One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[Carol]

Carol:
> > 
> > Obviously, we can't hide the existence of sexual attraction from 
kids. They know about it already. But most kids fourteen and under (I
wish I could say sixteen and under) aren't ready for sexual
relationships of their own and really don't want to read about it, in
my experience. They may wonder when Ron is going to figure out that he
loves Hermione and when they're going to kiss, but they're mostly
worried about other things--like whether Harry's going to survive (or,
in the earlier books, what kind of detention Harry is going to get
from Snape) and most of all, in what happens next. Sexual innuendoes
(including the sly reference to "Equus" in "King's Cross" and the
possibility of a romantic relationship between DD and GG) go right
over their heads. Or, at least, that's my experience with regard to
young readers (fourteen and under).
> 
Magpie:
> Wait. I'm following you about how kids don't want to read about 
sexual relationships, but can wonder when Ron is going to figure out 
that he loves Hermione, or when they're going to kiss. But then 
Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald--which is *exactly* the 
same as Ron being in love with Hermione or, perhaps more accurately 
since it was in the past, exactly the same as Merope in love with Tom
or the Bloody Baron in love with the Grey Lady--must be sexual
innuendo that goes over their heads (as people missed a lot signs for
H/G and R/Hr anyway) or an explicit sexual relationship they're not
interested in reading about? 
> 
> There still seems to be a premise here that Dumbledore/Grindelwald
is about the mechanics of sex or dirtier or more graphic instead of
just being the same but with two men. If sexuality=having sex on page,
then Dumbledore and Grindelwald still aren't more about sexuality than
any other people in canon. 
> 
Carol responds:

DD's infatuation with GG or love for him or whatever it was is sexual
innuendo because it's not on the page (or, actually, just innuendo
because love doesn't necessarily imply sex and GG's feelings may have
been different from Albus's) and kids, unlike politically oriented
adults, aren't going to pick up any hints of a sexual or romantic
attraction between two teenage boys, one of them underage. DD and GG
aren't shown or referred to as "snogging" or holding hands, which is
how what you're calling "sexuality" (a definition I questioned) is
depicted on the page for heterosexual couples (with implied sex in the
case of pregnancy and childbirth). Since DD and GG aren't shown or
referred to as doing anything to indicate either love or sexual
attraction, only an infatuation based on shared ideas and ambitions
and a failure on Albus's part to see (or perhaps acknowledge to
himself) Gellert's sinister side until it was too late, children (as
JKR herself said) will see only a friendship--especially since JKR
withheld even the slightest hint that DD was or had ever been a sexual
being, homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual, for fear that it would
spoil her plot. So, yes, the veiled hints of a sexual relationship, or
rather, a romantic attraction, between the boys or on Albus's side
alone (my sense is that Grindelwald cared for him enough not to kill
him in the duel and not to want Voldemort to violate his grave, but
that could as easily be friendship as love) will go over child
readers' heads just as the references to "Equus" do. And for that
matter, the references to pregnancy and childbirth will not
automatically conjure up images of sexual intercourse in children's
heads. And, IMO, that's all to the good.

As for so-called YA literature depicting explicit sex, maybe the book
sellers should employ the same sort of labeling system that's used in
films, something along the lines of PG-13 and R, not only for sex but
for "language" (profanity, obscenity, and scatology) and violence. I
would rate the first three books as PG rather than G, GoF as PG-13
becaause a boy dies and the Voldemort resurrection scene might be
terrifying, OoP and HBP as also PG-13 because the level of violence
intensifies and a beloved character is killed in each and the level of
"language" is getting a bit beyond what's usually seen in children's
books (as opposed to "young adult," which is an absurd
euphemism--older kids and teenagers are not adults. Young adults are
in their twenties and thirties), and DH as bordering on R because of
two terrifying scenes with Nagini. (The "language" is still PG-13,
e.g., "bitch," as is the "sexuality"--one passionate, interrupted kiss
between Harry and Ginny and one enthusiastic but chaste kiss between
Ron and Hermione. Lots of sexual innuendo, but as I said, it will go
over the heads of readers under sixteen or perhaps even eighteen,
depending on the teenager.) But any book with explicit sex (such as
the ones you're referring to) should have, IMHO, an R rating. What are
these writers doing depicting explicit sex in books for kids? They
have enough to worry about with puberty (acne, changes in their
bodies, hormones, unstable emotions, peer pressure to use drugs) and
homework without adding to their confusion. Most kids fourteen and
under, as you've already acknowledged, are not ready to deal with sex
on that level and will find it disturbing or disgusting. Or perhaps
they'll be secretly and perversely drawn to it as some teenagers,
unfortunately for them and their parents and society at large, are
drawn to porn sites. (In my day, it was Playboy magazines that they
looked at furtively and hid under the covers of their beds.) Anyway, I
think that so-called freedom of speech has had some unfortunate
consequences, including the level of profanity and obscenity allowed
on television, and I fear that our children and grandchildren will
suffer the consequences when they become adults. Responsibility,
decency, and modesty seem to me to have gone by the wayside, along
with courtesy and respect for authority. Just my opinion, and I'm not
arguing it here because I have no doubt whatever that three quarters
of this list disagrees with me and cannot be convinced even to listen
to my outmoded views.

