One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[sistermagpie]

> 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.

Magpie:
That's the way it is now because it's not in the books. If it were in 
the books it wouldn't be innuendo. We don't see lots of couples 
snogging or holding hands and they're still presented as couples. The 
Grey Lady and the Baron, for instance. If it were just said outright 
that. Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald it wouldn't be 
innuendo. Or at least soemthing more specific in canon which isn't 
there now. We're talking about something that was quite possibly a 
completely chaste relationship, so I don't see how it can add more 
sex to the book.

Carol:
> 
> 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. 

Magpie:
If you want books to have ratings okay--I don't. But it's not "so-
called" YA literature depicting explicit sex, it's actual YA books. 

What you still haven't explained is why making Dumbledore and 
Grindelwald any more explicit than not having it in the books at all 
as text is suddenly NC-17-rated. If lots of characters can be shown 
as interested in each other that way without explicit sex, so can 
they. You may find "young adult" an absurd euphamism, but I'm using 
it to refer to a division of publishing where it's pretty 
straightforward.

Carol:
 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.) 

Magpie:
They're showing teenagers dealing with having sex, usually, or being 
interested in it in a way not presented as secretive or perverse. 
Since sexual feelings mostly begin in adolescence, it's a topic in 
many books for that age group. 

But none of this has anything to do with DH, because you still 
haven't explained why DD's romantic feeilngs towards Grindelwald 
being put into canon is showing explicit sex. They may never have had 
sex AT ALL. Why is every single canon couple of any level okay but 
DD/GG explicit sex? Whatever I agree or disagree with your views on 
sex being the subject of books for teenagers, this is a totally 
different issue than DD's crush on Grindelwald being put into canon. 
You can have a G-rated gay couple as easily as you can have a G-rated 
straight couple.

Carol:

> 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,

Magpie:
So you just have somebody tell us Dumbledore was in love with him or 
whatever. There's any number of ways to do it if you're putting that 
information in canon. They don't all require...whatever it is you are 
imagining with the references to explicit sex.

Carol:
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?) 

Magpie:
Or straight teenagers who happen to see it that way, or younger 
readers who do. That doesn't change the fact that somebody making it 
clear to Harry that Dumbledore was quite possibly in love with 
Grindelwald does not make anything more sexually explicit than it was 
before.

Carol:> 
> *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. 

Magpie:
No, it's not on the page as anything as something some readers might 
or might not imagine. But that doesn't mean it *couldn't* be on the 
page as more than that without the books becoming porn. 

Carol:
And, really, that's
> all they need to see to understand the plot, regardless of what 
exists
> in JKR's imagination. 

Magpie:
Yes, that is all they have to understand for the plot. It's written 
as a friendship. He doesn't need to be in love with him for the plot 
to work; it's written to work without that. But if she had written it 
as part of the plot it would be part of the plot and that would be 
part of his motivation. I don't need R/Hr or H/G to understand the 
plot either. JKR could have written the story without that and just 
given the characters different motivations. Of course the plot works 
perfectly fine without DD/GG being explicit in canon. That doesn't 
mean it *couldn't* have been canon just as any other romance. 

Carol:
JKR has depicted the relationship in a way that
> would be perfectly appropriate (physically) in a G-rated film. 

Magpie:
And she could have kept it exactly the same rating if she'd 
introduced DD being in love with Grindelwald if the rating is 
refering to depictions of sexual intercourse. It does not require 
full-frontal nudity and graphic sex to say one character is in love 
with or crushing on another, especially since it's quite possible 
that even in the way she imagined the story the two never had any 
physical contact of that nature whatsoever.

Carol:
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.)

Magpie:
But DD/GG is somehow NC-17. Why is that?

Carol:
> 
> JKR, unlike those "YA" authors you're speaking of, 

Magpie:
It's just YA, not "YA." It's a division of juvenile publishing. Gay 
characters are not unusual in it. (Of course they appear in books for 
younger readers as well.)

Carol:
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.

Magpie:
At least she doesn't think it has a place in this series, which is 
fine. This says nothing about why Dumbledore's romantic feelings 
towards Grindelwald don't have a place in this series, because they 
are not any more sexually explicit than Harry's or Ginny's or Ron's 
or Hermione's.

Carol:
> 
> Let's think about kids' feelings and sensibilities and what is
> appropriate for their age level rather than about politics here. 

Magpie:
If you're suggesting that gay people are harmful to the feelings and 
sensibilities and what is appropriate for children, then you're 
already bringing in politics, I think. Because I don't see what's 
harmful to a child's sensibilities about one man being in love with 
another. I imagine Arthur Levine's child, for instance, would be 
puzzled as to why it should be hurtful.

Carol:
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), 

Magpie:
I'm with JKR on that one. The book takes her work and repackages it 
and tries to profit off of it. It crossed a line she'd made clear.

Carol:
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. 

Magpie:
And Dumbledore being in love with Grindelwald fits well within those 
parameters if she'd wanted to put it in.

Carol:
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. 

Magpie:
So this part, at least, has nothing to do with graphic sex since 
they're finding the idea homosexual attraction disturbing, period, 
even when it's G-rated.


Carol:
And JKR,
> knowing that many readers would find such a relationship 
distasteful,
> kept it off the page. 

Magpie:
Quite possibly she did--I can't know her reasons for sure. But that 
would mean she kept the gay relationship off the page because people 
find gay relationships or gay people or gay attraction distasteful, 
not because she was keeping explicit sex out of the books. There's no 
explicit sex one way or the other.

Carol:
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.) 

Magpie:
Yes, I can see why people consider that hypocritical in their view.

Carol:
> 
> 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.

Magpie:
I agree the only thing that's the fact on the page is that he wanted 
to dominate Muggles. I object to the question of "what should we be 
more concerned with" because while I think his wanting to dominate 
Muggles is far more shocking and important, we don't automatically 
have to choose. Either way his feelings towards Grindelwald are part 
of that. Canonically these feelings aren't given a specifically 
romantic character and that works just fine, but if they were given 
that character that would be part of the story too.

-m