![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pegkerrMost of my thinking about what's going on in the blog commentary about Rowling's remarks on Dumbledore is filtered through my experience in writing The Wild Swans, and particularly the difficulties and uncertainties I experienced in writing about a minority community when I'm not of that minority myself.
As I've told several people, I nearly stopped writing the book several times because I was so troubled about whether I could handle the material properly. (And let's face it, a book about sexuality, marriage, death and religion is just fated to include difficult, fraught and explosive material.) No writer should ever hold out for universal popularity, that's clear, and some people have been kind enough to say that I handled it well. But I was immensely troubled by the same issue that I believe a lot of people have latched onto when thinking about how Rowling handled Dumbledore. And yes, I did get some flack about it.
Specifically, I wrote a book where the gay character's story ended in death and tragedy, and the heterosexual character's story ended in rescue, love and redemption. Given the facts of the AIDS epidemic and the structure of the fairy tale I was basing the book upon, there wasn't much way around that, but it really REALLY bothered me, to the point that it almost made me abandon the book entirely. Because I absolutely didn't want that to be the message that people took away from The Wild Swans, that somehow gay relationships were doomed to tragedy, whereas heterosexual ones were not. I don't believe that it true about these relationships in real life.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sistermagpie has posted about this aspect specifically in complaining about Rowling's remarks about Dumbledore, although she has since locked the entry so that I can't see it.
How did I reconcile this in my mind? Well, I didn't ever manage solve it entirely to my satisfaction, really. I tried to show that Elias and Sean's relationship was the most loving one in the book, even more so than Eliza and Jonathan's, really: although Sean did indeed infect Elias, he didn't turn on him and betray him emotionally the way Jonathan turned on Eliza. And I wanted the ending, at the Quilt, to convey at least some hope, to get across the idea that there still might be a chance to save Elias, if we worked hard enough to break the curse (raising money to fight AIDS, medical treatments, etc.)
Rowling said that Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald "was his great tragedy." I don't think she meant that it was his tragedy because he was in love with someone that was the same gender as him. I think she meant instead that he loved someone who led him into dangerous ideas, and who set up a conflict that led to the death of his sister. I think if Dumbledore was alone for the rest of his life, it wasn't because (in Rowling's mind) he reasoned that it had all ended badly because he had loved a man instead of a woman. But I'll admit that's just my impression, YMMV. I'll be interested in seeing if Rowling comments further to clarify this.
As I've told several people, I nearly stopped writing the book several times because I was so troubled about whether I could handle the material properly. (And let's face it, a book about sexuality, marriage, death and religion is just fated to include difficult, fraught and explosive material.) No writer should ever hold out for universal popularity, that's clear, and some people have been kind enough to say that I handled it well. But I was immensely troubled by the same issue that I believe a lot of people have latched onto when thinking about how Rowling handled Dumbledore. And yes, I did get some flack about it.
Specifically, I wrote a book where the gay character's story ended in death and tragedy, and the heterosexual character's story ended in rescue, love and redemption. Given the facts of the AIDS epidemic and the structure of the fairy tale I was basing the book upon, there wasn't much way around that, but it really REALLY bothered me, to the point that it almost made me abandon the book entirely. Because I absolutely didn't want that to be the message that people took away from The Wild Swans, that somehow gay relationships were doomed to tragedy, whereas heterosexual ones were not. I don't believe that it true about these relationships in real life.
sistermagpie has posted about this aspect specifically in complaining about Rowling's remarks about Dumbledore, although she has since locked the entry so that I can't see it. How did I reconcile this in my mind? Well, I didn't ever manage solve it entirely to my satisfaction, really. I tried to show that Elias and Sean's relationship was the most loving one in the book, even more so than Eliza and Jonathan's, really: although Sean did indeed infect Elias, he didn't turn on him and betray him emotionally the way Jonathan turned on Eliza. And I wanted the ending, at the Quilt, to convey at least some hope, to get across the idea that there still might be a chance to save Elias, if we worked hard enough to break the curse (raising money to fight AIDS, medical treatments, etc.)
Rowling said that Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald "was his great tragedy." I don't think she meant that it was his tragedy because he was in love with someone that was the same gender as him. I think she meant instead that he loved someone who led him into dangerous ideas, and who set up a conflict that led to the death of his sister. I think if Dumbledore was alone for the rest of his life, it wasn't because (in Rowling's mind) he reasoned that it had all ended badly because he had loved a man instead of a woman. But I'll admit that's just my impression, YMMV. I'll be interested in seeing if Rowling comments further to clarify this.