent, your 13 y/o wouldn't be reading HP anyway.
Eileen:
I usually don't carry on extended discussions in comboxes for a number of reasons - primarily the inherent limitations of the medium - I generally say what I think needs saying, and let others make of it what they will.
Things which are ultimately matters of taste, such as "literary merit" are not going to be resolved by discussion, so I try to concentrate on what can be determined on the basis of objective fact. (Not exclusively, of course, but my affinity for mathematics stems from the fact that it is decidedly not a matter of opinion.)
So I'm not going to embark on a defense of Michael O'Brien's books, beyond stating that there is nothing problematic in them from the point of view of Catholic orthodoxy. (And I didn't actually find at least the principal characters "wooden", but that's just my opinion.) Also, I do tend to think that Lewis' Narnia series is over-rated, but also not problematic.
But there were reasonable people who did point out some of the difficulties with interpreting the HP series as a Christian morality tale. There were others who took matters to extemes and produced a kind of anti-Potter hysteria, to which people like yourself (I'm assuming) and Mark (Shea) reacted negatively. And you were right to do so, because the stories were not "of the Devil".
But Rowling's present revelation suggests that they were not "of the Holy Spirit" either, as those reasonable people who counseled caution had been saying. The anti-Potterites had read evil into the stories, and a certain variety of the pro-Potterites had read Christianity into them. It's fairly clear now that neither of these views was right.
I wonder if perhaps you don't feel a bit duped, are angry with yourself for "allowing" yourself to have been duped, and are now projecting that anger onto those who didn't fall into the trap. If so, don't feel bad - lots of my friends fell into the Hitchens trap I mentioned above as well. (Not to mention supporting the Iraq war, but I'm going to go there now.) Those of us who saw these situations a bit more accurately in advance, if I may say so, are not gloating, but merely advising others to take a lesson from the experience.
JJG, any anger on my part is probably caused by the mention of Michael O'Brien's name. He makes me livid, ever since I read as a teenager his book "A Landscape with Dragons" where he somehow managed to overlook the entire book "Farmer Giles of Ham" when coming up with a thesis about dragons in Tolkien. And it just sort of went on from there.
O'Brien for me stands for sloppiness, lack of research, and unthoughtfulness. But I really shouldn't be rude to people for liking his books, and I'm sorry if I was.
About HP, the Euthanasia angle in the last book I found a lot more disturbing that Dumbledore being outed as having been infatuated with Grindelwald, which was actually a pretty good plot element in itself, and written without any offense.
It's the largest culture wars that are the problem, and how this pronouncement plays into them.
I'm glad we have Pavel around, and that he does what he does.
James Kabala asked for my thoughts. They're in the previous discussion on HP down below as well as on hogwartsprofessor.com (where the level of discourse is rather more civil and perceptive as here)and at sword of gryffindor.
Mark has said things so well, I have nothing more to add at this point.
To date the "HP is evil" crowd treats Harry Potter like your average Radtrad treats the Talmud or your average anti-Catholic treats Catholic dogma. Lie, misquote, misrepresent & exagerate.
It IS all their fault. They started it.
But my 13 yr. old does talk to other readers-of-Harry, goes to Catholic school and my 13 yr. old was the first one to say "that was stupid". And then had her friends agree with her. They obviously don't care what JKR said in an interview; they know what they know about the characters from what it says in the books. And there is no mention anywhere of homosexuality. So it doesn't exist. And, by the way, I could care less whether or not the intent was a Christian story or not. I liked the nods to Christianity and love that were there when I found them, but so what? They're great reads and fun books with characters I liked. Why can't that be good enough?
I don't get is this idea that the author says something that no one ever figured out beforehand so it must be true.
What about great artists being gay? So we shouldn't appreciate David anymore? Elvis has a little hands-on, self-love problem. So you don't listen to Elvis anymore? I can give you an entire website of actors who publicly proclaim to be anti-Christian athiests. And I bet you pay money to watch them in movies. And you take your kids to some of those movies. Finding Nemo's Dory comes to mind. Everyone knows Ellen is gay. Everyone knows Ellen is Dory. Is Dory gay? Should we allow pop culture to taint absolutely everything around us? So that all we're left with is JRRT and CSL? That would be...boring.
It IS all their fault. They started it.
That comment about sums up any discussion on here about Harry Potter. I'm through talking about these silly books. Next subject.
Sandra, I didn't see your name over at Hogwartsprofessor. Do you post under a different alias?
Just so I can properly stock you, of course.
"I love my dead, gay headmaster."
(with apologies to "Heathers")
"I'm glad we have Pavel around, and that he does what he does."
God bless you Nick.
There really was such a Merlin in a communal apartment in Moscow, in 1991.
BTW, I just learned something that showed me how sick Western culture has been and probably still is:
One of the greatest paintings of the West, The Art of Painting, by Johannes Vermeer, was owned at one time by --
Adolf Hitler.
I'm still absorbing the revolting implications.
Sandra: Thanks. I didn't mean to call you out, but I knew you would have something worthwhile to say.
Just so I can properly stock you, of course.
Err... stalk. You're not a store item.
Well, I hate to disagree with Mark, but then again I've been disagreeing for a while on this.
Not on the "Magic makes Harry Potter Evil" nonsense, of course. But I've been in the position of defending the books and their author against the ludicrous charge of Satanism, while suspecting that the only thing really keeping the series going was the suspense about how they would end, whereupon (gradually) plenty of people would begin to recognize them for the ill-written dreck they actually are.
+J.M.J+
"st" anonymous wrote:
>>>Bargaining: "I'm going to pray for Jo Rowling, so that God will show her that she's going astray, and make her an even better Christian than before!"
And what's wrong with that, O self-canonized one? Aren't we supposed to pray for others? Doesn't God require that of us in 1 Timothy 2:1-4? Should we not be concerned for Rowling's immortal soul? Even those who don't like the HP novels agreed in the combox below that we should pray for her. Surely you agree, right?
In Jesu et Maria,
From the Herald (UK):
"Well, the cat is well and truly out of the bag now. Like every writer, Rowling has a back story for her fictional characters and - unlike Noddy and Big Ears - there can never more be any doubt about Dumbledore. On balance, I think his gayness is a good thing and its revelation has been cleverly executed. First, Rowling built the character layer by layer. She built him to be the acme of all that is wise and kind; dutiful and virtuous. She put him in a position of trust; headmaster of a mixed boarding school. She made him a champion of the underdog and a protector of the excluded. She even killed him off in a final heroic act of self-sacrifice. And having placed him as far beyond criticism as her fertile imagination would allow; abracadabra - she revealed that he was gay.
"Let the prejudiced, the gay bashers, the bigots try as they might; they won't be able to tear this icon off his pedestal. Rowling has held a literary mirror to their narrow-mindedness to let them see for themselves how purposefully blind it is. And as they wrestle with the invisible knots she has tied them in, they'll hear, if they listen, her metaphorical laughter. It's the laughter of a Pied Piper as she leads their spellbound children to the broad sunny uplands of tolerance."
Al,
Well, you have stated what Gnosticism (or at least your version of it) is. But you haven't said a word about how it connects with Harry Potter. You haven't given a single specific moment or scene or character from the books. So forgive me for thinking your opinion isn't exactly convincing.
However, your main point seems to be that Harry trashes adults and indulges adolescent narcissim. Far from being a work where the opinion of adults is rejected, Harry and his fellow students get a number of wise and loving adults as mentors. Dumbledore is that for Harry all throughout the early books. Remus Lupin (my favorite character) is that too.
Then as he gets older, Harry gradually finds out that his wise mentors Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin and his idol -- his own father -- are flawed human beings who have made mistakes. But this is not Gnosticism. It's called growing up.
Everyone faces this moment at some time in their young lives: their wise elders are imperfect. Many reject the tradition of their elders completely because of this. Harry never does. He learns the truth about Dumbledore, and struggles with his former idol falling in his eyes. Then he grows up, gains wisdom, learns to forgive, and continues to love Dumbledore, even naming his son after him.
I am glad that in a world where so many adults and so-called heroes (sports heroes taking steroids, beloved movie stars acting in appalling fashion, you name it) are proving to be fallen idols, that young people have as wise and good a writer as Rowling to help them through this type of dilemma, and in such a loving way.
What is your solution -- that all adults in books for young people should always be presented as paragons of virtue -- when any young person in our culture increasingly realizes that this is not true and never was?
Forgive me, but you ideas don't hold up. They are an insult to and distortion of books I can only presume you have never read.
Forgive me again, as I realize I am going to have to bow out for the evening. I am a freelance writer whose work is calling, and I've spent more time than I should on Harry Potter questions today (though not more than I would like).
>But I've been in the position of defending the books and their author against the ludicrous charge of Satanism, while suspecting that the only thing really keeping the series going was the suspense about how they would end, whereupon (gradually) plenty of people would begin to recognize them for the ill-written dreck they actually are.
The above is what we call intelligent rational criticism Vs. O'Brian's dreck & that of the "HPisevil" crowd.
You have my sympathy Red dude.
Um, it's "Red gal" actually, Mr. Scott. 
But thanks!
In this rapidly de-sanctifying culture people will try to obtain salvation from politicians, actors, money, violence, mystics, crystals and their own genitalia, everything but the person of Jesus the Christ, true God and true man, who is the way and the light and the single gate to eternal praise and joy. Amen.
We *must* find our way back.
Mimi wrote:
"But my 13 yr. old does talk to other readers-of-Harry, goes to Catholic school and my 13 yr. old was the first one to say 'that was stupid'".
Thanks for proving my point. Your 13 y/o has already had a conversation about homosexuality and HP. In a Catholic school. Super. My point is that 9-13 year-old children should not even be THINKING about homosexuality one way or the other, period. Thus HP has just made it that much harder to preserve our children's innocence.
"And, by the way, I could care less whether or not the intent was a Christian story or not."
Same here. Lots of good stories are not Christian.
"I don't get is this idea that the author says something that no one ever figured out beforehand so it must be true."
She's the author, she gets to define the characters. It doesn't matter whether it actually exists, explicitly, in the pages of her book. Everyone now knows it is what is supposed to motivate the character.
The problem isn't that kids can't find it in the story: the problem is that kids will now be looking for it in the story, whether they find it or not.
"What about great artists being gay? So we shouldn't appreciate David anymore?"
Michelangelo was gay? I'm 41 and never knew this. Thanks.
"Elvis has a little hands-on, self-love problem."
I never knew this either, but given the kind of music he produced it's hardly surprising.
"So you don't listen to Elvis anymore?"
That's right.
"I can give you an entire website of actors who publicly proclaim to be anti-Christian athiests. And I bet you pay money to watch them in movies."
Maybe, but you are missing the point. LOTR is great art despite the vices of the real-life Gandolf in the film version. That's because neither Tolkein nor Peter Jackson told the world that Gandolf is supposed to be a flamer. If they had, it would have affected the whole *culture* of the story and become part of the context in which the story is understood.
"Everyone knows Ellen is gay. Everyone knows Ellen is Dory. Is Dory gay?"
I don't know, but my kids don't know who "Ellen" is. Do yours?
"Should we allow pop culture to taint absolutely everything around us?"
No! We should banish pop culture to the outer darkness! I'm totally not kidding.
"So that all we're left with is JRRT and CSL? That would be...boring."
It would be boring if it were true. Fortunately there is a vast world of art, music, and literature in the Western Christian tradition just waiting to be discovered by people who thought Harry Potter was the best they could do.
You don't need pop culture, Mimi. It needs you.
Lori,
Again, wow.
The account of Gnosticism I've given is pretty much indisputable. Look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Second you prove my point--Harry's adolescent posturing is "remedied" by--wait for it--another adolescent posturing homosexual who tells him he's really special and wonderful and great already.
And as for your slight about my reading habits--I could respond to yours, and others name calling, and the like, "but then I'd have to use my special powers, and my mommy says--oops, scratch that, my two daddies say I can't use my special powers in public, otherwise I'd get in trouble"
----------From Harry Potter and the Sword of the Meretrix
Judged on our sexual attractions? Wow, there's a sloppy leap towards the wrong way to look at the issue from any perspective, scientific, social, or theological...
Are you really arguing that a 13 yr old would never have ever even heard of the concept of homosexuality save for JKR outing Dumbledore? I don't know of any civilization that managed to keep kids that innocent for that long. But for the record, it's not being talked about in class, but when kids are out of earshot of adults, which is, you know, what they do. Talk to each other. But notice: she then told me about it. So that's how I know.
"Michelangelo was gay? I'm 41 and never knew this. Thanks."
Na, he wasn't gay. He just sculpted a great, big beautiful boy. With oversized hands...wearing boots...naked. And that proves my point: you're 41 and never picked up the homoeroticism of David. Everyone's gaydar is different, I guess.
"That's because neither Tolkein nor Peter Jackson told the world that Gandolf is supposed to be a flamer."
But Gandalf was gay and a gay activist, too. Or, why is it OK for the actor to be gay but not OK for the character in the book to be gay...and gay not because there's anything in the actual book that indicates at all that he's gay but because the author said so, after the fact?
I still say that if you attempt to find absolute sinlessness in every author, every actor, every book, every movie, every great work of art, you'll find yourself disapointed almost every single time.
BobNSF:
I quite agree. Which is why it's a wrong answer.
+J.M.J+
Gee, it's so much more pleasant reading Nick and Pavel's poetry rather than the vitriol-saturated discussions. Too bad we can't just all post poetry instead of arguing.
In Jesu et Maria,
The corresponding question isn't whether Gandalf was gay. The corresponding question is whether Gandalf was a Maiar. Which in itself says something about the back-story to the two stories.
"That's after Bertie Russell, btw.
I am firm.
You are stubborn.
He is a pig-headed fool."
Pavel, LOL - you have summed up much of this thread very well. And I know what JRRT would say
"I am a messenger of the King...
You are a ruffian and a fool.
Down on your knees in the road and ask pardon, or I will set this troll's bane in you".
...
"My point is that 9-13 year-old children should not even be THINKING about homosexuality one way or the other, period."
When I was 12-13, it was an endless topic of discussion among my peers. Elton John, David Bowie, Queen, and yes, Michelangelo and the ancient Greeks and all the rest. Whether it was unsubstantiated speculation or not, there was no getting away from the topic.
That was in the 1970s.
"Are you really arguing that a 13 yr old would never have ever even heard of the concept of homosexuality save for JKR outing Dumbledore?"
Uh, yes?
"When I was 12-13, it was an endless topic of discussion among my peers. Elton John, David Bowie, Queen ..."
Me too. But it doesn't have to be that way.
It was not the case with my grandparents, or even my parents. Nor was it the case with my wife, who was raised in another country. And it is not the case with my own children, or their closest friends, who are homeschooled but don't read HP.
It is becoming clear that the HP supporters here don't think 9-13 year olds contemplating homosexuality is such a big deal. Which exposes a much larger cultural gap between pro-HPers and anti-HPers than was evident a few days ago.
At the end of the day, JKR is simply cementing my image of her as an average writer who is a brilliant publicist and self-promoter. She is just as proficient at being all things to all people that by all means they will keep buying her books as Paul was in spreading the Gospel. She says just enough, but no more. This allows diehard fans to do the appropriate interpreting of her statements and her books.
So she is being praised - yet slightly criticized - by gay and liberal groups around the world today. While at the same time, fans on the Christian right/orthodox side scramble to find the loopholes and nuances to allow them to declare since she didn’t have a graphic sex scene in her books, it isn’t bad. After all, the Church doesn’t say gay is wrong in itself, and tolerance when properly understood can be a good thing.
Maybe. I doubt it. Forgive me if I sound too judgmental, but in all honesty, I think JKR is happy about her role as one of the wealthiest women in history, and as a person of great, almost rock-star, influence with millions of kids worldwide, has every intention (as would anyone) of using this to promote her agendas and passions. And apparently, she intends to aim this at those same children without apology.
The fact is, she said this to an audience with children, in answer to a young person’s question, knowing that every news agency in the world would run with it. She said that tolerance and questioning authority are the themes of her books. To children. Now, perhaps she did mean it from a strictly traditional, orthodox Christian viewpoint. Whatever she meant, I am sure she will say no more than might jeopardize her customer base.
