One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[lizzyben04]

> Del replies:
> With a name like Parvati Patil, would it be 
> surprising that Parvati would turn out to be Hindu? 
> No it wouldn't. Someone reading the name "Parvati 
> Patil" would necessarily be aware that she might 
> very well be Hindu. No such thing about DD being gay 
> though: not only is he never hinted at as being gay, 
> but *nobody else* in the entire WW is either! Until 
> JKR said otherwise in an interview, there was simply 
> NO gay characters in her books. None whatsoever. And 
> thus no reason to expect DD to be gay.

lizzyben:

She could be any religion - it's implied that she could be Hindu, 
but then it's also arguably implied that DD could be gay. I thought 
it was very heavily implied in DH's description of the DD/GG 
relationship. But you're ducking my essential point. If someone 
really disagrees w/Hinduism, & doesn't like hearing that a character 
is Hindu or Jewish, etc., do they have the right to demand that JKR 
remove all Hindu characters from her series? No, IMO. But you seem 
to be saying that JKR should conform to people who don't agree 
w/homosexuality by removing any reference to a gay character. To be 
consistent, you'd also have to support muzzling any opinion or 
character that could possibly offend someone else. 
 
Del:
> Then why didn't she actually DO that? Why didn't 
> she *write* DD as gay? Why didn't she have him SAY, 
> in the books, "I was in love with GG"?
<snip>

lizzyben:

Because she didn't have the - what's the word? - courage. She knew 
the outcry & hysteria it would cause among conservatives if she made 
it explicit in the novels. So she waited till the interviews to 
clarifify things. Of course, if she HAD explicitly put it in the 
books, those same people would still be just as upset - if not more 
so. I could see people saying, you should've just mentioned in an 
interview instead & kept it out of the book!


Del:
> Indeed. And in the case of inter-racial 
> relationships, and witchcraft, and women having a 
> job, she put her quill where her mouth is <snip>
> But with homosexuality, JKR didn't do that at all. 
> Instead, she pretended, for 7 entire books, to not 
> want to tackle the issue of homosexuality, thus 
> pandering to the wishes of a whole category of 
> readers, and then once those readers had bought and 
> read the books, she introduced homosexuality out of 
> the blue. That's manipulative.
<snip>

lizzyben:

She did the same thing with the Christianity aspect. She remained 
quiet about any possible Christian elements to the series until 
after DH was published. Then she announced that it was a Christian 
story all along.  Yet it seems that religious conservatives embraced 
that announcement no problem, without calling it manipulative or 
dishonest. But when she announces that DD was gay, suddenly everyone 
is outraged about her interview statements. Basically, I just feel 
like many people aren't being honest about the real reason that 
they're upset. 


Del:
> Nobody is asking JKR to not depict DD as gay. In 
> fact, it's precisely because she didn't do exactly 
> that, that there's now a problem. 

lizzyben:

So if she'd shown DD reminiscing about his torrid love affair with 
Grindewald in DH, there wouldn't be a problem? It seems like many 
people are simply disagree w/homosexuality & don't like having any 
gay characters in the series. Wouldn't they have just as much of a 
problem with it if it'd been obvious in the book? Would you no 
longer have a problem with it if she'd explicitly depicted DD as gay 
in the novel?

Del:
> Except that this doesn't seem to be how *she* sees 
> things, judging from her interviews. When she says 
> "he's my character", it's clear that she doesn't 
> consider her words as just another "viewpoint", but 
> as truth. And when she says things like (paraphrase) 
> "I never doubted that a great wizard could be gay", 
> how can this not be construed as a direct moral 
> attack on those of her fans who don't want DD to be 
> gay?

lizzyben:

Because she does believe that a great or brilliant person could be 
gay. How is that a moral attack on anyone? JKR can say what she 
likes, but people are under no obligation to listen. The fans can 
keep shipping Neville/Luna no matter what she says. I can still 
think DD is evil, no matter how much she says he's good. I can still 
see Snape as a hero, even if she says that she doesn't see him that 
way. We're all free to form our own opinions - JKR is no one's boss.

lizzyben:
> > So, in the interest of tolerating other people's 
> > beliefs & opinions, she shouldn't express her own?
Del:
> Not after pandering to those people's beliefs and 
> opinions for 7 books, no, not IMO. I see this as 
> totally despicable. <snip> And in the books, NOBODY is gay and 
homosexuality doesn't even exist. That's the way 
> JKR wrote those books, and she needs to deal with 
> that now.

lizzyben:

I think JKR herself isn't as tolerant of homosexuality as she'd like 
to think. Interracial dating & working women were introduced with 
casual off-handness. Dean & Ginny are dating, and it's not a big 
deal. I wish homosexuality could've been treated the same way - 
Seamus & Zack are dating, and it's not a big deal. Instead, JKR made 
it a very Big Deal, that had to be hidden & announced, and causes 
major tragedy & melodrama to the gay character. But I can't even get 
to that deeper criticism, because the simple statement that DD is 
gay has caused such a firestorm of controvery. 

lizzyben:
> > 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. 
> 
> Except that she's trying to do just that: silence 
> those fans who are outraged at her revelation that 
> DD is gay. "He's my character" and "I never doubted 
> that great wizards can be gay" are both ways to tell 
> those outraged readers to get lost. Hence my protest.
> 
> Del

lizzyben:

Has she silenced you? Has she silenced me? No. She's expressed her 
opinion of the character, and we are all free to offer own own 
opinions & beliefs. She's also called Harry/Ginny "soulmates" - 
maybe that could be interpreted as telling Harry/Hermione shippers 
to get lost, but they won't. They'll keep happily writing Harmonian 
fan fiction no matter what she says. 

I just don't like the idea that JKR should shut up so that she won't 
express any ideas or values that could possibly conflict with those 
of some readers. She should be allowed to express her own political 
opinions or religious values, just as you are free to express your 
own. If JKR wants to say that a character is gay, or Hindu, or an 
alien, she's got a total right to express that opinion. Just as 
outraged fans have a right to express their own disagreement. But NO 
ONE can force other people to conform with their own personal 
values. So IMO fans can't demand her silence or conformity to their 
own personal values. 


lizzyben