Why Rowling should not have outed DD

[sistermagpie]

Tonks:
> The problem with having a character, any character, but especially
> DD, gay is multifaceted. (Now I am going to play the devils advocate
> here so don’t start calling me names. I personally do not think 
that
> being gay is a sin, or a personal choice. On the other hand, I 
don’t
> think that it is just one more of many ‘normal’ ways to live. 

Magpie:
Don't get what that means, but I won't call you names. Great that 
it's not a sin, but it's an abnormal way to live?

Tonks:

> Here are the reasons why even if Rowling thought of DD as gay, and
> did not put that fact in the books, that she should have taken that
> thought to her grave and never told the readers.
> 
> 1. It is not considered, even in this permissive day and age, as
> a ‘norm’ of our (U.S) society. (The average American is much 
more
> conservative than the majority of the people on this list, and there
> is nothing wrong with that. It is their right to believe what that
> want to believe.)

Magpie:
Don't get why this is a reason. It's their right to believe what they 
believe, I don't see how that's any reason that any author has to 
cater to that belief one way or the other. If Rowling happens to be 
one of the people who doesn't fall into line with conservative 
Americans, why would she take their considerations into account when 
writing her books? She hasn't so far. She's not American and has 
shown no inclination to want to be. 

Tonks:
 And in many societies around the world
> homosexuality is still a very taboo subject. I understand that
> Rowlings said the books were about tolerance, but they are far more
> than that. As I have said before, it serves no constructive purpose
> to introduce such as heated topic into such a popular book that
> appears to have the purpose to entertain, not educate. 

Magpie:
Who says she would have said it to educate people? Maybe she thinks 
Dumbledore being gay is no more or less entertaining than whatever he 
was before. If she doesn't think it's a taboo or heated subject she's 
naturally not going to relate to it as such. Somebody asked and she 
answered. There's nothing educational in Rowling's answer at all. If 
someone says that just saying someone is gay is trying to educate 
them, that's their projection.

Tonks:
 Now she had
> ticked the dragon and wonders why it is shooting fire at her. And
> yes, I am saying that she should not have stirred the waters. It is
> not going to change the mind of the people who are opposed to
> homosexuality. That is not the way to go about changing attitudes.
> And it will blind people who are opposed to homosexuality to
> receiving any of the other, even more important, teaching in the
> books which were teaching given by DD. This I think is very tragic.

Magpie:
I can't get too worried about her tickling that dragon outside the 
books, myself. And then also, I don't think the books are full of 
such good messages that anybody misses out on any sort of great moral 
instruction not found elsewhere by not reading them. They might miss 
out on a book they might have enjoyed. Their loss, but no big 
tragedy. How much catering has to be done to people with this 
sensitivity? 

Tonks:
> 
> 2. Most people read the books primary to be entertained. Rowling
> telling the world that there is a gay person in the books, after the
> fact, changes the story and the nature of the books. This fact alone
> makes people angry. 

Magpie:
It might make them angry, but it does not change the nature of the 
books from something just for entertainment one way or the other. 

Tonks:
And then telling them on top of this that the
> books are about tolerance and this is one more aspect of it, is
> just over the top for many people who do not share her world view.

Magpie:
But I thought her worldview was so wonderful that people needed to 
hear the great messages she put into the books? JKR has been spouting 
off about her worldview for years and has said things that have 
annoyed plenty of people by it. I don't like listening to her lecture 
to me in her interviews either. But if I can survive it so can other 
people. 

Tonks:> 
> 3. I always looked at the WW in the book as being about like the
> 1950. It was a conservative time before a 50% divorce rate, when
> families were a mother, father and kids unless something tragic
> happened to a parent as in Neville’s case. I understand that most 
of
> the folks on this list are under 30 and don’t remember a time when
> things were very different than they are today. 

Magpie:
Gay people were alive and well in 1950. Though there's no indication 
that JKR was ever intending to write 1950 in her books in every way. 
If she were the interracial dating probably would be there. 

Of course, if the gay man is only in the subtext and his one almost-
affair is a disaster that quite possibly put him off relationships 
for life then welcome to 1950! 

Tonks:
The WW had it
> problems, some of which mirrored our own, but still in many ways it
> was a place to go to escape from the RW. People do not want the
> place that they go to for escape to suddenly have the same problems
> and issues that the RW does. And I think that is another reason why
> some people are upset with the idea of a gay character in the books.