But I would caution those who have criticized the books for trying to make a big issue of this. At this point, for diehard fans, I doubt there is anything that will make them change their minds. And JKR knows this, and will simply use criticism and opposition to boost sales of the books that are being opposed. And being mean or judgmental never advances a cause. Nor does cheering over a supposed moral victory. And, at the end of the day, it is a book, and might have Christian themes. To each his or her own.
For those who are children of the Church, and fans of HP, I would also caution. Don’t wait for JKR to come out and say ‘question authority - like the Catholic Church, and tolerate everything - like homosexuality’. She isn’t stupid. That would take out a whole segment of her customer base - and an important one, for many Christians have given the series a chance because of other Christians who have said they weren’t that bad, or that they were ‘Christian books’ on the same level as Narnia.
Instead, just step back, take a look at what she is saying, who she is saying it to, and its impact. Then ask yourself, do you still want to insist that HP is a “Christian book”, loaded with “Christian themes”, and therefore anyone could, by implication, go out and gobble it up and be edified and enlightened in their Christian walk? Wouldn’t a bit of caution at this point do better? Maybe backing off of the promotion and support until at least a little more is known? And if not, can we expect the same support and acceptance for others who are wealthy, influential, and heroes to our children if they go down similar paths about issues that may skate on the fringes of Church teaching? I will certainly remember the arguments for HP and JKR made now when discussing other issues.
Oh, and don’t be so quick to attack folks who express concern about things. As a friend of mine, a Presbyterian minister named Russ, was fond of saying: It’s better to err on the side of caution, to oppose what may turn out to be OK, than to promote what may turn out to be wrong.
I have been a "Harry-lover" ever since I read the first book. I have read all 7 at least twice, some three times. I was quite excited when Rowling acknowledged the Christian imagery in the books.
However, this revelation is deeply disturbing to me. I still think the books, in a vacuum, are positive, even Christian, books. However, we don't live in a vacuum; we live in a world in which gay sex is one of the most promoted sins in the world - and acceptance of the rightness of that action is becoming more and more forced into our culture. So the fact that Dumbledore is "gay" is quite a bombshell with deeply troubling implications. Even if it was not Rowling's intention (and I don't think any of us know of her true intention in "outing" Dumbledore), I'm afraid that this will be used as one more step to normalize homosexual behavior as healthy and equivalent to heterosexual behavior, and because of that, the whole HP series has a real taint to them now. At least in my mind (and with four kids, two of whom have read through Book 4, this is a real issue to me).
Frankly, a gay headmaster of a children's school who has a close relationship with one of the male students isn't exactly something to hold up as a model for our children.
Do you realize how much we've lost in the past few centuries? Contrast the crude eroticism of our society with this:
From Gaspar Sanz' "MUSICAL INSTRUCTION ON THE SPANISH GUITAR" published in 1674 :
The Italians, French, and people of other nations classify the guitar as Spanish. The reason is that in ancient times it used to have no more than four strings, and then in Madrid, Maestro Espinel, a Spaniard, added a fifth to it, and thereby its perfection was attained. The French, Italians, and people of other nations, in imitation of us, also added the fifth course to their guitar, and therefore they call it the "Spanish guitar".
Others have discussed the perfection of this instrument, some saying that the guitar is a perfect instrument, and others that it is not. I take the middle way, and declare that it is neither perfect, nor imperfect, but what you make it, since the fault or imperfection is in him who plays it and not in the instrument itself; for on one single string without frets I have seen many feats performed for which others would require the registers of an organ. Therefore, each player must make the guitar either good or bad, since it is like a lady, but to whom the saying "look at me but do not touch me" does not apply, and its rose is quite different from a real rose, since it will not wither however much it is touched with the hands, and moreover, if it is plucked by the hands of a skilled master, it will produce in them an ever-new bouquet which delight the ear with their sonorous fragrances.
Instead, when the time is appropriate--and it soon will be in our sex-obsessed culture--I will discuss the books with them in light of the church's teaching on things like homosexuality. Surely, if they can cope with an R-rated book like Genesis, I think they will do fine with a PG rated book like Deathly Hallows.
I'll look forward to that.
Reading your comments, I was reminded of "The Picture of Dorien Gray" by Oscar Wilde. Wilde, while actively engaging in same-sex relationships, understood that behavior to be self-destructive, and the novel seems to be a reflection of that realization.
Whatever he intended as a writer, and there are several theories, he was simply too honest an observer of his own and human nature not to have it come out as the self-indictment that it seems to be.
Next you'll be telling us Brideshead Revisited is acceptable reading for Catholics.
Umm, excuse me, but what planet...?
Brideshead is the greatest work of Catholic literature since The Divine Comedy. It was a large factor in my conversion. It has gotten my over rocky moments in the faith more times than I can count.
I suppose The Divine Comedy is not fit reading for Catholics either....
Thanks for the post, Mark. It concurs susbtantially with my own on the same subject.
Cacciaguda, I think that comment was sarcasm.
The question of when homosexuality should be known to exist by kids is tricky. Lewis and Tolkien for instance would both have known about it by the time they were 13, most definitely. Works mentioning homosexuality were part of the Classical curriculum, and although glossed over by headmasters, the offending passages were not regularly omitted. A naive kid would pass them over, but I doubt a school class would.
I suppose The Divine Comedy is not fit reading for Catholics either....
I wouldn't package it up and sell it in the childrens' section. Especially if Dante had announced that Beatrice was a lesbian.
There's just better stuff to read out there . . . .
Cacciaguida: I am pretty sure that that guy was trying to be deliberately sarcastic.
Two further points:
First, it's a remarkable coincidence that in one week we have Rowling's explicit acknowledgement of Christian themes in the books, which briefly made pro-Harry Christians so happy, and just days later we have this revelation in the other direction. Talk about the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Second, while I understand where Zippy and Jeff Culbreath are coming from, I think that they are moving the goalposts a little bit by suggesting that the pro-Harryites somehow should have sensed flaws in the work all along. This out-of-the-blue revelation has little to do with the past controversies over the book.
Indeed, James Kabala, the annoying thing about this is that this revelation should have nothing whatsoever to do with the books at all.
It is the worst kind of literary "cheating" for an author to reveal a major detail about a character after the books are finished, when she has had no intention of making that detail known *within* the books, and when, in fact, the character is actually dead by the time the books reach their conclusion!
This isn't merely a "problematic" character element--it is not, properly, a character element at all, since it is never revealed within the outlines of the actual story.
It is one thing for an author to discuss his or her motivations, thoughts, writing processes etc. after a book or series of books is finished, but it's quite another thing to graft on to characters miscellaneous elements that, if they were important at all, needed to be revealed during the course of the story.
Now, I suppose, one could argue that whether Dumbledore is gay or not simply isn't an important character element, but I challenge anyone to make a good case for that position given the highly-charged political reality surrounding gay issues in the present day.
I'm not exactly a newbie at the sarcasm game, and I didn't think I saw it in Al's remark on Brideshead.
Btw -- what an author "announces" about a character, after the book is out, ought to be regarded as of no particular relevance. Once the canon is closed, anyone can analyze it, and the author is in no privileged position. She can call attention to details others might have overlooked -- but so can anyone else.
Of course she can announce what she "meant," but books are made up of black marks on white pages, and if what the author later claims to have "meant" can't be proved from those marks, then her claim about what she "meant" should be treated as just one more interpretation among many.
The media, of course, want to ride this one all the way to the bathhouse. The question is, why should we let them, when not only Catholic morals but also good literary criticism (well, the "New Criticism" -- Allen Tate, John Crowe Ransom et al. -- anyway) would urge otherwise?
I'm not exactly a newbie at the sarcasm game, and I didn't think I saw it in Al's remark on Brideshead.
Ah, it wasn't Al. It was "anon". If it were Al, I'd have read it the way you did.
Cacciaguida:
The media, of course, want to ride this one all the way to the bathhouse. The question is, why should we let them, when not only Catholic morals but also good literary criticism (well, the "New Criticism" -- Allen Tate, John Crowe Ransom et al. -- anyway) would urge otherwise?
Hurrah. You've said what I've been feeling.
I seem to have arrived late to the party, and while it appears that the Zippy-Daily pissing match is over, let me offer my opinion that even if you think your interlocutor is, in fact, "uncharitable," "dishonest," or a "jerk," it's probably better to ignore that and focus on the subject at hand. Most of the rest of us readers don't so much care about the personalities or characters of the other commenters as we do about the merits of the Harry Potter books.
So, I gather that Rowling said something about Dumbledore?
...while I understand where Zippy and Jeff Culbreath are coming from, I think that they are moving the goalposts a little bit by suggesting that the pro-Harryites somehow should have sensed flaws in the work all along.
FWIW, I don't recall having any online (nor probably any significant offline) discussions about Potter over a period of several years (I had read the first four books and stopped mainly from lack of interest, not due to moral objections), until the last few months with the suicide/murder/euthenasia Snape/Dumbledore dustup. I've never been its biggest fan, and I've always found the "Harry can break the rules because he's the good guy" aspect of it indefensible (but minor, as long as parents are on top of it and don't treat it as defensible). I've always thought the "gateway drug to the occult" position was more than a little loopy, and I wholeheartedly endorse Sandra Meisel's characterization of Potter magic as "alien technology".
Frankly, who cares where the goalposts have been in the past? I agree that this revelation is a big bait and switch on the part of Rowling, especially given the interview she just gave last week. The really blind thing would be to pretend that this doesn't change anything. Trying to spin this into Dumbledore-as-celibate-Courage-archetype or any of the other arguments to "save Potter" isn't going to work, in my view. We're past that as a viable possibility. In the culture wars it may have been back-and-forth ambiguous posturing before, but now Potterdom has just declared war on Christendom. Unless Rowling herself comes out with a "homosexual acts are wrong, Dumbledore is a celibate man with disordered desires" speech in the next few days - and I wouldn't hold my breath - you know how this is going to go; how it is already starting to go.
This isn't merely a "problematic" character element--it is not, properly, a character element at all, since it is never revealed within the outlines of the actual story.
Good point. Rowling's cheap after-the-fact asterisk goes beyond deus ex machina and straight into amateurish and stupid. Glad I wasted not one moment sniffing about the crappery I always suspected these stories of inhabiting.
It's a tired but true maxim that the opposite of love is not hate; it's indifference. Following this news development and all the gnashing of teeth it's set off, I've found it clearer than ever why I, a book lover, haven't been able to get into the books or the movies, much less muster any passion whatsoever about Harry Rotter or Dumbell Bore or G.I.M. Rolling. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, a molehill mistaken for a mountain, a Major Freaking Yawn.
Good God, friends, the Red Sox are back in the World Series for the second time in four years after not winning one for 86. Now there's a story arc and a cast of characters worth your time and contemplation!
I used a CS Lewis flavored handle at hogwartsprofessor. John Granger picked it out.
No, I disagree. I think that KRISTIN LAVRANSDATTER is the best modern Catholic novel (for all that it takes place in the 14th C). The sexuality is all hetero, although her mother was raped by a relative.
You young folk have rather idealized concepts about childhood innocence in the Good Old Days. Back when I was 12, a favorite taunt that my male classmates used on each other was "fairy". They also liked to use vulgar language and draw dirty pictures on the blackboards before class. This was in a small Midwestern town, not a wicked city. And do you think farm kids didn't figure out the facts of life at a tender age by observing animals? Including their attempts at same-sex couplings?
And for those of you who didn't bother to read the transcript or eye-witness reports, Rowling's "question authority" remark was directed at government and the press, targets already amply skewered in the books.
It would be ever so refreshing to see comparable wrath directed at Philip Pullman. Small signs that this is starting to happen, if only because of the forthcoming movie.
...it's probably better to ignore that and focus on the subject at hand.
Thanks for the advice. I did that, up until the sixth time he called me a liar. Call me a liar six times and I'm gonna think you are acting like a jerk, and I'll probably tell you that I think you are acting like a jerk. I don't think in context that just saying so is beyond the pale of civilized discussion, and at a certain point it becomes codependent not to let the other guy know that he is acting like a jerk.
You young folk have rather idealized concepts about childhood innocence in the Good Old Days. Back when I was 12, ...
Thank you, but I doubt any responsible parent will accept a "back in my day we learned about homosex young" argument as carrying any quiddity.
It would be ever so refreshing to see comparable wrath directed at Philip Pullman.
Count me in, just as soon as half the blogs in the Catholic blogosphere start promoting it as a fundamentally Christian story.
"Harry can break the rules because he's the good guy" aspect of it indefensible
Odd that you say it that way. That's almost word for word what my oldest came out of the series with. We discussed it, and it was a teaching moment, but for a brief instant, he thought that was one of the points of the series.
Again, I would really, really, really pause before continuing to promote HP as anything other than a book about a boy wizard that someone might like. At least at this point in time. Anything else I would wait until we heard more from JKR, since whether or not it was important before, in our society and world today, it has become damn important from a Christian’s point of view.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone can still defend the Harry series after this announcement.
I can just imagine Pius X saying "Oh, it's fine... well within the context of a Christian novel!"
God help us all.
I haven't kept up with the whole Sean/Zippy argument in the past, but I think Zippy's point wins the day.
The bottom line is that the media will see this as a major victory, and they won't let it go away quickly. Somewhere, there are college lit professors planning lectures on the subject, and I'm sure there's a Human Sexuality semester in there somewhere. It no longer matters what we think, or even what the author thinks. The meme is unleashed.
Just for the record, I rather like most of the Potter books. I think they're good stories (though poorly told, at times). I agree with most of what both Mark Shea and John Granger have said about this. But things like this that give Andrew Sullivan great joy are usually not good for our side. I do also believe that JKR intended the Christian elements of the books, and I don't think they are subversive in general. The reaction of the left is entirely predictable.
I can't think of a better example of culture war friendly fire.
Oh, and does anyone else think that the Dumbledore-is-gay thing invokes the Chewbacca Defense? It certainly has deflected criticism away from the, ya know, occultism.
"Silly Rad Trad, Potter's for kids!"
Gee, it's so much more pleasant reading Nick and Pavel's poetry rather than the vitriol-saturated discussions. Too bad we can't just all post poetry instead of arguing.
What if the vitriol was in iambic pentameter?
I can't even let my kids read the National Catholic Register (not Reporter) for cryin' out loud.
Jeff, I know you well enough to know that you won't let your kids read National Catholic Register for more reasons that just The Agenda...
Mark Shea wrote:
"Many Christians who are unable to distinguish between homosexual attraction (which is not sinful) and homosexual acts (which are) will, in reaction, simply dump the books overboard as gay agitprop. I think this is a mistake."
Mark is right. I'm still puzzled that so many here seem to agree with Zippy that Rowling somehow stabbed Christians on the back by revealing that she sees Dumbledore as gay. The character of Dumbledore should be judged on what he does and does not do, not on whether or not he has homosexual impulses.
Also, what's wrong about a ten-year old finding out that somebody is gay? To find out about homosexuality does not in any way implies a moral acceptance of homosexual acts.
Once again, I'm not really a fan of the Potter series (I only read the first three books and could not go on anymore), but all this talk about Rowling's "betrayal" is plain silly.
"Jeff, I know you well enough to know that you won't let your kids read National Catholic Register for more reasons that just The Agenda..."
Hello Mark! You caught me falling off the wagon again. Hope all is well with you and yours. As to the Register, I'm probably more tolerant than you think.
The Register is a pretty good paper in my opinion. Most of the content is informative and wholesome, despite its previous anti-trad stance (which has changed impressively since the Motu). We do let the kids read some of the articles. But I can't leave the paper laying around the house because of the "adult" content pertaining to the homosexual movement. The point being that the topic of homosexuality seems impossible to get away from, pro or con, even in good company - even when it comes an otherwise family-friendly orthodox Catholic newspaper. One longs for the OSV of 50 years ago.
What if the vitriol was in iambic pentameter?
Tempting.
"it seems like a case of J.K. Rowling trying to retroactively bestow a level of adult complexity on her characters that they don't possess on the printed page. A writer confident in her powers wouldn't feel the need to announce details like this after the fact, and a writer who understood the strengths and limitations of her creation would recognize that trying to smuggle this level of psychological realism into the Potter series is a fool's errand that can only diminish her achievement"
- http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com
One longs for the OSV of 50 years ago.
The OSV of 50 years ago or the world of 50 years ago?
