(no subject)

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Am I the only one a little bothered by Dumbledore? Not only with the fact he could end up in the Guinness Book Of World Records for "Most Incompetent Headmaster of All Time" (though I'm sure there's worse. :P), but also because...he just bugs me. I know JKR was trying to write him as the "flawed Yoda", so to speak (and to be fair, he's nowhere near Yoda. XD), but it's also how...preachy he gets. Towards Fudge, for example. You know, in Goblet of Fire, with, "You place too much importance on purity of blood, yadda yadda et cetera et cetera" -- which considering how he treated Tom Riddle and the Slytherins is...slightly hypocritical isn't it? Probably bad writing on JKR's part, though. :/

Anyways, sorry 'bout the rambling. Thoughts?

Comments

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm with you. I have no love for Dumbledore. And I think JKR was not trying to paint him as the 'flawed Yoda' so much as the "epitome of good" (her words) who made one mistake as a youth and then was sorry and never did anything bad again, minus a few small mistakes with Harry that the latter readily forgave. That is, I don't think we are supposed to see him as deeply flawed.

But he is. He is a hypocrite and a bad headmaster, yes. He's also narcissistic, empathy-deprived, manipulative, and willing to use people for his own ends so long as he can convince himself that it's for the 'greater good.' He's a liar and has far too rosy a view of himself and his motives. He's controlling and secretive to the detriment of his own cause - he actually AIDS Voldie by keeping his identity as Tom Riddle secret - because he doesn't want to deal with the fallout of having been the one to bring the clearly already troubled and violent boy into Hogwarts without warning anyone; covering his own arse comes ahead of other people (the same thing happens with Severus and Remus later). He often fails to give people important information because he insists on keeping everything to himself, contributng in at least one case (Snape's) to that person's death. He's not nearly so self-sacrificial as many make him out to be; he only accepts death on the Tower because he's already dying and at least if he manipulates Snape into killing him he still has control over the when and how of it (and over Snape's conscience). And he has, to put it mildly, very strange views of what love is.

I could say more but I have ranted enough. I don't like Dumbledore, and I especially don't like his preachiness. You're not alone.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Awww, thanks. :) I think it was rereading the books that made me go, "Oh, *wow*, Dumbledore's a fricking *douchequake*." Seriously, between you and me, I think I like Michael Gambon's version better. (Eep! XD)

So his strange views of love...do you think it might have come from the Grindelwald experience? *Curious*

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. I'm not sure that it ever occurred to me to link it with that....

Basically, I see two issues. One is his idea of how to show someone love - in this case Harry, the only person he seems to go out of his way to 'care' about (I am uncertain if I buy that he was genuine or just made himself believe that). He showed Harry his 'love' by, for example, repeatedly encouraging him in dangerous things he had no business getting involved in, and then rewarding him very publicly in an inappropriate manner for this (school points should not be used like this), in way that is cruel to other students, by not allowing Harry to be subject to the same standard of behavior and punishment as other students but getting him off lightly most times he interferes (and a child, especially a child from a house where discipline is not standard but is arbitrary and personally-directed, it seems to me NEEDS to have an objective, clear standard of behavior made clear, for their long-term wellbeing and to reduce any current subconscious anxiety), and by lying to him and manipulating him. After of course having made sure that he is primed to think Dumbles is amazing and his savior by denying him a healthy family environment, and sending him back there every summer without sufficient oversight.

Two: he all but explicitly claims that desire for revenge = love. Which, I'm sorry, is just FAIL. Wanting to kill the guy who killed the parents you hardly knew might indicate that you love the idealized vision of your parent you have, yes, but the desire for violent revenge itself is hardly an expression of love - much less the sort of rare sacrificial love he tells us is Harry's super-special weapon against Voldie.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

Holy crap, *this*! D:

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Two: he all but explicitly claims that desire for revenge = love. Which, I'm sorry, is just FAIL. Wanting to kill the guy who killed the parents you hardly knew might indicate that you love the idealized vision of your parent you have, yes, but the desire for violent revenge itself is hardly an expression of love - much less the sort of rare sacrificial love he tells us is Harry's super-special weapon against Voldie.

In this universe, love burns people to death. This is quite consistent with Albus' views on the matter.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

XD

To quote ATLA, "Flameo, hotman. Flameo." :3

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

In this universe, love burns people to death. This is quite consistent with Albus' views on the matter.

Wow, good call.

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

And thus Rowling's? *Is possibly overgeneralizing. XD*

Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore's having any kind of past involving unrequited homosexual love is UTTERLY unsupported by the text. Dumbledore is a plot device, nothing more than that. JKR just came up with the Grindelwald relationship on the spot, in an interview, with the intention of insulting gay men with her claims that homosexual love is corrupting whereas heterosexual love is redeeming and her assertion that if a man is naturally homosexual than the only acceptable way he can behave is by being celebate his entire life (as Dumbledore was).

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

True. Though I really doubt JKR was intentionally insulting gay men...it just came out wrong for her, methinks. (Although, considering our other findings, the whole homophobia thing may be the case... :/)

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Erm, haven't you seen or read the interview? Of course she was doing it deliberately.

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

*Sighs*

Okay, true, I haven't seen it or read it. Maybe it's my optimism talking.

But what parts about it made you think she was insulting gay men? *Is too afraid to seek out the interview for fear of going green and talking in caveman for weeks*

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

It seems to me, from the way her comments were phrased, that she was trying to play the "I'm so liberal and tolerant" card without actually having to back that up. The whole way she talks about people being afraid of the love between two men, and never dealing with the actual sex aspect, signaled to me that she actually on some level finds the sex part "icky" or frightening or otherwise disturbing, but would not admit to herself or to the public that she's got those homophobic feelings going on. So she just pretends that the actual sex part of homosexuality doesn't quite exist and talks about it only in terms of emotion. (In short, I agree with Dan Hemmens' basic assessment of the Dumbledore-is-gay announcement.)

Because she's really into this image of herself as tolerant and liberal and 'doing all the right things' in the politically-liberal playbook, but her own books are profoundly intolerant and politically conservative on many levels. So the whole Dumbledore-is-gay thing just plays right into that pattern that I see with her.

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

It definitely raises a bunch of unpleasant implications, to say the least. :/

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, that nonsense of hers about homophobes only being against 'love between two men' was such drivel. Religious fundamentalists aren't against the idea of two men being in love - unquestioning devotion to religious leaders who are men is the kind of thing they encourage.

What they become obnoxious and hypocritical about is the question of two or more men having sex. Perhaps JKR really was trying to play the "I'm so tolerant" card. She is so stupid and inarticulate that possibly the impression she gives off could be as different from her intent as all that.

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

*This*, so very much. :D

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[sunnyskywalker]

Rita's account of them being inseparable and sending each other owls at night could support either an intense friendship or a crush (or both, depending which one you ask). So, while it isn't totally impossible, it isn't what you'd call strongly supported by the text.

The real problem is when she tried to explain it, which is where all the "Dumbledore was ruined by Wrong Love and became celibate" came in. (Otherwise for all we knew it was a horribly mistaken teenage crush, and he learned his lesson and might have had perfectly good relationships when he was 40.) Also that there were no other gay characters in the Potterverse who weren't led astray, or straight characters who had ruinous Wrong Love that didn't redeem them at all. If she'd done either of those things, or just not said anything about it in the first place, it wouldn't be so bad. I think she just didn't put any thought into it whatsoever beyond, "Wait, maybe they were in love too! Tragic past is interesting!" and had no clue what the implications were.

Re: Grindelwald and Dumbledore

[ladyhadhafang.livejournal.com]

*This*, so very much.