One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[delwynmarch]

lizzyben wrote:
> 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.

Del replies:
I didn't. One reason for that is that I read it 
as an intellectual fascination, but another big 
reason is that JKR created a world in which 
homosexuality had never been mentioned as even 
possibly existing.

> 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.

No, that's not at all MY position. My position is 
that if she wanted DD to be gay, then she should 
have written him as gay in the books, instead of 
lamely outing him after the deal is done.

> 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.

Seems we agree on this point then: it was a 
very lame and coward way to handle 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!

Good point!

Personally, I would probably be upset for the 
same reason I've already mentioned: because it 
doesn't square with the WW as she created it all 
through the first 6 books. Other than that... it's 
her books, she gets to write them, not me. She 
wrote quite a few things I dislike, but I don't 
argue that she had no right to write them.

> 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.

Probably because for most Christians, it was just 
so OBVIOUS that her story was a Christian story. 

> Basically, I just feel like many people aren't 
> being honest about the real reason that they're 
> upset. 

I don't know about other people, but me I'm upset 
for two main reasons:

1- I think it was cowardly to out DD after the facts 
instead of writing him as gay in the books.

2- DD being gay is totally inconsistent with the 
strictly heterosexual WW she's created.

So I feel like she's deliberately created a 
controversy just to make a point that I can't 
even figure out. Ugh.

> So if she'd shown DD reminiscing about his 
> torrid love affair with Grindewald in DH, 
> there wouldn't be a problem?

I'd have a problem with anyone's *torrid* 
love affair, as graphic sex never was the name 
of the HP game. And as I already mentioned, 
I'd be seriously bothered by the lack of 
consistency between a gay DD and a strictly 
heterosexual WW. But other than that, I would 
personally not have been seriously bothered, 
no. No more than by several other things in the 
HP books, at least.

> 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. 

But, but... This is EXACTLY what I've been 
talking about, what I've been saying is bothering 
me!

> 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.

In theory I agree, but in practice I still think 
that she went at it the wrong way. I don't want her 
to shut up, I only want her to show some respect and 
sensitivity and yes, courage, when addressing delicate 
issues. Is that too much to ask for?

Del