If the former, pizza baron Tom Monaghan has a house he can sell you in south Florida. In a town that's sure to launch a "newspaper" like you might have enjoyed in 1957. Florida. Land of sun, fun and Make-Believe. Walt Disney World. Ave Maria, USA. Mm hmm. You might want to look back a little further into the past, back to the early 5th century. St. Augustine: "Whover hopes for great good in this world, and in this earth, his wisdom is but folly." (City of God)
If any of your kids get into Plato, like a couple of mine did, how can you possibly dance around the homosex? It was such an accepted part of their culture. And Plato is, I believe, a very important part of an excellent education. It's been around far longer than the current homosex agenda crowd.
Remember, Plato may be many things, but not Christian literature. Nor would it be promoted as such. That HP has been promoted as Christian literature is the rub, I believe.
I get your point, Dave G., but I don't think that's how it started. It was never intitally promoted as Christian literature; it was just a fun book, but some started to say it was "occult" and led kids into witchcraft and the "dark side", etc. We now know that's not true. And then, yes, there were "hints" that pointed to Christian themes, but now that the author made this statement, some are using it to say, "See? I told you it was bad." But no one EVER said it was bad because it promoted homosexuality! No one ever even joked or hinted that Dumbledore was gay; even by gays who say everyone is gay!
But you know what I think this is? I think this was an off-hand remark that she tossed off that she thought was open-minded and would make her look good to the modern lib crowd and give a little back-hand to fundies. They did say some awful things about her and now? She doesn't need them. The books are over, the series done so she let loose just this once and said "to heck with you" to fundies. But the way some religious folks treated her, I can see why she did it. Doesn't make it right, I know, but it's just not all that important.
anon,
Yep, I remember the early days. Faster than a speeding bullet was the cry that HP was of the devil. I also think a counter-rebellion arose, a sort of Twisted Sister 'We're Not Going to Take It!' thing, where fans decided they would push the protesters of HP back, and say it isn't just OK, it is nothing short of Christian literature on par with Lewis, Tolkien, or any other Christian work.
Well, the problem is, JKR has given us little at the end of the day to go on. Oh, HP has Christian elements, that much can be seen. She has said she is a Christian, and has given a few glimpses as to what that means. But what does that ultimately say? I sat between liberal ministers and conservative ministers, all would say they were Christian, would affirm the importance of sacrificial love, eternal life, death, friendship, and on and on. But I know that what they might otherwise promote would give me pause when it came to recommending them to other believers. I am going to wait and see if JKR clarifies, or if she allows the usual lack of clarity to keep the fires (and the sales) burning.
Frankly, a gay headmaster of a children's school who has a close relationship with one of the male students isn't exactly something to hold up as a model for our children.
Ah yes...and now will we suddenly see an increase in evangelical defenders of what the Boy Scouts are now up against...or, the same increase in those now calling for the allowance of distorted orientations entering our seminaries, taking, once again, the chance that they will in some future time not be acted upon? We seem to be leaving out the "feelings" of the one on the receiving end of the uninvited distorted attentions, feelings and solicitations.
There is obviously an addictive attraction to these weird little books. It is shown by the great need now, after the disturbing revelation, to head for the "pre-discerners" as scapegoats by the "post-disillusioners"! Far too much emotional investment here. These times bring new phenomena of better and better idols daily!
Did someone mention the solution being that of the world getting back to Christ? Perhaps the best way of getting out of a world stalked by darkness and trickery would be exorcism rather than faith in magic or in one's "inner" self with its known flaws and weaknesses!! Yet in that enclosed "Christian" world of HP there exists no such Person...just a few wise phrases which many seem to believe are enough in themselves... As if the branches CAN succeed without the vine. So far, the experience of the real culture- especially in its troubled youth - all around us rules that out.
I'm still puzzled that so many here seem to agree with Zippy that Rowling somehow stabbed Christians on the back by revealing that she sees Dumbledore as gay.
The books are going to be used as gay agitprop and the jack boot of liberal "tolerance" now whether anyone here likes it or not. It has already started, and it is just getting started. They won't be "saved". Now that they are sporting the first openly homosexual wizard in Children's literature they aren't some future Tolkien, if they ever were. Dumbeldore isn't a postmodern Gandalf now. Dumbledore is Ellen for the grade shool set, and trying to spin him as David Morrison isn't going to work.
You're doing it again, Zippy. This is the sort of thing that, while certainly not excusing the shabby treatment you've been receiving, is more than certainly one of the reasons for it.
He is not the "first openly homosexual wizard in Children's literature." At all. The statement is ridiculous. He is not - and was not - openly homosexual in any sense, whether in the explicit text of the books or the implicit backstory those books provided. Neither in deed, nor in ideology, nor in general tone. Nothing.
It didn't exist at all until it was perpetrated upon him after the fact, as it were, and now that it has been so ascribed to him - now, that is, that the reader is apparently forced to conduct a "queer reading" of the character - he still remains utterly closed.
Openly homosexual. Good grief.
That those among the ranks of our opponents in the Culture Wars can spin it to their advantage is not an argument against something. I guess we could bid farewell to St. Sebastian, among others, if that were the case.
I guess I really don't understand stories and meaning the way many people in these threads do.
Gandalf is a Maiar. This is not explicit in the canonical Lord of the Rings text itself, and was only made explicit later with the publication of the Silmarillion. But it is true of Gandalf nonetheless. The author has stated so in both cases in post-canonical background disclosure. Dumbledore is every bit as openly homosexual as Gandalf is openly Maiar.
I understand that people don't like it, but not liking it doesn't change the fact that Rowling has "outed" Dumbledore as homosexual, making him the first openly homosexual (in the sense that it isn't secret or ambiguous but has been explicitly revealed by the author) Wizard in children's literature.
Holy Mother of God! Mark's previous post was about the possibility of a reunion of the Traditional Anglican Communion with the Holy See. It has, so far, nine comments. The discussion of a series of books that are unlikely to survive a century (oh, and I like them, BTW) has gotten over 100 comments. Which is truly more important? Folks, JK Rowling is not Shakespeare, Austen, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, or Dickens. For that matter, she is not Solzhenitsyn, Tolkien, Potok, or Lewis, etc. What she thinks doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things, other than, of course, to God Himself. I am shocked that we Catholics put more emphasis on what JK has to say than on what, potentially, a half million Anglican souls may do. Please, let's pray for the reunion of the TAC with Rome, and for JK Rowling, of course--as we should do for anyone.
On the one hand, we have the people who think these books are of Satan.
On the other, we have people saying that they are wonderful Christian allegories.
These books are as Satanic as anything else in our secular culture, no need to single this out.
These books are about as Christian as Katharine Jefferts Schori, nothing to be proud of.
Some people are claiming these to be great literature.
Others are calling them dreck.
I suppose they can be called popular classics, and I suppose they are interesting enough for children's books, but other than all the people buying them, I can't see anything special. I read the first two and couldn't finish the third, it was so tiresome and predictable.
And what's with the language? The "American English" translations are insulting and confusing - where does the American begin and the British end? On one page, the character says "rubbish," and on the next page they are talking about soccer balls, elevators, and the first floor. Is it the English first floor (our second) or is it the American first floor (the British ground floor)? Who knows?
I might've stuck with it if I felt that the plot was worth my trouble.
Instead of these mediocre books, maybe adults can read something worthwhile, some Waugh or Steinbeck or Orwell or Henry James? Some Faulkner or O'Connor? How about Hemingway? Tolkein? F. Scott Fitzgerald?
Kevin Jones says it much more succinctly above when he said, "It's sad that a children's book series and crappy Dan Brown thrillers are the only literary events that rock the culture."
I guess I really don't understand stories and meaning the way many people in these threads do.
I guess you don't. :shrug:
I also guess (I am a great fan of guessing) that I have a hard time seeing the Silmarillion as being extra-canonical in the same way or degree that an utterance on a publicity tour would be. However, I'm not going to pursue this particular strand; I have not read the Silmarillion, or The Lord of the Rings for that matter, so little I could say about the subject would be informed by anything beyond the films.
As for mary margaret:
If and when I have something intelligent (or, failing that, interesting) to add to the discussion of the TAC's reconciliation with Rome, I can guarantee that the combox in question will be the very first to reap the benefit of it. For the time being, though, I - and so many of us here, possibly - will stick a topic about which something more can be said than "ditto."
The Gandalf as Maiar analogy doesn't hold water. Tolkien didn't say to fans one day, "You know, I always thought of Gandalf as an angel". No, he wrote another book, a prequel to The Lord of the Ring which was in the works before, during, and after the main novel. As I recall he always intended to publish it, but it didn't quite get done by the time he died so his son finished editing it and published it for him posthumously.
I have not read the Silmarillion, or The Lord of the Rings for that matter
BURN HIM!!!!!!
(Just trying to keep in the general spirit of the discussion so far. )
Wow. I'm a little disappointed at the vitriol in these comments. I live off this stuff, and even I'm thinking, "They're just fantasy novels, people. Chill out."
(I did have to chuckle a little, though, Eileen, at your comments on Michael O'Brien's A Landscape with Dragons and how he misses "Farmer Giles of Ham." He misses a lot of other stuff, too. I'm reading his book now and preparing a rebuttal.)
If we all take a deep breath and assess the situation, we come up with this: the Harry Potter novels are a series of fantasies with the expected human flaws inflicted on them by a human author. They aren't perfect; how can they be? They contain no references, even subtle references, to homosexuality. Dumbledore's homosexuality is part of the author's notes and homework, an explanation for something that didn't require an explanation. It is not a part of the books' final draft.
Furthermore, the books can be read as Christian allegory or as a number of other things; they are complex enough to allow a number of readings.
It is worth mentioning that Oscar Wilde was a practicing homosexual and that The Picture of Dorian Gray contains oblique homosexual references, yet it is stilll readable as a Christian morality tale? I think Shea has it right: there's the artist, and then there's the art, and sometimes the two appear curiously divorced from one another.
This notion that only Christian fiction with pure Christian themes is acceptable reading is absolutely killing Christians' ability to write well or read critically. We need to get over this debilitating trend before we start to do ourselves serious damage.
Has it not occurred to anyone who is verbally burning Rowling at the stake that they are, in fact, making the homosexualists' case that traditional Christians are bigots for them? I mean, the only gay love interest she mentions was an absolute moral disaster for Dumbledore and traditional Christians go absolutely nuts. I think that reaction will prove at least as useful to the gay rights movement as the original commentary, at least if it spills out of comboxes into the newspapers (and it will). Stuff like this makes "hate the sin and love the sinner" sound hollow.
Mike:
These books are as Satanic as anything else in our secular culture, no need to single this out.
These books are about as Christian as Katharine Jefferts Schori, nothing to be proud of.
This isn't as fair an appraisal as you seem to think it is.
I read the first two and couldn't finish the third, it was so tiresome and predictable.
Well, let's see. The first and second books were written with a protagonist who was eleven and twelve years old, respectively, and were aimed at readers of the same age. The seventh book unfolds within a context established by citations from Aeschylus and William Penn.
I once knew a man who judged Beethoven's Symphonic output on the first two and half of the third. That man is dead now, or may as well be.
In a less grandiose sense, though, there was once a girl who determined the tenor of her entire week by the events of Monday, Tuesday, and the first twelve (or so) hours of Wednesday; she was never happy, and she never did make it to Sunday. We should all at least make it to Sunday before we give up on things.
I might've stuck with it if I felt that the plot was worth my trouble.
The plot that actually would be worth your trouble does not begin to unfold until the end of the fourth book. Alas!
Instead of these mediocre books, maybe adults can read something worthwhile, some Waugh or Steinbeck or Orwell or Henry James? Some Faulkner or O'Connor? How about Hemingway? Tolkein? F. Scott Fitzgerald?
Maybe adults do read these things. Maybe they just don't read them all the time. Maybe reading such things is sometimes a chore rather than a pleasure.
BURN HIM!!!!!!
(Just trying to keep in the general spirit of the discussion so far. )
Oh come on, Mark, put your back into it.
"Strike his head from his shoulders! Let his streets run red with blood! May lions lie down in his high places!"
That sort of thing. Don't go easy on me. I'm letting the side down terribly!
Maybe reading such things is sometimes a chore rather than a pleasure.
Alas, it was the Harry Potter novels that became a chore for this old English major.
Well, there's literally no way I can argue with that, so I won't. I can only say that to become momentarily tired of the redoutable Sartoris clan or the lurid adventures of Miss Temple Drake (to take examples from one of your suggested wallahs) is not to simply give up on them forever and to feel pleased with oneself for having done so.
I'm glad I haven't read all of Faulkner yet, both because it would be a trying ordeal to have done so and because it means there's still more to enjoy. I can't say the same for O'Connor, though, having unwisely devoured her at a single sitting - the result, of course, being a funk from which I could not extract myself for weeks and the even more depressing realization that I would never be able to read her for the first time again, apart from certain correspondence or uncollected verse.
We young English majors are often marked by such feats of impudent imprudence, however, so your indulgence, as always, is begged.
If Rowling had started her first book with the back story of Dumbledore's SSA to another wizard:
1) There would have been only one book not seven and millions upon millions less children would have read it.
2) Most of the people who have been trumpeting the awesomeness of these great Christian books never would have attempted to do so and they wouldn't feel so invested in the fight that they feel the need to defend them even now.
------
'"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."'
You should try googling some of the gay Dumbledore fan fiction that gave Rowling such a chuckle just to think of it. Seems like she is pretty comfortable with the idea of him acting on his urges.
...so little I could say about the subject would be informed by anything beyond the films.
You'll be stunned to hear that I am pretty critical of particular parts of the films, I'm sure. Don't get me wrong: the films are outstanding when set in contrast to the usual Hollywood bilgewater. But as reflections of Tokien's stories they are mere shadows, in some places bent or even broken beyond recognition. The character Faramir, and the relationship between Frodo and Sam, are unrecognizable. (The screenwriters are quite explicit about this in the special features: they did not understand Faramir, the most chivalrous and manly character in the entire trilogy, and felt he had to be rewritten as the angst-filled my-daddy-doesn't-love-me wuss in the films. I cringe every time I see the actor's face now. They also did not understand the One Ring as a temptation which does not overwhelm free will, but rather saw it as almost a form of mind control. But I digress).
Anonymous:
The Gandalf as Maiar analogy doesn't hold water. Tolkien didn't say to fans one day, "You know, I always thought of Gandalf as an angel".
If I understand this correctly, the idea is that Rowling didn't really mean it, while Tolkien did really mean it. That doesn't seem like a lot upon which to hang one's hat, to me. At the very least it would be prudent to wait and see just how much she meant it.
Squiboda:
2) Most of the people who have been trumpeting the awesomeness of these great Christian books never would have attempted to do so and they wouldn't feel so invested in the fight that they feel the need to defend them even now.
Quite right. Having stopped with the first book, the series would not have run until the sixth and seventh books, and as such its Christian fans would not have any especially compelling reasons to hold the opinions they do. As it is, though...
In any event, I think that we can all agree that if things were other than they are, they would be quite different.
Zippy:
You'll be stunned to hear that I am pretty critical of particular parts of the films, I'm sure.
Not especially. I've often heard this said by those who are well-informed about the books, and the examples you cite, if true (and they seem very likely to be so, based on what little I do know about it), are fairly distressing.
Still, the point about the films' excellence in comparison to the surrounding typical sludge is well-made. Can you really not support such an argument being made for Harry Potter?
If I understand this correctly, the idea is that Rowling didn't really mean it, while Tolkien did really mean it. That doesn't seem like a lot upon which to hang one's hat, to me. At the very least it would be prudent to wait and see just how much she meant it.
No, no, no, no, no, Zipp: The Silmarillion is part of the canon as much as the Hobbit is. What Rowling said was an interpretation of canon (and it was phrased that way), not part of another book. If Rowling writes a prequel (e.g., "Albus Dumbledore and the First War") and explicitly establishes Dumbledore as a homosexual (whether active or not), then the two things will be analogous.
So Gandalf wasn't a Maiar until after the Silmarillion was published (after Tolkien's death no less), even though Tolkien wrote him as a Maiar from the beginning? And therefore Dumbledore won't actually be homosexual unless and until Rowling publishes a prequel, at which point he will retroactively become homosexual in the currently published Potter novels, even though he isn't now? When Tolkien told his sons about Gandalf being a Maiar, it wasn't true because the Silmarillion wasn't published until after his death?