To get back to DD/GG vs. Hermione and Ron. It isn't "exactly the same"
since kids have been reading about Hermione and Ron since the first
book, and if their mutual attraction (hinted at rather obviously in
the films) wasn't apparent before the Yule Ball, it was certainly
obvious afterwards (if not to Ron himself, at least to many readers,
including kids--I'm ignoring H/H Shippers, who were evidently engaged
in wishful thinking). But, in contrast to Ron and Hermione, we never
see GG and DD together on page, in part because their relationship
exists in the past and is revealed gradually only through one letter,
a couple of photos, a dead woman's memories distorted by a
sensationalist reporter, and finally through Dead!DD's confessions,
which say nothing about love or physical attraction. We hear
(figuratively speaking) a few reminiscences, read one enthusiastic but
wholly intellectual letter, and "see" a photo of two boys laughing at
a shared joke (along with another photo of GG alone and
Greegorovitch's memory of the young thief, which tells us nothing at
all about a DD connection). Even Harry sees that the laughing,
merry-faced, golden-haired boy is attractive, but he also notices that
Cedric Diggory and Sirius Black are handsome. There's no indication of
sexual attraction in that recognition. Harry, as we see from his
thoughts and behavior, is heterosexual. He doesn't see a homoerotic
attraction in the photograph or the relationship itself, even after
"King's Cross," even though some adult readers (or homosexual
teenagers?) might speculate that one exists. 

*It's not on the page* except, perhaps, through innuendo that some
adult readers picked up before the interview and others now see
because JKR said it was there, or rather, that DD is gay in her
imagination. So children, as JKR herself says, will see a friendship,
and many adults will see, in addition to the friendship, the
intellectual attraction that DD himself acknowledges. (In contrast to
Elphias Doge or Aberforth, Gellert is DD's intellectual equal, the
first friend he's ever had with whom he can discuss his heady ideas
about the Deathly Hallows and world domination.) And, really, that's
all they need to see to understand the plot, regardless of what exists
in JKR's imagination. JKR has depicted the relationship in a way that
would be perfectly appropriate (physically) in a G-rated film. (The
ideas, of course--world domination and controlling Muggles through
magic for their own good--are another matter.) Ron's and Hermione's or
Ginny's and Harry's relationships are, perhaps, PG (as is Ron's and
Lavender's winding around each other. Or would that be PG-13?). (I
sense a double standard on Ron's part, though, and a marked difference
in his treatment of Lavender, whom he doesn't love or respect or
perhaps even like, and Hermione, whom he nevertheless treats rather
badly in other ways because of jealousy, though she treats him badly,
too, on occasion. Sorry. Sidetracked here.)

JKR, unlike those "YA" authors you're speaking of, apparently doesn't
believe that explicit sex belongs on the pages of kids' books, and I
agree with her in that respect. Explicit violence is, in DH
especially, another matter altogether.

Let's think about kids' feelings and sensibilities and what is
appropriate for their age level rather than about politics here. I'm
not happy with JKR at the moment (the suit against the Lexicon book is
the last straw, though I do think she should have been allowed to read
the manuscript and correct errors, such as Snape's birthdate), but I
think she handled "sexuality" well within the books, with young
readers seeing nothing beyond kissing and hand-holding and adults
spotting sexual innuendo where kids will overlook it. As for DD and
GG, it's not on the page at all, and perhaps if it were, many parents
would object, like it or not. And let's be realistic. Many kids,
conditioned to heterosexual attraction but not to homosexual
attraction by their own families (same-sex parents being a small
minority), movies, and TV, might find it disturbing as well. I'm not
saying that's the right way to think, only that it happens. And JKR,
knowing that many readers would find such a relationship distasteful,
kept it off the page. For me, that was a wise decision, leaving the
interpretation up to the individual reader. But I can see why others
would regard it as intellectually dishonest, hiding a characters'
sexual orientation until the last book--or, really, until that
interview--to avoid losing readers who would object to a gay authority
figure. (I'm not saying that's what she did, only that I understand
that view of the matter.) 

Either way, as it stands, what's on the page and not what she says in
interviews is what matters, IMO, both for child readers merely
enjoying the books and for adult readers who want to analyze and
interpret them. DD's sexual orientation is a matter of interpretation.
His early desire to dominate Muggles through magic is a canon "fact."
Which should we be more concerned with? Why aren't we exploring his
Machiavellian tactics and the changing concept of "the greater good"?
A lot of readers were disturbed by the revelations about DD in DH
itself, but now, instead of discussing the book(s), we're hung up on a
detail from an interview.

And what about the level of violence in the books, which is right
there on the page? How do the parents on this list feel about that? I
don't know about anyone else, but Bathilda!Nagini really creeped me
out. (Granted, I began reading at sometime after one in the morning
and didn't stop reading, except for a one-hour break to rave and cry
over Snape, till I finished the book some twenty-four hours later, so
I'm not sure that my mental state was that of the average reader.)

Carol, wondering how the DH film can possibly earn a PG 13 rating
given the horrific nature of certain scenes and the number of violent
deaths (and, yes, I think what's *in* the books is more important than
what's in JKR's imagination but not on the page)