The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
I don't know if you've read what Mark Shea has to say about Dumbledore, but you might want to. He has an interesting take on how that infatuation reflects and is bound up in the character flaw that leads to the "self-imposed tragedy of his life" (his words).
No, I just became aware of the news item today and posted it. Thanks for the link, Steven.
I had the same question you did, Doug--why?
Of course, some who were opposed to HP are now gleefully crying "I told you so."
I find that odd. Since Rowling is admittedly wrestling with her faith, why would anyone suppose she has all the specifics worked out?
Becky
So Dumbledore is gay. So what? There was absolutely no evidence of it in the books. I took his friendship with Grindelwald to be just that: Friendship. Nothing more. Anyone who wanted to read anything more into it probably did, even without Rowling's statement.
/
To top it off, there's some doubt if it's even true, even if it did come right from Rowling. I have a friend who is gay and says there's no way Dumbledore was written as gay. At several sites reporting this "revelation," comments are expressing similar doubts, some even accusing Rowling of anything from "pandering to the media spotlight" to deliberately trying to alienate fans because she's done with Potter and doesn't want to write any more of it. Who knows? More importantly, who cares? It's still good fiction.
Steven: An interesting read, indeed. Thanks for that.
I think what Mark said makes a lot of sense. I think the most striking point he made was that we need to distinguish between "the artist and the art." However, I'm going to have to say that I disagree (slightly) with the side that he leans towards.
I believe a lot of us, especially the fans, really did enjoy these books (I know I did!), and, hence, when something like this comes up, tend to want to show people these books for what they really are--indeed, make HP-bashers aware of, as Mark said, the difference between the art and the artist.
However, I really think a lot of us need to stop thinking about Harry Potter books from a "Harry Potter books" perspective, and rather, from a God perspective.
And, in case none of us have noticed, God has this funny tendency to... not really care how great or righteous anything we do is--if our heart, our intent, is not in the right place. Mark made a really good point regarding the Harry Potter text. Like what JMC said---good fiction, yes, but I really do think God cares more about Rowling's intent.
Indeed, as Mark said, I don't doubt that Rowling may have made a connection that she herself isn't even conscious of. I also don't doubt that, in spite of what Rowling's intentions may have been, these books could still prove to be a source of grace (specifically, with regards to the homosexuality issue). However, I wholly believe that, if that does turn out to be the case, it will be through the Lord's hand and His hand only--because Rowling certainly did not intend it.
For now, though, since I can't see into the future, into the God's plan, I'm going to choose to care about Rowling's soul--as I know God definitely does.
And... I think she messed up. Not because the actual text of her books is afflicted, necessarily, but because of her intent. Because we KNOW God cares about intent and, no matter how much we love any work of art, can NOT forget that.
And Rowling stated specifically that she means for her books to be a "prolonged argument for tolerance." Personally, assuming God doesn't have any specific plan for these books (as in, just the text--separate from the author), I think part of her... has given into politics. As D.G.D. said, what reason is there for this? I do realize that, a lot of times, as writers craft their stories, the characters' personalities just "come." However, at the end of the day, free will is still free will. She still chose to make Dumbledore gay--and this decision, this act of her free will, is definitely prone to corrupt influence.
I think, as one commenter on Mark's article said, she's done (assuming God has no other plan). If nothing else, politics ruin legacies. Even if you're atheist, just the fact that her book can be used, now, as a political instrument? Something is already lost. I mean, just look at Lo
[[ Psh, it got cut off. So, continuing... ]]
... I mean, just look at Lord of the Rings--years and years later, people are still reading, still remembering, still relishing. Again, assuming God has no other plan... I think she just messed that up for herself.
It's sad, honestly. I fear for Rowling, definitely, and will be praying for her. The text in itself is very good, and I do think people will remember them for years to come, but it just won't be the same; nothing can compare to works born from Grace.
I've been generally more of an enthusiast about Harry Potter than the Deej here, but...yahwn...I'm having trouble working up the energy to write anything on it. My reaction to this "bombshell" was, "Oh. He is, huh? I wonder what's on Cartoon Network right now." I mean, it's not even in the books. Rowling came up with it, maybe thought it gave her an extra "edge," but never actually used the detail until Carnegie Hall. That, at least, was wise of her, because homosexuality isn't exactly a literary shocker anymore. If she's built us up to this revelation in the novels, I would have snorted and said, "Amateur." It has nothing to do with the morality of homosexuality, but the fact that homosexuality is now blase.
Commenting by HaloScan