It is an interesting positivist view of literary meaning, I suppose, but it isn't the way I understand literary meaning. And importantly, it isn't the way the world at large is going to understand literary meaning in this case. The world at large is going to understand literary meaning in this case by concluding that Dumbledore is homosexual, because the author wrote Dumbledore as homosexual.
Good writers work out the plot and details of their characters and then choose which elements of it make it in the written form. You do not tell everything, but you need to know what you don't tell.
Rowling did that exceptionally here.
But, just like Catholics who say that the author of a text is the rightful interpreter (and as a means of explaining who has the proper authority to interpret the Bible), so we MUST accept the author is correct even if they contradict what "critics" want. Indeed, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both were more than a little upset at critics who claimed to know more of their text than they!
Yet, as this post shows, and many others can figure out, Dumbledore's homosexuality led to his downfall, led to his pursuit of power, led to his ability to objectify others and use them for his own plans (Harry being used), etc. What redeems him at the end is (like Dudley) he finally sees what he has done, sees himself in the light of judgment, and accepts that judgment (indeed, the death is not the death of suicide or euthanasia, but the acceptance of punishment for sin -- the taking of the ring being a clear analogy to the life of sin Dumbledore fell into, and the decay and destruction it did to him and his body -- literally killing him--- showing the final impact of sin).
Oh, and if you read Hallows, it's clear that the relationship has been presented. You don't need "prequels" it's in the series.
we MUST accept the author is correct even if they contradict what "critics" want.
Is it J.K. Rowling's intent that "Dumbledore's homosexuality led to his downfall"? Or would she be more than a little upset at that interpretation?
Tom
She has not made any interpretation, so until then, we are free to read as we best see fit and how things seem to work together. And that relationship he had was destructive in many ways, and it was connected to evil (even to the fact that "for the greater good" became the justification for such evil). The search for power, the look to the world in a utilitarian fashion, all ties in to this.
So of course I could be wrong. But if Rowling doesn't say so, then, to me, it seems to all tie together.
Yet, again, we must accept the author and their knowledge as superior to our own for their own world.
It's started:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/
20071...pbEvepftdQDW7oF
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea that the world was less over-eroticized in 1674.
Holy cow, Pavel! That is one of the super-smutty centuries! And I'm sure you know the literature of those days at least as well as I!
But actually, your example says it all. Any century where a manual on guitar playing turns into a comment on other subjects... well, it's not exactly under-eroticized.
Is it J.K. Rowling's intent that "Dumbledore's homosexuality led to his downfall"? Or would she be more than a little upset at that interpretation?
The latter, pretty clearly. Embracing the former to "save the story" is an act of hermeneutical desperation, it seems to me.
Zippy
It is not desperation; when one reveals the content of that attraction and the consequence of it (Dumbledore's own death), it is very clear it is not a wholesome relationship. Which is exactly the point.
Even the quoted AP article has it that "Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his 'great tragedy.'"
Great, indeed, it was.
It is not desperation.
Yes it is. Rowling is pretty clearly not going to go along with the idea that homosexuality -qua- homosexuality was Dumbledore's downfall. That he was "romantically in love" with a bady guy was his downfall, perhaps; that his "romantic love" was homosexual in nature was not his downfall. Conflating the two is in my view an act of hermeneutical desperation.
Boy, oh boy, nothing gets us Christians stirred into a frenzy like homsexuality, does it?
I've always thought it a little strange that there is so much passion for something that directly involves only a few percent of us, while say, selfishness or greed on constant parade tempting nearly all of us seems to pass by most of my brothers and sisters with barely a yawn.
+J.M.J+
I just had a thought. If our kids mustn't learn about homosexuality before they turn 13, what do we do about Genesis 19? Do we forbid them to read the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until they are teenagers? What about the other "adult" portions of Sacred Scripture?
Mark Windsor writes:
>>>What if the vitriol was in iambic pentameter?
No good - there should be poetry *instead* of arguing, not poetic arguments.
D. G. D. Davidson writes:
>>>I did have to chuckle a little, though, Eileen, at your comments on Michael O'Brien's A Landscape with Dragons and how he misses "Farmer Giles of Ham." He misses a lot of other stuff, too. I'm reading his book now and preparing a rebuttal.
I'd love to read that rebuttal.
In Jesu et Maria,
+J.M.J+
I just had a thought. If our kids mustn't learn about homosexuality before they are 13, what do we do about Genesis 19? Do we forbid them to read the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until they are teenagers?
Mark Windsor writes:
>>>What if the vitriol was in iambic pentameter?
No good - there should be poetry instead of arguing, not poetic arguing.
D. G. D. Davidson writes:
>>>I did have to chuckle a little, though, Eileen, at your comments on Michael O'Brien's A Landscape with Dragons and how he misses "Farmer Giles of Ham." He misses a lot of other stuff, too. I'm reading his book now and preparing a rebuttal.
I'd love to read that rebuttal.
In Jesu et Maria,
Okay, how did that post twice?
Mark, feel free to remove one copy - and this post.
In Jesu et Maria,
It was pretty obvious from the book that young Dumbledore and Grindelwald were a sort of magical Leopold and Loeb. Now that we know they were also a sort of magical young Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme/Anne Perry, how does that endorse gayness?
"Be proud to be gay, because it turns you into a Nietzchean murderer"? "Don't worry; if you resist temptation and friendship for the rest of your life, maybe you won't turn into a blood-hungry psychotic again"?
The Church says it's okay for folks with SSA to have close friends, if they keep it healthy. Rowling says it's not. Wow, she's so tolerant.
Boy, oh boy, nothing gets us Christians stirred into a frenzy like homsexuality, does it?
Perhaps if you had a best friend from high school (a Christian, as well) get pulled into the homosexual lifestyle and watch it destroy his life, like I have, you would take the sin more seriously as well.
"I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the idea that the world was less over-eroticized in 1674."
I didn't say there was no sex in the 17th century.
We've lost much of the ability to express ourselves allusively and symbolically, and therefore to integrate experience, including erotic experience, into a complete - and Christian - world view.
I could put it in plain English - but I won't.
Francis, I am sorry about your friend. I'm sure such an experience would affect my views.
Let me be clear though, homosexuality is a very serious matter. With so much emphasis from so many of my brothers and sisters, I just suspect that it gets inordinate attention.
I'm not a Potter reader and haven't kept up with the series much, but maybe someone can clarify something for me: It has been often asserted that Potter is Christian allegory, and now of course there's this gay Dumbledore character. But when they said it was "Christian," what did they mean, precisely? Was is Bendict XVI Christianity or the sort endorsed by the liberal elements of the Episcopal Church (or something else)? I wonder if it is possible that orthodox Christians deceived themselves by assuming that Rowling was on their side. Whereas I think it is quite possible, indeed likely, that Rowling will continue to insist on the Christian connection and cite Dumbledore's homosexuality (and the presumable tolerant stance towards it that the revelation seems to be carrying) as actual evidence of the books' Christian intent?
Drunken IH,
That's the question, isn't it.
Rowling claims to attend the C of E, which would mean she's Anglican. Though technically a church, doubts have been raised as to whether modern Anglicanism is in any meaningful sense "Christian" any more.
Log on to Stand Firm In Faith or Midwestern Conservative Journal for further details.
Let me be clear though, homosexuality is a very serious matter. With so much emphasis from so many of my brothers and sisters, I just suspect that it gets inordinate attention.
The attention is only proportional to the massive onslaught to browbeat the straights into granting moral approval to homosexual acts. I say this often: if there is ever a Theives' Pride parade, I assure you our brothers and sisters will make more commentary on the wrongness of stealing.
This is politics inserted into what still is considered children's literature. It is also the normalization of homosexuality yet again. The vast vast majority of people including most christians do not understand the differences between SSA and Acts. They are one in the same for most people. Good luck getting that message out.
I'm disgusted with the daily drum beating from the media on homosexuality and the destruction of gender identity. I will NOT however quit speaking out against it
The irony of course is that there is never any indication that Dumbledore actually engaged in a homosexual act. It would be nice if the MSM actually got that fact before hyping Dumbledore as a gay hero.
Ira, go read John Granger's books. He's laid out the Christian themes beautifully.
The strictures of New Criticism wouldn't permit us to extra any information from THE HISTORY OF MIDDLE EARTH etc. which are invaluable for Tolkien study. So I can't talk about Galadriel's height (6'4") or her athletic ability or her hatred of Feanor because that's not stated in LOTR or the SIL? (Never mind that there was rather more of Christopher in the SIL and CHILDREN OF HURIN than readers assumed.)
That the Wizards were angels was first made public in THE ROAD GOES EVER ON and privately in Tolkien's letters long before the SIL was published. I shudder to think how New Criticism would work on Chaucer or Dante.
On a more neutral aspect of HP, do Rowling's comments about studying up on alchemy to write the books support the patterns HP critics had already seen or are they irrelevant?
This discussion looks particularly strange to me after all those years in the sf world where authors' sources and influences circulated freely both before and after the books were published. And the same for artwork.
Maureen was, of course, sensible. HEAVENLY CREATURES is hardly a love letter to lesbianism.
>Yes it is. Rowling is pretty clearly not going to go along with the idea that homosexuality -qua- homosexuality was Dumbledore's downfall.
She only JUST anounced Dumbledore was gay & already you are predicting her plot points. This is WHY I have reason to doubt you Zippy, when you claim not to be a fanatical HP hater. Unfair mischaracteriation of her work is the mark of the HP hater. A rational person would wait & see instead of making snape judgements. This reversion of yours to HappyZappy Mode is getting less amusing by the day.
>That he was "romantically in love" with a bady guy was his downfall, perhaps; that his "romantic love" was homosexual in nature was not his downfall.
Logically it would have to be since it is the most natural explaination why Dumbledore turned a blind eye to the evil of the one secretly loved. Mrs. Padme Skywalker did the same thing as I recall.
>Conflating the two is in my view an act of hermeneutical desperation.
It seems a natural interpretation of the text BUT to a person whose only means of rational argument thus far has been glib dismisals why should any of us be suprised?
I said: "When you people start arguing honestly, then I'll say so."
Zippy replied: "OK, Jerk."
Pot, meet kettle.
Logically it would have to be since it is the most natural explaination why Dumbledore turned a blind eye to the evil of the one secretly loved. Mrs. Padme Skywalker did the same thing as I recall.
Darth Vader was gay?!?? I thought he was Nixon!
No Vader is a whiney disgruntled teenager.
And Padme died of a broken heart because she loved the whiney disgruntled teenager. It's soooo deep. George Lucas and J. K., peas in a pod. 
I guess I really don't understand stories and meaning the way many people in these threads do.
Gandalf is a Maiar. This is not explicit in the canonical Lord of the Rings text itself, and was only made explicit later with the publication of the Silmarillion. But it is true of Gandalf nonetheless. The author has stated so in both cases in post-canonical background disclosure. Dumbledore is every bit as openly homosexual as Gandalf is openly Maiar.
That Gandalf is a Maia is mentioned in the appendices, Zippy, so I guess I agree with you: you do not understand stories and meaning the way many people in these threads do.
Thanks for the advice. I did that, up until the sixth time he called me a liar. Call me a liar six times and I'm gonna think you are acting like a jerk, and I'll probably tell you that I think you are acting like a jerk. I don't think in context that just saying so is beyond the pale of civilized discussion, and at a certain point it becomes codependent not to let the other guy know that he is acting like a jerk.
When anti-Potterites start arguing honestly, then I'll happily say so.
The attention is only proportional to the massive onslaught to browbeat the straights into granting moral approval to homosexual acts....
That's a good point, Scott W. and I tire of the browbeating too. However, why isn't it enough to "just say no"? In fact, we've already said it. Alot. Too many of us have said it very uncharitably and often.
There's plenty of browbeating from both sides. It's as if both Christians and Post-Moderns desperately want the 90-odd percent of straights to think they way they do about gays. All the turmoil has very little good effect on the few percent who are directly involved. How many souls are we driving away? How many souls are we winning?
As a precaution, I'll say now that I'll only participate in this conversation as long as it remains charitable. This topic often gets ugly in a hurry as a few others on this thread are demonstrating right now. All of us are pretty much on the same side, and we should be able to keep that in mind.
...if there is ever a Theives' Pride parade... our brothers and sisters will make more commentary on the wrongness of stealing.
I like that. It gives me pause. But hey, wait a minute.... isn't materialism on parade all the time? "Extreme House Makeover" and Hummers are my peeves. (Extreme HM even gets away with painting themselves as noble.) The few Christians speaking out against these kinds of excesses cannot be heard above the homosexuality din.
Day 2 and going strong. We may make 200 comments. Interesting. I think what hit me was the reaction from the HP fans of a traditional Christian hue. My initial thought when we watched the story with our boys? I assumed those traditional Christians who really went to bat for JKR and HP would have had at least some level of anger, or at least be somewhat upset. They might even take a step back about continuing to promote these books that, like it or not, are aimed at children. After all, one of the common themes in most traditional Christian blogs is ‘evil post-modern culture tries to corrupt our children.’ And yet - nothing. Actually, not nothing. Something quite surprising. A level of leeway and latitude that I have not seen when applied to other dispensers of pop culture. If the fans are angry at anyone, it appears to be at any Christians who are disturbed at what JKR has said.
I truly am shocked. Not that it was time to get the logs while someone else gets the gasoline and matches. After all, a little more grace in other discussions may not have been a bad thing, and maybe this will help. But what JKR said, and who she said it to (children, millions of them - her fans), is disturbing. Not just because I have a hunch where she stands on the issues. But because now she is using her celebrity rock-star status with children to throw this out there. These are kids for crying out loud. They are kids now exposed, if they weren’t before, to the fact that one of their literary heros was gay. Not finding it out later on, when they can read through the lines (and from what I have heard, that apparently was hard for the adults to see). But being told by rock-star author JKR that something that apparently had no bearing on the story was actually the case; being told that this hero was gay.
What’s gay Mom and Dad? And remember boys and girls, tolerance is super duper important, and you should also question authority. That’s what the books are all about...boys and girls. And now, to absolve her, I have to assume she was distinguishing SSA from actual sexually active homosexuality? What’s that mean, Mom and Dad? No, I will expect the exact same leeway and latitude from now on regarding all other books, movies, TV shows, and rock songs that are aimed at children. Anything less, and I’m afraid credibility will suffer accordingly.
>When anti-Potterites start arguing honestly, then I'll happily say so.
Amen!
Owning up to illegitimate arguments would be a step in the right direction. Please note I have said nothing against people who believe HP is "badly written" or "popular tripe". Those thought harsh are fairminded criticism(& a matter of taste).
http://www.time.com/time/arts/
ar...1674550,00.html
Sean:
In one of your comments above, you give these example of dishonesty:
...to blurt out "game over; rowling stabbed you in the back" when the game very obviously is not over, and we were not stabbed in the back...
...[to] call HP "just another turd-bomb in the culture wars" when it so obviously is not.
Since these are obviously not acts of dishonesty, but of expressing opinions you disagree with, should I call you dishonest?
I guess I'm not puzzled anymore, simply amused at how some people here reacted to Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore. I'm sure the homosexual lobby is delighted about this new information, just like they are they delighted to point out that Tchaikovsky was gay, Michelangelo's SSA, Plato's Socrates, and so on. Does that in any way diminish the standing of these people?
The issue is not whether Dumbledore had SSA, but what did he do or didn't do.
Once again, although I love to read, I'm no great fan of the Harry Potter books (by the third book they became too much of a chore so I quit). Nonetheless, the fact that some people suddenly feel betrayed by Rowlings because of what she said about Dumbledore seems very silly to me.
>Since these are obviously not acts of dishonesty, but of expressing opinions you disagree with, should I call you dishonest?
Claiming JKR put beastality in the HP novels is mere disagrement? I think not.
Phil,
Said it to children. Next time I go to a concert for Tchaikovsky and see thousands of screaming children all clamoring for information on his life, then I will concede the point. These books are aimed at children (that adults like them is icing on the cake). JKR said it knowing her base of millions of children will hear what she said. That doesn't bother anyone? Amazing. Simply amazing.
Please note I have said nothing against people who believe HP is "badly written" or "popular tripe". Those thought harsh are fairminded criticism(& a matter of taste).
