One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[slytherin_jenn]

> Del:
> Nobody ever thinks of themselves as prejudiced or bigoted. 
> Those people who don't think of homosexuality (or anything
> else) as good or neutral, certainly don't see themselves as
> prejudiced or bigoted. Instead, it is most likely people 
> like you that they see as prejudiced and bigoted. Problem is:
> who gets to decide who will impose their definition of Right
> and Wrong on the other? Who gets to decide which side will 
> be officially called "prejudiced" or not? There is NO such 
> ultimate authority, so that in the end, judgements of 
> "prejudice" or "bigotry" are not so much statements about 
> the other, as they are instead statements about ourselves IMO.

Celoneth:
I'm sure people who are freaked out about gay DD don't see themselves
as prejudiced - but people's perceptions of themselves are often as
inaccurate as outsiders perceptions. We're all prejudiced to some
extent, often unconsciously but that is not a reasoned basis for
opposing/favouring something. What I was asking was for a legitimate
reason that it's such a big deal that DD is gay and I've heard none.
Perhaps you can elucidate because it really doesn't make sense to me.

Del: 
>She should, IMO, have given them the choice to read or not 
> to read, instead of waiting until *after* they had read to 
> reveal that there's something in the books that they 
> would normally choose not to read.

Celoneth:
So what, books should come with warning labels. "Warning: Author sees
nothing wrong with gay characters, interracial dating, etc." She
couldn't reveal the DD-GG relationship before DH or it could have
spoiled the end of the series. The comment isn't even in the books -
and is easily ignorable if it doesn't coincide w/ the reader's
perception of DD, and if someone is so petty that they wouldn't read
books because an author wrote a gay character then frankly its their
loss and not the author's obligation to pander to them.

Del:
> I agree, but I think that this applies to anyone 
> and everyone: for example, IMO, it applies to both 
> those who despise gays, and those who despise those 
> who don't think homosexuality is good or neutral. To 
> be very blunt: whether it's "Faggot!" or "Bigot!", 
> it's an opinion turned into hate speech all the 
> same.

Celoneth:
No, because a bigot is a definition, the other word is a slur and its
only purpose is to act as a slur. I included the words prejudiced and
bigoted - they are different things. Prejudice, imo, is when a person
has a conscious or not opinion about a group not rooted in fact and
reason and may be acted on or not, bigoted, imo, is when a person has
an irrational fear/hatred of a group and and that is acted on. 

Del:
 If she wanted all her readers to be 
> OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD,
> so that all people reading the books would know that DD 
> was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from 
> them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, 
> it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your 
> mind.

Celoneth: 
But she did apparently write a gay DD - with the nature of the story
it would have been inappropriate for her to mention DD's sexuality
throughout the books - perhaps in Rita Skeeter's interviews but
normally headmasters and similar figures do not share their personal
lives with students not to mention that it had very little to do with
the plot. Authors typically plan characters in very detailed ways -
many details are never mentioned in the story but influence the way an
author writes the character. 

Del:
> I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply 
> the Constitution.

Celoneth:
Actually it wasn't the Constitution - it had to be amended for blacks
and women to be able to vote. The original Constitution viewed blacks
and women to some extent as property.

Not going to get into the entire Bible thing except to mention that
religion has been used for millenia to justify all sorts of horrid
things (slavery, oppression, persecution, war, etc.) as well as
opposition to those things. Most religious texts can argue pretty much
any point the reader wants to affirm.
Celoneth