One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[lizzyben04]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch"
<delwynmarch at ...> wrote:
>
> Celoneth wrote:
> > I'm not denying it - I just, for the life of me don't 
> > understand it - unless its tied to bigotry or prejudice
> > (which is the only thing I can think of) and in that 
> > case I have no sympathy at all, and nor do I
> > think an author should pander to prejudices.
> 
> Del muses:
> But who gets to decide that it's prejudice/bigotry? 
> One person's bigotry is another person's defending of 
> the truth. One person's prejudice is another person's 
> sound moral judgement.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Just my personal musing,
> 
> Del

lizzyben:

Where would you draw the line? Because it's just as possible for
people to make the same argument for any perceived difference. IE if
JKR stated that Pavarti Patil is Hindu, & a fan think that Hinduism is
wrong and don't like the idea of a Hindu character. Should JKR conform
to that person's desire to not read about a Hindu character? But why
would JKR have to conform to someone else's belief? I mean, Hindu
people exist, just like gay people exist, & it seems to me that JKR is
free to make her characters any religion or sexual orientation without
worrying about whether that would conform to the morality or religious
beliefs of every possible fan. Indeed, there's no way she *could* if
she wanted to. Plenty of people think inter-racial relationships are
wrong, or witchcraft is wrong, or women having a job is wrong -
there's no way JKR should or even could structure the novels so as to
avoid depicting anything that anyone could disagree with.  


Del replies:
Thanks for the clear answer!

I guess my next question would then be along the lines of:
"what do you call "trampling on my rights?""

Let's take the example of homosexuality, since it is the
one creating so many waves in the HP fandom lately: how
does saying "I think homosexuality is wrong and I don't
like the idea of DD being gay" trample on anybody's rights?

lizzyben:

IMO, that statement doesn't tramp on anyone's right, and you have a
First Amendment right to express that opinion (in the US, at least).
Where it begins trampling on people's rights is if that opinion is
turned into action - i.e. discrimination or censorship. IMO asking an
author not to depict a gay character, or banning books that do, is
trampling on people's rights to see or read something that does not
conform with your own opinion. I guess for me it's that people are
free to determine & express their own beliefs, but don't have a right
to interfere w/the author's, or other readers, ability to express
their own viewpoint on the world. And for me, things like censorship &
book bannings cross that line. (not that you personally believe these
things, just saying where that lie lies for me) 

Del:
Inversely: when JKR fails to describe DD as gay in the books,
and then she says "DD is my character and he is what he is",
thus implying "DD is gay whether you like it or not, and
even though it's not in the books", isn't she trampling
on some fans' right to see DD as not-gay?

lizzyben:

IMO, no, because she is expressing her own viewpoint on that
character. Readers are free to accept or discard that opinion, just
like they are free to accept or discard her other pronouncements about
the characters. (i.e. Ginny & Harry are soulmates? Please. I discarded
that information right away!) She's free to say it, & we're free to
believe it - or not. 

Del:
I can understand that she might not *like* the idea that
some of her readers would rather DD not be gay, but I find
her insisting on defining DD as gay even in the face of the
anger or disappointment of some of her fans to be quite,
well, intolerant of their opinions and desires.

What do you think?

Del

lizzyben:

So, in the interest of tolerating other people's beliefs & opinions,
she shouldn't express her own? That starts to seem more like expecting
others to self-censor & stop stating an opinion that conflicts with
one's own. Continuing the Parvarti analogy, should JKR stop saying
that Patil is Hindu because some anti-Hindu fans don't like that idea?
Should she not include that information in the encyclopedia for fear
of offending somone? The books are what they are. I'd prefer not to
think that JKR wrote DH as a Christian novel, but she's totally free
to write that, and to later explicitly say that she wrote that. I
can't expect her books to conform with my own values or opinions, or
demand that she stop expressing her own. IMO tolerance extends to
allowing everyone to have & express their own views - JKR is free to
express her own opinions & beliefs, & readers are free to express how
they disagree w/those beliefs. But neither has the right to silence
the other. Just IMO.

lizzyben