Unfortunately, those of us that consider HP badly written and popular tripe are often castigated as being anti-Harry hate mongers. You watch, before long, anyone that dislikes HP will be labled a homophobe as well. It's only a matter of time. I've said before that I liked the first three books very much, the next three were terrible, and the last one was pretty good. For that I've been called a Harry-hater. Sometimes...just sometimes...the Harry-lovers need to get a bit better sense of what's important as well.
And both sides could remember what their grandmothers taught them about manners.
Outing the prof was a dumb thing for Rowling to do. We have enough problems in the culture wars without having to dodge friendly fire as well.
Dave G.: The Hobbit is marketed to children. While it has no homexuality (either textual or backstory), it does have references to torture, cannibalism, murder, and a scene of drunkenness. And it was written by a man who in other books included themes of, among other things incest, diabolism, and sexual lust. Why does Tolkien get a pass but not Rowling?
Tom: as attempts to stamp out all opposition, those remarks by Zippy certainly were dishonest. Zippy was basically saying, "I was right, everyone else was wrong, so stfu."
Where I come from, attempts to shut down discussion with insults and indimidation is dishonest debate.
Dave, judging from this thread it actually bothers a lot of people, and yes, I'm amazed at that.
And children are perfectly capable of distinguishin between SSA and homosexual acts themselves. Just like children are perfectly capable of distinguishing between the temptation to steal to the act of stealing, between the desire to hurt someone out of anger and actually hurting someone, between the desire for revenge and revenge itself.
>Unfortunately, those of us that consider HP badly written and popular tripe are often castigated as being anti-Harry hate mongers.
I refuse to be one of them.
>Outing the prof was a dumb thing for Rowling to do. We have enough problems in the culture wars without having to dodge friendly fire as well.
That is an intellegent criticism & far better than saying the woman put beastiality in her novels.
I've said before that I liked the first three books very much, the next three were terrible, and the last one was pretty good.
Mark, my experience was just the opposite: I muscled my way through the first two, thought the third was a vast improvement, and thought the last four were outstanding -- with the seventh the best of the lot.
Like Ben, I have no problem with people who just do not like the books. But I have also found that, with some people, saying, "these books are tripe and do not measure up to Lewis or Tolkien," is one such dishonest tactic. It's a red herring, meant to derail pro-Harry partisans.
For one thing, I am a drooling Tolkien fanatic and I have never said that Rowling is in his league. Maybe some people feel that way, but I do not.
For another thing, not even Rowling has ever passed herself off as being in Tolkien's or Lewis' league. Harry Potter is what it is: it is good. It works great as a penny dreadful. Whether it has staying power only time will tell. But the anti-Potterites keep asserting that Rowling is not in Lewis' or Tolkien's league, when pro-potterites do not (that I have seen) even make that assertion.
I can only conclude that the anti-Potterites use that red herring for no other reason than it is a red herring.
In other words, dishonest debate.
Sean P. Dailey wrote: Dave G.: The Hobbit is marketed to children. While it has no homexuality (either textual or backstory), it does have references to torture, cannibalism, murder, and a scene of drunkenness. And it was written by a man who in other books included themes of, among other things incest, diabolism, and sexual lust.
I would also point out that Sacred Scripture itself contains all of that --- and more.
When it comes to the content of literature and storytelling, we must judge context along with content.
"The Hobbit is marketed to children. While it has no homexuality (sic).... it does have references to torture, cannibalism, murder, and a scene of drunkenness.... Why does Tolkien get a pass but not Rowling?"
Maybe because Tolkien didn't *condone*
torture, cannibalism, murder, and drunkenness?
I confess I haven't read through all 186 (sheesh, people!) comments, but just in case no one has mentioned this yet:
Mr. Shea is too kind in his rating to Genesis. If anyone made an accurate film of Genesis, it would garner an NC-17 rating. No question.
St. Anon, show me in the text of any of the seven volumes of Harry Potter where Rowling condones evil.
And for those of you keeping score at home, this, is yet another example of dishonest debate: making an implication that Rowling condones evil by saying that Tolkien did not.
Sean,
And if Tolkien were alive today and suddenly stated that Bilbo was a cannibal, I would have the same issue. That is no different than the defense of Bill Clinton that said, “Other presidents had affairs, so what’s the big deal?”
Phil,
Am I to assume then that a movie or show directed at children that has a gay character (and in case anyone misses it, is it pointed out by the director or actor), is OK at this point? Is that the standard? Just making sure.
Mr. Shea is too kind in his rating to Genesis. If anyone made an accurate film of Genesis, it would garner an NC-17 rating. No question.
Well yeah, chaaaa, it starts with full frontal nudity, for crying out loud.
Phil, you can't be a parent. I mean, can you imagine trying to explain to a young child what it is that gay men do to each other's bodies. Are you serious?
Dave G, yes, I think it was despicable for JKR to bring children into the culture war in this way. I'm not quite ready to explain the difference between SSA and homosexual acts to my 11yr old. Sheesh...
It's just another assault from popular culture though.
But the anti-Potterites keep asserting that Rowling is not in Lewis' or Tolkien's league, when pro-potterites do not (that I have seen) even make that assertion.
So when you, Sean, wrote that Deathly Hallows was the Best. Book. [or was it Novel.?] Ever., and that saying so was not hyperbole, what you really meant was what?
I'll open up my question to Phil to all you Potter defenders. Tell me, in your own words, the words that use will use when a young child says, "Mommy (Daddy), everyone is laughing and saying Dumbledore is gay. What does that mean?"
J Dave G (I'm still not used to that, it's like typing Dear Me,),
Of course it is. That is the question at hand. Should HP continue to be promoted as Christian literature, literature with Christian themes, a book about a boy wizard, or what? Since it is marketed to children, should we at least wait at this point until we find out more information? Or are we willing to change how we deal with such things from now on in terms of other things in our culture that are aimed at our children?
If they're old enough to read Deathly Hallows, they ALREADY KNOW what gay means. In fact, they've probably known for years. You guys do realize that children have other sources of information besides parents, right? If their teachers haven't told them, their classmates, the Internet, or the TV has.
From 2 different first-hand accounts of the event in question:
No. 1: "Yeah, that’s how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair… [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, “Dumbledore’s gay!” [laughter] If I’d known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"
No. 2: "That’s how she saw Dumbledore. Recenty she read the script for the sixth film, and the writers had Dumbledore saying to Harry, “I knew a girl once, whose hair….” She had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, saying “Dumbledore’s gay!” When the audience laughed and applauded, she said, “The fanfiction, eh?” She also joked that she would have mentioned this earlier if she’d known the audience would react so positively."
Could those still attempting to argue that JKR meant Dumbledore's homosexuality was some kind of tragic flaw or failing please give it a rest now? You are knee deep in denial.
"Comrades! Shouldn't we be struggling TOGETHER?"
"WE ARE! WE ARE!"
"Shouldn't we be struggling against the COMMON enemy?"
"Orson Card?"
"Pullman!"
"Oh. Yeah. THAT enemy."
Phil, you can't be a parent. I mean, can you imagine trying to explain to a young child what it is that gay men do to each other's bodies.
Unnecessary. I knew what the term gay meant years before I understood what they did behind closed doors.
Anonymous,
Thanks for pointing that out. As a parent, I had no idea. Now, on with the discussion at hand.
Dave,
I wasn't responding to you. These comboxes move fast.
Yes they do move fast. And by the way, we passed 200! Congrats everyone, I knew we could do it.
Or in keeping with the spirit of the season:
"For the comboxes travel fast."
Drunken, yes I am a parent. By now in the mid-teens. Healthy, hard working, straight As, Christian. The important word here is context. As you know, nobody has to get into all the details for a child to know what an homosexual act is, just like without denying the reality of sex we do not get into the details about the mechanics of how moms and dads make babies when a curious child is a bit too young.
Dave G., I would object to a film for kids in which one of the positive characters glorifies homosexuality. This is very very different from what Rowlings has done.
Let me throw this out there too:
There are as I see it two aspects to all this that we are intermingling:
1. The literary question of whether the author's statement of intent outside the covers of the book is binding or not, and
2. Harry Potter as a cultural phenomenon (for good or ill).
On number 1, I'm sort of with the Potter defenders. There is a legitimate school of literary criticism -- the "New Criticism," it was called, although it is no longer new -- in which only the actual text can be dealt with. Not the author's intent or statements or biography, or anything else. Critics of the New Criticism have pointed out, though, that it is impossible to understand some of the poetry of, say, Wordsworth, without reference to the belief systems that underly the poems ... yet, to the New Criticism school, they're off limits -- a result that leads to a deficient understanding of Wordsworth. I'll leave it to the Potterites to decide whether Rowling's Dumbledore comment is worth considering in light of the text (I really can't be bothered with the books, as the genre is of no interest to me).
Concerning HP as a cultural phenom, Potterite defenders seem to be on a ship that is fast taking on water. The verdict from the mainstream culture seems to be in rather quickly: Gay Potter is a Great Thing and our Only Regret is that is was not More Explicit to begin with. Like it not, HP has become a new touchstone of homosexual tolerance. Yeah, I know and accept all the arguments that the Catholic Church teaches about the distinction between person and act, but that distinction is not going to be the operative one in the debate that goes on in society. Actually, I shouldn't say debate since there isn't really one in the mainstream: to them, there are people who fully accept every aspect of homosexulaity, and the close-minded bigots who are looking for gasoline and matches.
Phil,
But where JKR is going with it remains to be seen. She may never clarify, leaving the context the final authority (in this case, the context will be where culture runs with it, since it is, as Drunken points out, a cultural phenomenon).
Dave G - I’m guessing you’d prefer not to be “Mini-me”
I think there is little doubt that HP support from Christians will be drastically reduced. The few defenses of it that I’ve read did not promote it as Chistian allegory in the vein of Narnia et al., put merely promoted it as good literature compatible with Christianity. The books themselves will continue to be that no matter how JKR decides to ride this tidal wave she started.
As for “such things from now on”, well, the most recent example previous to the HP phenomenon, was perhaps The Wizard of Oz, and it wasn’t even half as big. As a popular culture phenomenon, HP is unprecedented. It will likely be decades before anything remotely like it happens again.
Has it not occurred to anyone who is verbally burning Rowling at the stake that they are, in fact, making the homosexualists' case that traditional Christians are bigots for them?
It occurred to me. I have read this thread with mounting horror as one commenter after another chimes in to declare the proper Christian response to gays to be: Your existence is a dirty secret to be kept from our children as long as possible, and the idea of one of you mentoring children horrifies us.
Zippy: The books are going to be used as gay agitprop and the jack boot of liberal "tolerance" now whether anyone here likes it or not. It has already started, and it is just getting started.
Zippy, I hate to add to the number of accusations levelled at you in this thread, but I must accuse you of uncritical acceptance and repetition of "gay agitprop", and inadvertant furtherance of the same - specifically, the following argument: that the existence of gays implies a moral imperative to all that is meant by "tolerance" today. Gay activism starts from the existence of gays and, by that logic, goes on to demand tolerance. You start from a dislike of "tolerance", and by the same logic, decry recognition of the existence of gays.
When I was a young impressionable teenager, the sort you would like protected from Harry Potter, the difference between desire and action and hence between temptation and sin was obvious to me. The existence of gays did not seem a threat to Christian morality, for that reason. It does now, because the aforementioned argument has been hammered into my brain by not just gay activists but moralists like yourself speaking as if it's self-evident truth. I cannot in good conscience deny Christian morality regarding homosexuality, but it's hard to defend it in my own mind, let alone before other people, because I know that all theory regarding love the sinner, hate the sin becomes, in practice, upstanding Christians to gays: you are a dirty secret. Hide yourselves. (If not from adults, then at least from children.)
So, HP. A children's author has written a character who is gay, celibate and exalts sacrificial love. By what I once took Christian teaching to be, this is exactly what Christianity thinks gays to be. So what if other people understand the character differently if I can use it to illustrate a vision of virtue that is hard but worth it? Do you have any better memorable examples of characters who live worthwhile lives regardless of disordered desires that you can give us while you're trashing this one? Are you even aware of the importance of such things for some of us?
Dave G. you wrote:
"But where JKR is going with it remains to be seen. She may never clarify, leaving the context the final authority (in this case, the context will be where culture runs with it, since it is, as Drunken points out, a cultural phenomenon)."
I don't disagree with you on that.
Perhaps my seeming indifference to the news that Dumbledore is gay is that I, as I keep on saying, was not a great fan of the series. I didn't think they were bad books, but I definitely didn't think they were great. Also, I never considered the books as either Christian or not Christian. I never saw them through that lens.
Okay, I'm bowing out of this one. Not much new can be said from either side.
what Christianity thinks gays to be - I meant, should be, sorry. (And Zippy, sorry to single you out - it's just your post epitomised something that really, really bothers me about this whole discussion.)
To Mark, Anonymous, Pavel, and everyone talking sanity in this thread: thanks.
Nick: you should totally put that ballade up on your blog, if not on the C&F blog.
I applaud the tone Godescalc has taken here, and most of the content too. However, if JKR comes out saying "Of course Dumbledore was celibate. I am completely RC on this issue" I'll eat my hat.
Just read your long comment, Godescalc. Very well said. Thanks for writing it.
Okay, now I will really bow out.
So when you, Sean, wrote that Deathly Hallows was the Best. Book. [or was it Novel.?] Ever., and that saying so was not hyperbole, what you really meant was what?
Golly you are an insufferable nit-picker, Tom! Pardon me for posting while in a euphoria over what was a very joyful reading experience. Pardon me for never imagining that my Comic Book Guy voice would be used against me.
Who knew! *sheesh!*
I can only conclude that the anti-Potterites use that red herring for no other reason than it is a red herring.
In other words, dishonest debate.
I see your point, Sean, but I have to respectfully disagree.
JKR writes in a genre that includes Lewis and JRRT. Lewis and JRRT are held to be the masters of the field (arguable point, I know, but in general terms they are often seen as the masters of fantasy). Holding a fantasy book up against the masters of the genre is not foul play. Example:
I happen to like the Thomas Covenant series (well, I did...haven't read them in many years and they may be dated now). Is it illegitimate to compare the writing of Stephen Donaldson to the writing of CS Lewis? I think not. (For that matter, I think a far better discussion might be between Rowling and Donaldson as writers, but perhaps that's best left for another day.)
The world that Donaldson created is far more complete than the world that the one created by JKR, and arguably more complete than Narnia in some respects (at least in the first book). The simple fact is, I don't think JKR - as a writer and a constructor of plot lines - is as good as Stephen Donaldson. Further, I don't believe Donaldson to be in Lewis or JRRT's league overall. These are my opinions, but I don't see how that equates to a bucket full of red herring or a dishonest debate.
Zippy et alia ad infinitum might be a bit more brutal in their critique (especially after this long an argument), but comparing one writer to another is standard fare in comp lit classes, not quintessential dishonesty.
The cultural phenomenon should be the real issue.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Snape was the only straight teacher on staff. Lockhart was flaming-er than Fawkes by half, and Tonks was definitely a beard.
A children's author has written a character who is gay, celibate and exalts sacrificial love.
And when JKR comes out and clarifies this is what her intentions were, I will concede the point. In the meantime, I will remember this for all future discussion of popular culture, the gay rights issue, and Christian teaching.
By the way, your characterization of those who have concerns is incorrect. Some can actually disagree with JKR's methods and not be ignorant homophobes. Nor are we teaching our children to be ignorant homophobes simply because we see things differently than you.
I wonder how many of us here understand that we're in the midst of an assault by hell against heaven.
A children's author has written a character who is gay, celibate and exalts sacrificial love.
...
And when JKR comes out and clarifies this is what her intentions were, I will concede the point.
She has said the first. The third is plain and obvious in the text. The second is very strongly implied from the text (or to be precise, the text makes no mention of any sexual activity other than a bad and badly-turned-out act long ago in the past and explicitly regretted).
If one thinks homosexual persons are animals who should always be inferred to be rutting with abandon if there is not a "he is celibate"-sign attached -- the second will seem like a stretch. The fact that the text mentions no Dumbledore behavior in the interim decades simply means that Rowling left them out and is waiting to reveal them in her next book "The Fabulous Harry Potter."
Mr. "Drunken Ira Hayes,"
Couldn't you find another handle for your posts?