Magpie:
Only if gay characters are "a problem" of the modern world, which JKR 
may not agree with. I thought JKR was supposed to be being so gritty 
and realistic dealing with all those big problems like death and 
bigotry. So Nazis are a "problem" it's okay to show in the books but 
you can't even talk about gay people outside the books because people 
need to escape from that kind of horror?

tonks:
> 
> In summary: The outing of DD serves no useful purpose. It will not
> change the minds of those who have opposing views. 

Magpie:
Who says it has to serve a useful purpose? Neville/Hannah serves no 
useful purpose and you're not writing about why that was a bad thing 
to say. It could change the mind of someone with an opposing view for 
all we know, while not saying it at all will definitely not change 
the views. It might also be helpful to gay readers, both young people 
and adults. That group of readers is just as valid as the minority 
who hate gay characters.

Tonks:
It will ruin the
> books for those people and their children and grandchildren who will
> now probably never be allowed to read it. 

Magpie:
If they're not allowed to read it, it's not ruined for it. They'll 
just have to read something else. They might not have liked the books 
anyway. And let's not go overboard here. She said this in one Q&A. 
It's not even in the books. I don't think 20 years from now it's 
still going to be such front page news that everyone's going to be 
able to choose the books or not based on that fact. I doubt everybody 
today watches Spartacus with the knowledge about canon Marcellus/Ben 
Hur, for instance.

Tonks:
These people will no
> longer listen to the wonderful teachings of the world’s greatest
> wizard because they will be blinded by their shock, anger, hurt and
> disgust for what DD now represents to them. 

Magpie:
I don't think Dumbledore was too much of a role model, myself, that 
he can't be done without, so I wouldn't worry about a kid not getting 
to listen to his teachings. But anyway, they were already perverted 
teachings. The man apparently would have condoned the breeding of a 
werewolf with someone because it added a little more love in the 
world. He's already teaching what they want to hear. JKR's following 
his teachings by saying positive things she thinks about groups of 
people some consider "unclean" herself. Dumbledore doesn't spend much 
time in canon worrying about not openly disagreeing with stuff like 
this. What else is he supposed to stand for, in your view? 
Christianity? I think they'll get exposed to that elsewhere.

Tonks:
The fact that it wasn’t in the books is proof enough that she
> had a different purpose in mind when she wrote them. All in all,
> the outing of DD was a senseless, tragic thing to do. These books
> are not just for the minority of us who are liberals, it is for the
> masses and they my friends are mostly conservative. And just when
> the Religious right could have opened their minds to the books
> because of the Christian themes, she gave them more reason to ban
> them. Way to go Rowling!!

Magpie:
You know, I wasn't very happy about JKR doing this much at all, since 
I don't like extra-canonical revelations in general, and I didn't see 
why presenting a gay character the way one would have been presented 
in your beloved 1950s was some sort of breakthrough. But your 
explanations for it really push me over to championing what she did. 
If there are people who honestly believe that gay people should be 
hidden to keep from offending the sensibilities of others, then maybe 
it is good that they get even this tiny challenge to their straight 
privilege. The message that gay people are pretty much just like 
everyone else is a better message to me than anything Dumbledore 
supposedly says in canon that's supposed to be changing the world. 
(Though as I've said, I'm not sure what those messages are supposed 
to be--I don't see the books as being full of such better messages, 
period.) 

Perhaps this marks me as a "liberal" on your scale, but it's very 
bizarre to be expected to treat people who you know from your 
ordinary life to be perfectly acceptable as if they're something bad 
because other people think that. I wouldn't always go around picking 
fights with people over it everywhere, but there's line you can cross 
where you go from just not being overly aggressive to giving the 
message to gay people that you actually think those other people have 
a point about them and that they once again ought to sacrifice 
themselves and be not seen and not heard for the greater good. 

There's plenty of authors where you read their books and then later 
find out they have views you find vile. It's up to the reader to 
decide whether or not they can still enjoy the person's stories. If 
JKR had said that she thought gay people were bad I'd disagree with 
her position but still only see it reflected in the books in so much 
as there are no gay people shown in the WW. The books would not 
suddenly become a treatise against homosexuality to me. If she'd said 
Dumbledore actually rejected Grindelwald because Grindelwald was gay 
and that showed Dumbledore he was evil I'd think that was whacked and 
probably just be grateful it wasn't canon. I wouldn't expect JKR to 
be catering to the pro-gay-rights section of her readership if she 
hated gay people.

-m