Do you find it funny to make reference to the drinking problem (and ultimatly the tragic death) of a heroic soldier who bravely fought for our country at the Battle of Iwo Jima?
Seriously, change your name. It's offensive and inappropriate.
Thanks.
Pavel, every sin is hell's assault against heaven. I don't think harping so much on homosexuality, or any single sin for that matter, is very effective in bring people to God.
Anatomy of an Evil Homosexuality-promoting Plan
1) Write an incredibly popular series of books with no homosexuality in them.
2) Announce at a public event that you've always viewed a major character as gay. Say that a relationship already portrayed as superlatively disasterous was the love of his life. Don't even hint at any other gay relationships.
3) Sit back and watch traditional Christians to rain down condemnations against you and your books like never before.
4) Wait for gay activists to point to those condemnations and say, "See? Those Christians who claim to hate the "sin" and love the "sinner" are lying hypocritical bigots. They don't just hate what we do, or even hate us just for what we do: they hate us for who we are. Even if we never had sex they'd still hate us."
5) Cackle wildly.
(Note: I'm certainly not saying this was her plan, but if it were, you guys have played your part masterfully.)
If one thinks homosexual persons are animals who should always be inferred to be rutting with abandon
I don't. I just never realized how open we should be to allowing pop culture to inform our children about the issue of homosexuality, and how good it is for children's materials to bring the issue straight to their attention. Until this weekend, I thought it was frowned upon. Heck, I almost would have thought it was things like this that made us chafe at where our culture was heading. Well, silly me. I guess I'll have to give Hollywood and the rest more leeway from now on and stop being so darned closed-minded, especially where my children are concerned.
Golly you are an insufferable nit-picker, Tom!
Granted. I can be particular picky about calling someone dishonest.
"Pavel, every sin is hell's assault against heaven. I don't think harping so much on homosexuality, or any single sin for that matter, is very effective in bring people to God."
I'm not 'harping' on anything. I'm trying to point to the universal context.
If the war on terror is deadly serious, what can you say about the war against hell?
People are losing a grip on what's at stake - if they haven't already lost it.
IF TREMENDOUS
The drought goes on so long
That even the Amalekites on foot,
Thieves and Babylonians can walk
From Moab scheming savagery and loot
This Jordan is a river run in time -
Cain and Abel quarrel in the street
With their descendant generals and politicians -
All of them cross Jordan on their feet
How long until the rain of mercy falls -
This loveless river valley is so dry
Our anger blows the grit of it in squalls
Of hopeless arid bitterness and lies
Everyone who ever lived is here -
A single cloud is rising up but where?
If small enough the little cloud is near,
But if tremendous it is far to fear
Pavel
October 13 2007
Pavel,
No, please, no, let's not compare the War on Terror with the "War on Hell"! Back when we thought that way we burnt people alive, started wars (including fratricidal wars), tortured each other (including waterboarding) all in the name of God. Some of hell's greatest victories were the product of the "War on Hell".
Anonymous,
And hells single greatest victory has been to convince so many people that no battle exists at all. Nothin' to see here. Move along...
Maclin Horton said it better than I can (sorry for the long cut and paste here – the entire article is worth the read at www.lightondarkwater.com/blog, scroll down to October 7, 2007).
Maclin writes:
The broad political questions involved here are, for any one of us, less urgent and important than the individual souls we encounter. If someone I know has had an abortion, my first concern is not for her status before the law, but for her. I want her to know that the heart of reality is love, not just love in the abstract but love for her in particular… My job is to help her see that. If by my words—harsh or callous or merely careless words commenting on the political question—I fail to assist her toward that vision, or, God forbid, even hinder her, what is God’s judgment on me likely to be?
Similarly for the practicing homosexual: … Only if I am guided first and foremost by the desire that he (or she) would see and know divine love do I have the right to expect him (or her) to listen to anything I have to say about human love. If by flippant or derogatory remarks in the context of the political argument I make it more difficult for him or her to see divine love, what is God’s judgment on me likely to be?
I realize, of course, that there is a place for hard words. Sometimes a shock is what’s needed; we have the example of the prophets and of Jesus himself for that. But I can think of several arguments against a resort to denunciation on the part of those who are not explicitly called to it. There’s the simple fact of human nature, that one is far more likely to respond to kindness and sympathy than to anger and condemnation. There’s the fact that the harshness of the prophets and, at times, of Jesus was directed mainly to those already of the household of faith who were not living up to their calling. And there’s the example of Jesus and the woman about to be stoned for adultery: only after he had saved her life did he tell her to go and sin no more.
I'll open up my question to Phil to all you Potter defenders. Tell me, in your own words, the words that use will use when a young child says, "Mommy (Daddy), everyone is laughing and saying Dumbledore is gay. What does that mean?"
I think a little musicalization goes a long way:
Sometimes men love women
Sometimes men love men,
And then there are bisexuals
Though some just say they're kidding themselves.
La lalala lalalalala la
La la lalala lala la la
I think this post sums up the situation very nicely.
Drunkin Ira Hayes,
Notwithstanding Different's post above, for the record I like your handle. The classic and moving song from which it is derived used that name as an ironic emblem of sympathy for a man worthy of honor. Accordingly, I take your handle as an implicit expression of appreciation for that song and, therefore, compliment to that man, nothing more.
Yes, the only thing that really requires that D be homosexual is the fact that it's 1997. If it were 1957, he'd be required to have an oedipus complex.
My Yes was to Sean Roberts' link.
I just wanted to respond to the point about the New Criticism raised above.
I do believe that the text one is interpreting should be the primary source for one's criticism. Externals should be weighed in the light of how they affect the text; e.g., George Eliot's embrace of Naturalism illuminates much of "Silas Marner" that might be difficult to understand without knowing anything about that philosophy, but one needn't wade into the complex arguments about the exact extent (if any) to which Jane Austen was sympathetic with the various contemporary movements for religious reform in order to understand her books.
This move of JKR's is completely outside that, though; it is a grafting-on of an important character trait after the fact. You can argue that she hints at it in "Hallows" (the one book I haven't so far had time to read) but it's actually rather cowardly of her to handle the matter as she has chosen to handle it.
If her target audience is old enough to understand homosexuality, then the proper way to raise the issue re: Dumbledore would have been to be honest about his orientation in the final book, in a way that is clearly established in the text. If the target audience is not old enough to handle the complexity of this issue, then it needed to be left out of the story altogether, including post-publication interviews. Raising it at a talk after the series has been published looks like a combination of pandering and cowardice--a desire to have her cake and eat it too, in the sense that she wanted the character to be gay but didn't quite dare to make that clear within the books themselves.
So, even if Rowling now insists that Dumbledore was either a celibate or a chaste homosexual and that it's all those evil-minded Christians who think otherwise, the fact of the matter is that no one is disrespecting homosexuals more than she has, by keeping Dumbledore's orientation completely hidden throughout the series and revealing it only after the last book has not only been published but discussed far more seriously than such a lightweight work of pop fiction deserves to be.
even if Rowling now insists that Dumbledore was either a celibate or a chaste homosexual and that it's all those evil-minded Christians who think otherwise, the fact of the matter is that no one is disrespecting homosexuals more than she has, by keeping Dumbledore's orientation completely hidden throughout the series and revealing it only after the last book has not only been published but discussed far more seriously than such a lightweight work of pop fiction deserves to be.
Not bad. I'm inclined to agree.
I'm very content not to have a dog in this fight. I've read some of the Potter books. They were okay. They are not subversive. Neither are they near the caliber (IMO) of Tolkien, or even Lewis, but then, I probably wouldn't know great literature if it bit me on the butt.
I think the Potter books, because of their enormous success, have become a kind of Rorschach ink blot. Some imagine Rowling a crafty Servant of Satan, and others look for a literary Christian Paladin, when she is really just this lady author who hit a chord with her audience. A good writer (not great) with a good idea and a fantastic publisher.
I didn't come away from the books I read feeling that I had just encountered the work of a literary genius. They were enjoyable enough, just not very high on my list of "things to get back to".
Might as well toss my two cents in ...
I found the first HP book fresh new and interesting. After a while I was just curious about the story so I continued to read the books. Finally, I found them to be a house-of-cards that held together well enough if you didn't look at it too hard.
This latest revelation by JR knocked the whole thing down. I've lost interest. I won't recommend them to anyone, nor will I read them to my grand daughter when she is old enough.
A pox on the whole mess. "Homosexuality ... YOU.MUST.APPROVE.
No, I don't.
Dave G: apologies for wrongly characterising the intent & attitude of you or anyone else here. I was generalising the thread, which necessarily involves some inadvertent slander. As far as the general tone of the thread, and the message that came across to my ears, I stand by my characterisation.
Also, I seriously doubt anyone in this combox is all that interested in having Hollywood dictate your child's worldview to them (I doubt many outside it are, either). What everyone else is saying I leave to them to clarify, but what I'm saying (generalise it or not as you will) is that when I were a young teen, the difference between sin and temptation was obvious to me, and that no stumbling-block was presented by the fact that some people have target-acquisition problems with their romantic and erotic desires. (Before puberty, sex and everything related was totally off my radar, although romantic desires weren't.) What did mess up my attitudes, and what I could have done without, was all the nonsense that came in later - latent cultural homophobia, the attitude that desire indicates a right to fulfil desire, "marriage is love", the supposed curability of homosexuality as a general prescription for dealing with it (I grew up amongst Elim Pentecostalists - great people, but not immune to really, really bad ideas), the idea that gayness is somehow worse than a tendency to pride or anger and thus our children should be protected from the very idea...
Morality requires honesty, because your morals are supposed to apply to the real world (defined as: that which doesn't stop bothering you if you choose to disbelieve in it). Morality that's only fully consistent when applied to some parallel universe where, say, gays can unfailingly change orientation by wanting it hard enough is not useful morality (to take an extreme example). By all means introduce your children slowly to the numerous complexities in morality, but don't try to hide them from it. If your children are anything like I was (no guarantee >.>) they will benefit from being presented with explanations and especially with good examples (both real and from story) and may resent it if they know they've been kept in the dark.
Anonymous, re: Evil Homosexuality-promoting Plan: yes. It is very depressing.
....hey, I'm racking up the essay-length posts today. I do have a life, honest...
I think I am leaning toward Red Cardigan's view.
Godescalc,
Thanks for the clarification. I am aware that, just like the abortion issue, it's how you say it that counts. But to be honest, except for a few, most I have seen here and elsewhere have bent over backwards to affirm that they are not just blasting away at homosexuals. They are questioning why JKR had to say it in the first place. And since she is a hero to so many children, she had to know it would hit them. Some of us just aren't ready for our kids to be hit with an issue like that from someone who has been lifted up to such a high status by the popular culture. That puts us in a bind, and forces us to confront issues and nuances that we would rather have confronted on our own timing (or at least, not in the wave of HP and all its phenomenal glory). My 12 year old, no problem. He got it. But my younger ones have, through him, latched onto the HP thing (the 9 year old started reading Sorcerer's Stone, the 7 year old just isn't there yet). And when we heard on the news that a 'new revelation about HP' was coming on, we got them together to watch. After all, JKR just said how Christian the whole thing was. Then...BAM! That's the rub with me.
Personally, I think she did it on purpose. I don't think she has a brilliant publisher. I think she is quite brilliant at promoting her stock as well. And I think this was planned, a clever device to grab the media, and keep the book sales going. And all by inserting something that, from all I have heard, didn't need to be there in the first place.
From one who is also able to post those book lenght posts!
Does anyone sincerely think here that Rowling espouses the Church's teaching on homosexuality, or has written a character to comport with that?
" ... the idea that gayness is somehow worse than a tendency to pride or anger and thus our children should be protected from the very idea..."
But the tendency IS worse and more spiritually dangerous. Why? Because the object of this tendency is worse. The stronger the inclination toward a particular sin, the more likely one is to commit the sin. Those afflicted with SSA may be quite blameless with respect to their desires, it is true - but the object of their desires is still more grievous than others.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
“Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature.
"Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is the gravest of all. After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.
“Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself: wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature.
"Hence, Augustine says (Conf. III, 
: 'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the author, is polluted by the perversity of lust.'
“Vices against nature are also against God, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order."
'No, please, no, let's not compare the War on Terror with the "War on Hell"! Back when we thought that way we burnt people alive, started wars (including fratricidal wars), tortured each other (including waterboarding) all in the name of God. Some of hell's greatest victories were the product of the "War on Hell".'
I didn't mean it that way.
+J.M.J+
I think I'll repeat my question above, since it went unanswered and got buried under another 100 or so posts:
If our kids mustn't learn about homosexuality before they are 13, what do we do about Genesis 19? Do we forbid them to read the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until they are teenagers?
Additional: Exactly how would we do that - not permit them to read a Bible on their own lest they accidentally discover Genesis 19 or St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality in Romans or 1 Corinthians?
Mark Windsor: Thanks for the Time Magazine article. It's interesting to see that not all gays are thrilled about Rowling's revelation.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
Please don't take this as being mean, but you must be able to see the difference between discussing what JKR has said and done, and teaching our kids the Bible. Please tell me you do.
Dave G, thanks for the clarification. Maybe some day we can compete on post length together some more! But I have to flee for a party now.
al: It appears (barring further revelations from Rowling) that Dumbledore was celibate, so was comporting with RC teaching on sexuality during the course of the books. Whether this is accident, omission, or due to Rowling wishing to comply with RC teaching, I don't know; I strongly suspect she isn't even remotely interested in RC teaching.
This is arguably a strike against the book, if you hold to the "If the characters aren't wicked, the book is" school of thought, but there's always Dumbledore's euthanistic sentiments about his own death to redeem the novels in that case...
Jeff: not disputing any of that (for the moment - I should reiterate I'm not actually catholic - I should maybe have mentioned that in this thread, but I'd feel silly putting a "hey! Schismatic heretic here!" disclaimer on every time I post, and the issues aren't specific to Catholicism - so I reserve the right to think about and disagree with St. Tom, who IIRC ain't dogmatically binding anyway). I was talking about the sexual orientation, i.e. the desire, which as you note is blameless, and the idea that you can simply correlate perversity-of-desire and grievousness-of-sin so straightforwardly seems a tad suspect to me for reasons I'll have to detail later.
Pavel -
I lift my voice, I lift my hands,
athirst for you in a thirsty land -
Lord, send your Spirit down like rain
and bring this desert to life again
The letter kills and the Zeitgeist isn't giving life. Maclin Horton's article seems right on target to me. Charity and humility 4tw.
And now I must really bow out...
I also liked Red Cardigan's opinion.
http://redcardigan.blogspot.com/...ash-in-
pan.html
"If our kids mustn't learn about homosexuality before they are 13, what do we do about Genesis 19? Do we forbid them to read the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah until they are teenagers?"
That sounds about right. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah can certainly be told to young children sans the homosexuality component. This isn't rocket science. The Church used this careful approach for centuries in its age appropriate catechesis before V-II.
"Additional: Exactly how would we do that - not permit them to read a Bible on their own lest they accidentally discover Genesis 19 or St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality in Romans or 1 Corinthians?"
That's probably the best approach.
Godescalc is a class act.
Rosemarie is exactly right; she's talking about exposure to the concept of homosexuality. And as far as I can see, it's present in the bible but not in HP. I just don't see it, no matter what JKR says. Besides, this wouldn't be the first time JKR said something wrong about her own work. Wasn't there a little fuss about her Secret Keepers? So she did say things that didn't square with what she wrote. I say she did it again.
My point is kids will be exposed to sin, one way or another, over time. Unless you live a catacomb Catholicism - which I don't believe families are called to do; we're supposed to be leaven in this world - there's no way to completely shield kids from every bad thing. Nor do I think we should; far better to deal with sin as it comes up, whether it comes up in the bible, other books both classic and contemporary, music, philosophy, biographies, song lyrics, art, fashion, slang, etc. You know, this messy life we live here on this fallen earth.
Mike Petrik has it right on my handle, "Different." It is meant in respect, not derision. No offense intended to anyone, as those who know the song can attest.
google the lyrics if you are interested. It is a moving song that has been covered by both Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash, if I remember right.
Godescalc, you wrote:
"I was talking about the sexual orientation, i.e. the desire, which as you note is blameless ..."
Not "is blameless", but "might be blameless".
As anyone who has struggled with sexual temptations knows well, it is quite possible to nurture, cultivate, and otherwise revel in illicit desires without actually acting on them. In general, the more these desires are entertained, the stronger they become, and the less they are entertained, the weaker they become. Hence the desire itself is not necessarily blameless, although it certainly could be depending upon one's internal disposition. Speaking from experience, more often than not my own desires have an element of self-inducement, which is consistent with what a great many spiritual writers have to say.
I have been told by a good confessor that there are two kinds of temptations in which the correct response is "flight" rather than "fight": temptations to sin against the Faith, and temptations to lust. We are not to confront these things head on, examine them, pick them apart, or nuance the situation to death: we are simply to flee, build a moat, and pull up the drawbridge. St. Paul taught that certain sins were to vile even to name.
" ... and the idea that you can simply correlate perversity-of-desire and grievousness-of-sin so straightforwardly seems a tad suspect to me for reasons I'll have to detail later."
It isn't a straight one-to-one mechanical correlation, but there is a relationship. They are not two distinct and unrelated things: that was my point.
"google the lyrics if you are interested. It is a moving song that has been covered by both Bob Dylan and Johnny Cash, if I remember right."
Doesn't make it right. Has all the class of the Dead Kennedys - which is to say exactly none
>>"Additional: Exactly how would we do that - not permit them to read a Bible on their own lest they accidentally discover Genesis 19 or St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality in Romans or 1 Corinthians?"
>That's probably the best approach.
Insanity.
I see everyone has been having fun.
Godescalc: what you or I or anyone else in this discussion thinks of the matter is irrelevant. As a cultural matter, HP has now become one more prop in the agitprop.
As for the ongoing nonsense from Sean and ben Yachov: I'm not the one who explicitly stated that Dumbledore is gay and implied that Dumbledore's brother engaged in magic-enhanced bestiality with goats. Rowling is. Saying that that is just British humor doesn't really address the point; in fact it implicitly agrees with the point while attempting to take the sting out of it. Saying that I am dishonest for pointing it out is frankly beneath contempt.
Rosemarie, FWIW I think annon's got it right on kids, sin, and our place in this messy world. Having just sent our first of 4 off to college this fall, the temporary nature of parental influence is especially vivid to me now. Better to have them confront a few things while they're in our home. Letting 10 yr olds cope with Genesis is good training for parents.
Oh, well. I broke my promise to bow out.
Zippy, you wrote:
"Godescalc: what you or I or anyone else in this discussion thinks of the matter is irrelevant. As a cultural matter, HP has now become one more prop in the agitprop."
I disagree. It does matter what an individual thinks, regardless of what the masses (or official propaganda) think about a certain work--novel, poem, painting, etc. The masses may well be wrong (as we all know) and propaganda organs may well misconstrue works of art for their own self-serving purposes.
There are probably better examples and I'm definitely not equating the Harry Potter series to The Brothers Karamazov, but should we dismiss The Brothers Karamazov because anti-Catholic bigots in Russia rejoice at the anti-Catholic passages of Dostoyevsky's great work?
>You know Zippy maybe if you come up with an intelligent argument & interact with what people have said rather than all these glib dismissals, maybe people would take your claim that you're not a fanatical HP hater seriously.
I said that not too long ago & I stand by it. Zippy's allieged honesty or dishonesty is not relavant.
So Brokeback Mountain, Dan Brown, Bill Pullman, it's all up for grabs? Or for that matter, maybe we should encourage our kids to see this stuff (OK, maybe not Brokeback) so they are exposed?
And should I assume then that, because of the sudden emphasis on exposing our kids to all things in our modern culture, homeschooling would be the wrong way to go? I'm just trying to get back on a road that suddenly seems to have taken a sudden turn when I wasn't looking.
Bill Pullman
What's wrong with Bill Pullman? I thought he was pretty good in Independence Day (as far as that goes). And of course Spaceballs was hilarious.
Dave G.
When you start getting prudish over the Holy Bible that is when you have gone too far.
In attempting to read down all the comments here, I find myself wondering how many of those who figure HP is now clearly just one more force of evil in the culture wars are actually types who read (or used to read) much genre stuff anyway.
I was a very big reader of science fiction and fantasy from age 11-18, and a bunch of stuff I was reading by age 13 (which seems to be the magic number being thrown around here) was written quite explicitly by people with decidedly non-Christian viewpoints.
Books, need to be taken as they stand. The seven extant HP books are quite decent childrens fantasy, and will generally remain so. And outside of those who spend all their time on the 24-hour news cycle and the culture war, I suspect pretty much everyone will have forgotten within five years or so that Dumbledore was gay, except a few fans who track such things. (Unless JKR actually goes on to write a book covering it, in which case the book will either be good or not on its own merits.)
Maybe it's partly because although I recognized that JKR was intentionally using Christian imagery in the last book especially, I never thought of them specifically as "Christian books", but especially given that there's nothing actually in the books to suggest that Dumbledore is gay -- I really can't see what the fuss is about.
Books, like people, are mixes of good and bad and should be judged on their own merits: by what's on the page. Regardless of what Rowling's opinions on homosexuality may be, the HP books are pretty good books, but at a story and a moral level. If I have no problem recommending the early Heinlien novesl, the Wizard of Earthsea books, Ender's Game, the original Foundation novels, etc. to a thirteen year old despite the religious and moral bones I might have to pick with their various authors, I don't see why the Potter books should be off limits to Christian children either.
Dave G, no not exposing them to all things; I was specifically talking about Genesis, but also keeping in mind that my kids will be headed off into the great messy world in the not too distant future.
My wife and I struggle with just how much we should resist popular culture. In our best parenting moments we watch the programs with our kids and discuss things with them. We let our boy play war video games with his friends but ask him "Why don't I like this?", "I know Dad [eyes rolling], it's violent and you don't think violence is entertainment, etc." And still our kids are convinced that we are the most restrictive parents on the planet. What's that passage from St. Paul? "Fathers do not harp on your children lest the lose heart." It's tough. We pray and "keep all the slack out of the reins."
We are very pleased with the Catholic schools we use (My wife teaches 5th grade in one of them), and even there we struggle with some of the values of those people. We struggle with some of the values at our parish. We struggle pert' near everywhere.
Dave G.
I think it would have been easier to discuss homosexuality with my oldest daughter because of the events surrounding Harry Potter when she was 10 to 13 rather then what actually happened.
My husband has the habit of listening to the news in the car, and didn't always turn it off, so my (at the time 7 years old) daughter heard commentary (in favor at that!) about the legalization of 'same-sex marriage' in Canada before my husband turned the radio off (he's gotten much better at this since then). So as well as everything else (and I certainly didn't go into anything resembling discription of any act) we had to have a discussion about people fooling themselves into thinking saying something is so, makes it so.
In hindsight I'd have been happy to been able to deal with the existence of the temptation to a particular sin before having to deal with the justification of the same.
BenYachov,
Not prudish with the Bible here.
Emily,
Yep, again, it is why and how the issue came up. Red C. makes some very good points on his post. Why didn't she put it in the books if it was so important, and if it wasn't a big deal, why bring it up? That's the question.
I expose my kids, as do all parents, to things as we think we should. But only weeks ago, how often did I read posts that shuddered at our kids being exposed to such things, how home schooling and other non-secular domains were praised, and how we need to be careful. And now, a sudden shift. I am wondering why.
+J.M.J+
>>>"Additional: Exactly how would we do that - not permit them to read a Bible on their own lest they accidentally discover Genesis 19 or St. Paul's condemnations of homosexuality in Romans or 1 Corinthians?"
>That's probably the best approach.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, except perhaps to ponder my own experience.
I first learned about homosexuality in fourth grade, so I guess I was nine years old. Some annoying neighborhood boys used to tease my friend Randi and I, calling us "lezzies." I had no idea what they were talking about. One day, Randi informed me it meant "lesbians," which she defined as: "Women who love other women instead of men" (or something to that effect). No mention of sex, mind you.
My first reaction to this new knowledge: Ick.
My second reaction was disbelief - how could such a thing be?
I can't say this revelation had any negative effect on me, however. It didn't create an unhealthy curiosity or anything; I just kind of assimilated the knowledge and moved on. I don't really think "my innocence was shattered" or anything; perhaps the fact that the definition was devoid of sexual content made the difference?
It was about a year later that I began reading the Bible. I just cracked open our Family Bible and began reading at, where else, the Book of Genesis! Since I read all the way through Exodus that year, I know I encountered the dreaded nineteenth chapter of Genesis. Yet I don't remember it making a particular impression on me. It couldn't have warped me, then.
Would it be too much to suggest that, maybe Sacred Scripture, because it is God's inspired word, would be an ideal place for children to first encounter these sexual issues? After all, there is a certain "power" in the written word of God; people ensnared in sins against purity often find that memorizing Scripture helps to cleanse their minds of sinful thoughts and images. Might not the reverent presentation of sexual matters in the context of the Bible have a similar grace-filled effect on our children's minds, offsetting any possible negative effects of the newly-imparted knowledge?
Just a suggestion....
In Jesu et Maria,
...and of course, the non-secular domains we provide them, and the faith that we raise them with, and the prayers we pray with them, .... All of that makes them more resilient to all those assaults that will surely come their way in life.
As for this most recent assault from JKR, I don't think it will have any influence whatsoever on whom my children will be attracted to.
Oh BTW as to my feelings about the whole hullaballoo?
I wish she hadn't said that but I'm not sure it's worth the hullaballo (mainly because if no one had made a big deal of it, the chances are that no kid would have known). I do think that there may have been a bit of 'might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb' increasing my feeling that it wasn't ideal for certain groups to taken a extreme position to the books. Afterall why should she care if those who, as far as she knows, think her books are evil don't like this latest tidbit.
The books themselves are still refreshingly free of the sex that so many young adult books are saturated with, whatever their other drawbacks and merits are. The fact that they otherwise fit much of the normal us-(misunderstood)-heroes-who-don't-fit-in-
against-the-horrible-evil-one(s)-as-well-as-the-
incompetent/evil-authorities style of the cliched young adult fantasy book makes the lack of fornication in the books stand out a bit.
I, OTOH, learned about homosexuality watching THREE'S COMPANY and MAUDE. I had no concept what it meant that Jack Tripper pretended to be "gay" except that he didn't like girls romantically & thus Mr. Roper would let him live with Janet & Chrissy. Before even learning what kind of sex gays & lesbians might have I got a pretty good idea of what homosexuality was watching MAUDE when she went to a gay bar. I said, "AHA! There are some weird men out there who like to date other men like they would date a woman."
Of course, I didn't get any moral guidance because my mother didn't tell me that it was immoral or against God's Word. She just said it was bad & didn't really qualify it. So my earliest impression was that homosexuality was OK & gays were persecuted by intolerant religious types, a view I held pretty much till college. No one ever sat down & explained to me WHY it is wrong. Indeed no one took the time to explain to me why fornication or masturbation are wrong, either.
I'm sorry but I didn't benefit from ignorance or some unrealistic utopian belief that ignorance will foster innocence & moral conviction. It doesn't. Teaching & knowledge enforce moral conviction. Yes, it would be nice if we lived in a world in which we could let children be children & explain later, but we don't live in that world. The only way to deal with it is to arm our kids with what they need to know so that they will have the weapons to fight with. Indeed that is only a first step to returning to that world, if it be possible to do so.
Everyone's right. All this homeschooling to keep kids away from this stuff, and culture shoving stuff down our throats is garbage. Enough! They need to know! Now I must go. I'm going to rent "Debbie Does Dallas" so my kids can catch up with where everyone says they should be. Geeesh!
Would it be too much to suggest that, maybe Sacred Scripture, because it is God's inspired word, would be an ideal place for children to first encounter these sexual issues?
Reminds me of how, one day several years ago, my wife was reading the daily Mass readings to our children, and the OT reading turned out to be the story of David, Bathsheba, and Uriah the Hittite. I had just been sent out to the store to fetch something we needed for dinner, so I'm sorry I never got to hear her answer to the question asked by our six-year-old about why King David kept insisting that Uriah go visit his wife while he was home on leave from the front.
Oh, yes: I later found it very amusing to see how the Veggie Tales people took the story of Bathsheba and turned it into the very G-rated story of "King George and the Ducky."
So why did the sensitivity, lonerness, separateness of Dummy HAVE to be explained as homosexuality?? He simply could have been a "5"! They are the types who just hate to get personally involved, love to be surrounded by books, are naturally born celibates, and are the best counsellors/advice givers due to their objectivity. Simple.!!!!
But nooooo, we have to have an "in your face" drive by shooting at the now exposed loving parents out there by a true provocateur.
According to St. John of the Cross, at the evening of our lives, shall we be judged on (choose one)
A. Our views on Harry Potter
B. Our sexual attractions
C. Our orthodoxy
D. Our love
We all know that the right answer is D but how very diffficult it is for many Catholics to give up C as an equally right answer. It just isn't. Hard to accept but it just isn't.
Maybe I'm reading your posts incorrectly, Zippy, but it seems like you're pulling the gnosticism card yourself--*you* knew all along that Rowling would drop a bomb on Christian fans eventually, but *we* were too blinded to see this knowledge you were privy to by virtue of your being more insightful, etc.
Whatever Rowling's intent in sharing this, her storytelling wasn't infringed upon by it. Good storytelling (which doesn't necessarily mean good writing) is usually like that. The bad and fundamentally untrue stories are the ones authors force their views upon. Bad storytelling would be if she had portrayed Dumbledore as a well-adjusted active homosexual with a lover to come home to, just because she thinks homosexuality is okay. Instead, sin--getting enmeshed with G, even if they never had sex--made his life miserable. Whatever she's saying now, and whatever she thinks about the merit and beauty of gay relationships, she didn't do that. She let the story reveal the truth. She let it have ugly consequences, instead of forcing in, "Yay! Homosex!"
I didn't read this as her doing anything more than expressing her opinion of the character, or at least not much more. Say I had a wonderful great-aunt who died after having done myriad good works. I shared a close relationship with her, and someone came to me wanting me to help them write an accurate docudrama (or whatever) about her life. Say they portrayed her as commenting on an attractive man, or having a relationship with one, while I knew that she'd never had one. Instead, the only romantic relationship in her life had been a brief (possibly not even sexual) strong attachment to another women when both were very young. Its end was ugly, and she never fell in love again. Instead, she threw herself into her faith and a life of good works.
Would my pointing out this fact--the central tragedy of her life which drove her to devote herself to acts of mercy--about a dead woman suddenly change history? Would it retroactively make her an "out" homosexual?
However I or anyone else viewed it--"Go granny, get your groove on!"--it wouldn't change the facts. And just like in an actual life, even the thoughts of someone as "in the know" as the author don't supercede canon. I know the series was just finished, but is everything JKR says about the book in the future going to be seen as a "change" to the text? If a senile JKR tells her nursing-home friends Ron and Ginny had an incestuous affair and bore conjoined octuplets, no one gets to point out that no, actually they did not? Whether she meant "actively gay" or SSA, she didn't include even the slightest hint of the first one. Instead of telling us about his and Snapes love shack, she told us about a relationship he'd had over a hundred years ago. "Once, a hundred years ago" does not a gay man make.
--*you* knew all along that Rowling would drop a bomb on Christian fans eventually, but *we* were too blinded to see this knowledge you were privy to by virtue of your being more insightful, etc.
I'd be interested in you backing that up by referencing something I've actually said. If you did that then I would be in a position to either correct my misstatement or your misunderstanding by explaining what I meant.
...but is everything JKR says about the book in the future going to be seen as a "change" to the text?
No. It is either true that she wrote Dumbledore with his homosexuality as her backdrop understanding of his character, or it isn't true. She has privileged access to that fact, but even she cannot change it.
--*you* knew all along that Rowling would drop a bomb on Christian fans eventually, but *we* were too blinded to see this knowledge you were privy to by virtue of your being more insightful, etc.
I'd be interested in you backing that up by referencing something I've actually said. If you did that then I would be in a position to either correct my misstatement or your misunderstanding by explaining what I meant.
What I wrote wasn't intended to be a quote, but the general tone I've seen in your posts. The "glib dismissals", as BenYachov put it, of others comments, combined with the implication that you knew those are the arguments fans would make, and that they'll regret it if they don't stop defending the books after this, because JKR will only dig the hole deeper, etc.
Merely asserting that in the future, Dumbledore's flaming queendom will knock down any such arguments like a house of cards isn't actually replying to those arguments. Saying "game over" before the game is, in fact, over--saying it on the basis of things that haven't happened yet--seems oddly gnostic to me. As in, "The facts may not be in evidence yet, but they will be, you'll see. Until that time, I will post smug remarks concerning these facts that aren't facts. Yet."
You may have never said anything along the lines of "I knew this was coming! Nyah-nyah!" If I confused someone else's post saying as much with one of yours, or just read something into one of your posts that isn't there, I apologize. The above is just what I get from your posts, which largely (to me) read as predictions of how this will all go down instead of responses to how Christian fans view the books now.
What I wrote wasn't intended to be a quote, but the general tone I've seen in your posts.
That isn't the sort of criticism it is possible to answer (or even learn from). If you object to something I've actually said, by all means let me know.
If you read further than the first sentence, you'll see that I did specifically address things you said. The first sentence was just an acknowledgement that I hadn't yet quoted anything you said. If I'd stopped there, you would absolutely be correct in saying that's not the sort of comment one can answer.
Anyway, I'm not hunting through your myriad comments on this and other HP posts in order to provide links to every single one in which you've dismissed what people are saying on the basis of how today's culture might react to this, or what JKR might add next time she gives an interview. Your "game over" and "just stop [or you'll regret it]" posts in this thread, and others like them, are what I meant. I addressed them in my second paragraph.
I'm sorry to double-post, but I wanted to add that I really shouldn't have brought into my first post a quibble based on what anyone said or what I've derived from it. I barely have the patience to read these threads the first time, and it wasn't fair for me to comment on something when I'm not willing to scour all such threads again in search of specific quotes and links. I cited ones from this particular thread already, but that's all the time I'm willing to put into the matter, especially since my opinion may have been partly due to my reading something you didn't intend into your posts or mistaking a post someone else made for one of yours. You're free to have the last word.
Ah. Well, I didn't say "game over" on the basis of me thinking that the game will be over at some future time. I said "game over" because I think the cultural Harry Potter game is over now: that like it or not Potter has been set against orthodox Christianity by its author, and as a cultural object is now primarily a weapon against Christendom.
+J.M.J+
>>>Everyone's right. All this homeschooling to keep kids away from this stuff, and culture shoving stuff down our throats is garbage. Enough! They need to know! Now I must go. I'm going to rent "Debbie Does Dallas" so my kids can catch up with where everyone says they should be. Geeesh!
Who said anything about using pornography to teach children? I said that Sacred Scripture should be used - I don't even think that TV shows like Maude are good for children, for that matter.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
I was being a bit silly. Hence the Geeesh. I'm just shocked about how, almost overnight, so many are ok with pop-culture icons bringing the issue of homosexuality to our 3rd and 4th graders. I kinda thought we looked down on that. Yes, of course we should educate our children. And naturally I encourage Scripture as a good place to be. But the 'nothing big to see here folks, move along' reaction to what would, based on my recollection, have been met with frustration at best, has taken me by surprise. Suddenly, it's no big deal. ‘Let people our children look up to throw the issue at them when they are in 3rd grade. Heck, they probably know it anyway.’ I'm just curious. Has this always been the ethic?
Dave G, My youngest is a 5th grader, but even were she a few years younger, I would not be alarmed having to confront this issue. Aggravated, frustrated, yes, maybe even angry at a culture that is too intrusive. My feelings would be more along the lines of "Oh bother... I should not be forced to deal with this now." But deal with it I would, without fear.
Popular culture is corrupting. My purpose in resisting it is to minimize the temptations my children face. Here is a case that will pose no temptation to them (unless they have SSA, but that is unlikely, and I have more likely threats to worry about).
I do not understand your apparent alarm.
J Dave G.
I also watch for the curve balls that pop culture throws. I have experienced, and seen, the frustration and sometimes anger from the Christian world when they are thrown. What hit me was the sudden 'no problem here folks' attitude. Not to mention the 'hey, it's still Christian, and I'm for JKR!' At least be somewhat angry. I know some are, like Sean. That's cool. No problem. JKR need not be stoned, and her books need not be burned.
But there has been an almost 'so what, let her bring it up' answer. I can't buy that. Whatever her reasons, I don't appreciate her throwing this at my kids. My kids who should, according to numerous sources, look at JKR as a Christian warrior who is on our side, and writer of a book that is filled with nothing less than Christian themes and imagery. I would certainly put that assessment on hold until we find out more. Because the reason I had to explain gay to my kids at breakfast today was nothing less than this Christian warrior who is on our side.
Dave G. I believe that some of what you are seeing is the unfortunately normal response people make when they think someone is overreacting.
ie Reaction: This is awful!
Response: Nah, I've experienced worse.
Or at least that would be a fair summary of my response. .
I do homeschool my children and haven't brought home the Potter books for them (I don't think they are appropriate for 9 year olds and I don't particularly care for them).
Even if my children had read the books I would find it easier to shield them from the out-of-text comment about a fictional character (for whom things went terriblely wrong) then I have the real-world stuff, which is why even though I don't like the revelation given the book's audience and the cultural climate, I'm not very worked up about it on a personal level.
BTW I did/do have a concern about the Redwall books; the complete lack of religion given that a monastery is a large part of the stories, so I discussed this with my oldest before she read the one that I have kicking around.
Actually Emily, I'm not so much worked up, as concerned. I am sure you are right, that some of it is the ping-pong you say this, I say that sort of thing. But some of it I wonder. I especially wonder in light of not being able to find too many old posts around the internet where Christians approached the influences of culture on our kids (esp. in terms of things like sexuality), with a 'ho-hum' attitude. Usually, the individual or product in question was chastised at best. After all, isn't it the Christian and faith and morals crowd that has fought to keep our kids from being taught about such things in elementary school? I'm just watching the consistency meter.
Dave G, So you are concerned that Christians are inconsistently filtering pop culture: giving a pass to gay ProfD while blocking other sexually charged pop culture. Did I get that right?
That is exactly what I am doing. But it is very consistent, because I don't set my filter according orthodoxy (if I did, my family would have to be hermits). My filter is set to according to what I think will be temptations for them. I don't like Hummers, but I doubt my kids will be buying them, so I don't turn off those commercials. I don't like violence, but that doesn't seem likely for them either, so I let him play the video game. OTOH, the sexuality that is typically portrayed in nearly all PG-13 movies, now *that's* probably going to be a temptation for them. That's the kind of thing I pay attention to. Gay ProfD doesn't scare me.
J Dave (how bout that?)
Yes and no. I actually am just wondering why the shift? Why? That's all. I have no doubt that everyone handles things their own way. But here (and in the conversation world), when a major pop culture figure, particularly one who aims like a laser at our kiddies, pulls something like this, it is usually met with 'darn him/her, that goes to show you' at best, and 'that's the last penny they get from me!' at next best. Then it often gets mean. So I am not saying that individually folks don't do their things as they see fit. I am asking: Why the sudden change? Is HP really that important to change from now on how we will deal with such things from other sources, cultural or religious? That's what I am curious about.
And yes, if we keep this up, we can make 300 comments. That has to be a record somewhere.
Thanks Dave G. I guess I can't help with an explanation for any shift in something I wasn't part of, except to say that perhaps they too aren't all that concerned that their children will be tempted to SSA by all this.
Feel free to call me J Dave, if you like.
...aren't all that concerned that their children will be tempted to SSA by all this.
I think the "who is personally going to be tempted to SSA by this" view is terrifically narrow-minded libertinism, in much the same way that "how does gay marriage affect your marriage" is terrifically narrow minded libertinism.
J Dave,
Technically no, I didn't say I was worried about my kids being tempted. My job, like that of any parent, is to teach the kiddies. But I was just taken by the shift that seems to suggest that what was bothersome last week, is no longer so. And I'm just curious enough to wonder why. Are those who are saying 'no biggie' simply the ones who would have responded that way to any one of a thousand shots from the secular/liberal world of popular culture. If so, nothing more to say here. If not, then I will be a tad curious as to what happened.
Soooo close to 300.
Publius,
Actually no. I think we hit it!
Now let's go for 400. I'll start...
I think the "who is personally going to be tempted to SSA by this" view is terrifically narrow-minded libertinism...
Zippy, Even though two dictionaries tell me otherwise, you know me only by a few thoughts expressed here, and so I doubt that you meant to accuse me of being a libertine. So I'm not sure what you had in mind with narrow-minded libertinism - maybe a broad-minded sort would be better
I certainly do not condone libertinism. I've even been known to admonish a sinner or two from time to time when I thought it might be heard. But I do not go boldy about condemning sinners. As some here have pointed out, that is for those called to be prophets, and I don't believe I've yet had that calling.
Church teaching makes it clear that homosexual acts are grave sins. Many Christians, millions it seems, get into quite a frenzy about this sin above all others. Moreover, they get angry with those of us who are not similarly enraged. This is in line with neither church teaching nor the Gospel.
In one of those few times Jesus speaks plainly, he tells his disciples how they should deal with a brother who sins against them. It doesn't remotely resemble the outrage those millions of Christians appear to advocate. Furthermore, Jesus cautions us against dwelling on the sins of others.
Zippy, I hope you'll try to find the commentary I pasted from Maclin Horton's blog about 1/4th the way up this long thread. He describes much better than I can how I think we ought to deal with practicing homosexuals.
J Dave: I wasn't saying anything about you, especially since, as you correctly point out, I know next to nothing about you other than our shared humanity and English literacy. I was making a specific point about a specific proposition - one which I've seen quite a few times now in quite a few places, so I'm not picking on anyone in particular.
The proposition is that the primary or only harm which proceeds from Rowling's "outing" of Dumbledore consists in the concern that particular parents might have over their particular children "going gay" because of Dumbledore's role model. This is, I believe, quite analogous to the notion that the only or primary harm one could see in gay marriage is if gay marriage had the effect of making one's personal marriage less strong. It represents a kind of personalized ad hominem reversal of the problem, inasmuch as it ascribes moral weakness to anyone who hasn't the fortitude to tolerate the mere presence of the proposed wickedness without sustaining personal bad effects arising from that wickedness.
In both cases, if that literally never happened (that is, the child "going gay" upon hearing that his literary hero is gay or the marriage getting rocky when Adam and Steve celebrate their "nuptials"), the harm to the common good would not be reduced by hardly a whit. It just isn't about individualist libertine perceptions of direct harm, wherein the complaintant only has standing to complain when there is just the kind of direct harm entailed in the hypothetical. Those who represent it as that kind of question miss the point entirely.
Ok Zippy, I think I can paraphrase you fairly: "Though my own children may not be harmed, some surely will be, and both JKR and gay marriages hurt us all in a way just like St. Paul's mystical Body of Christ."
But the world is drenched in sins of all sorts. That Hummer in the church parking lot lures many into materialism, as does that 3500 sq ft Garage Majal for the family of four in the next pew. All those car pools full of 14 yr olds to the multi-plex for the drumbeat of sex-is-for-fun-only lure many into lust. Greed, anger, sloth, pride, .... I am fighting all of these.
I choose those battles, in part because they are the occasional plank in my own eye, in part because they affect my kids directly, and in part because they are great temptations to *Christians* who should know better and who are presumably more receptive to admonishment.
Furthermore, I avoid the homosexuality battle because hurling vitriol at a gay pride parade does much more harm than good to the Body of Christ. I wish Christians would stop it.
Those who, as you say, "take that view" are far from supporting libertinism.
So, I have two questions for you Zippy:
1) was my paraphrase fair and reasonably accurate? and
2) what do you think of Maclin's suggestion for dealing with homosexuality?
Hey! I think I just figured out how to make it easier to find Maclin's suggestion in this long thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2563331/
#903598
"Though my own children may not be harmed, some surely will be, and both JKR and gay marriages hurt us all in a way just like St. Paul's mystical Body of Christ."
Not quite. The idea behind the reverse-blame-ad-hominem deployed both in discussions of Dumbledore's outing and gay marriage is more specific, and specifically libertarian in its premeses: that if one doesn't foresee specific harm to onesself or one's children, one is being prudish or overreacting to express resistance to the shibboleth. The discursive move is a combination of narrowing the scope to selfish individualism, reversal of moral burden, and ad hominem.
But even if I stipulated that no children at all are ever directly harmed in any way, the "outing" of Dumbledore spun as a positive thing and gay marriage should both still be utterly and unequivocally rejected, without compromise, quibbling, nuancing, dancing, or otherwise finagling or negotiating.
...what do you think of Maclin's suggestion for dealing with homosexuality?
Big subject. I don't suggest that the excellent commentator Maclin Horton is saying this, but if the spin on it is that we should give Rowling a pass because there are other things we should be doing on a more personal level, that is completely wrongheaded and perniciously false.
Catholics are not called in general purely to tend their own gardens and otherwise shut up in the public square. Both/and, not either/or.
And the current subject is about very public events and very public cultural objects, not about someone's personal experiences or encounters, so I am deeply unsympathetic to the idea that people objecting to Rowling's shenanigans should shut up and go tend their own gardens.
Thank you Zippy.
Then to come up to snuff, I should add this to the paraphrase of before: “…We should also firmly proclaim uncut church teaching in the public square and challenge assaults to church teaching.”
I enthusiastically agree with all that.
Moreover, I see how what I had written before could be understood as libertarianism (not libertinism). I think acknowledging the Mystical Body of Christ and supporting a role for Christians in the public square both demonstrate that I do not support selfish individualism (individualism almost equals libertarianism). I am still not quite sure what you mean by “reversal of moral burden and ad hominem”. I am guessing that an example would be the libertarian scolding “Shame on you for being such an intolerant bigot!”
I think I am beginning to understand your point, Zippy. Are you understanding mine?
I am suggesting that we act as Jesus did and as He taught: Let’s go out in the public square, proclaim lovingly and firmly that JKR was wrong, reiterate uncut church teaching on homosexuality, etc. Then, when they don’t listen to us, we shut up, go away, and fight other battles in other public squares and in our own gardens. When the next Dumbledore comes along, we do it again, and leave again if they don't listen.
For a long time now, Piazza Omosessuale has digressed into a terrifically ugly street riot between Christians and gays. Perhaps some folks on this thread, and certainly too many Christians - and Catholics too, especially sad for me as I am one – too many are eager for the fight and only drive people further from God.
Meanwhile, I’m pretty lonely over here in Anger and Pride Square, telling my brothers and sisters that it’s high time to take it down about 12 notches
So Zippy, please let me know what you think.
I agree with all of that J Dave, with perhaps slight reservations about this:
Then, when they don’t listen to us, we shut up, go away, and fight other battles in other public squares and in our own gardens.
I'm not sure that we are all universally called to shut up and go away (especially the shut up part). (At least I hope not).
Slight reservations... Say, that's pretty darn good! I could sign up for the following revision, I suspect it would be more agreeable:
"...when they don't listen, don't harp on them, and go fight other battles..."
It was good talking to you Zippy. You're always welcome over here in A&P Square.
Someone else will have to ratchet it up to 400. I'm glad to be reaching my limit.
"...some of us had already judged O'Brien's books as badly-written garbage *years* before Rowling came on the scene....O'Brien isn't just badly written, badly plotted, dialogue lifted from whatever encyclical/Chesterton book he's reading at the time, and peopled with wooden characters....He also doesn't seem to me to tell the truth about human nature....his "Eclipse of Sun" was a long angry rant....any anger on my part is probably caused by the mention of Michael O'Brien's name. He makes me livid..." -- Eileen R
Speaking of long angry rants, Miaoww, what delicious mean-spiritedness! It leads one to suspect Eileen R has or once had literary ambitions herself, since writers tend to reserve that kind of cattiness specifically for each other (with the vehemence being directly proportional to the similarity of their respective genres). I've never read O'Brien, but the ability to arouse such abusiveness is an achievement in and of itself.
It was good talking to you Zippy.
Pax, J Dave.
What? Dumbledore is a fag? I'm always the last one to hear anything. It sounds like another reason to not touch a single Harry Potter book. And by the way, I also heard that Harry Potter was nude on stage ....
I am so glad I never let my kids read HP or watch the movies. Just another reason .. why support the series when the author is a pro-gay advocate?
Commenting by HaloScan
