Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake

[sistermagpie]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> <snip> I can understand some people's desire for JKR to include a 
gay
> character to make a statement. But I never read these books to get 
a
> morality message from JKR, I feel I've got a handle on that all by
> myself, thank you very much. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> That raises an interesting point. It seems to me that many readers
> these days, not just those on this list, judge a book by the 
political
> statements that it makes. If it includes a gay character, for 
example,
> or disapproves of racial prejudice or pollution or global warming 
or
> abuse of animals or shows women as equal to men or whatever cause 
you
> choose (to name only liberal causes--I'm sure conservative readers
> have their own list but their not as vocal) it's a good book. If it
> doesn't advocate those values or seems to advocate the "wrong" 
values,
> it's a bad book.

Magpie:
I would think most people just read for pleasure and that the only 
people who judge books based on certain beliefs are people who are 
very focused on those beliefs. A person who might read HP and be 
annoyed at the way something is done might happily read Moby Dick 
and never have the same qualms. I don't buy any claim that JKR is 
just telling a story and not trying to impart any moral messages--
she imparts them all the time and is sometimes even more didactic in 
interviews. Anybody can see what values she likes reading her books, 
at least in the context of her story, and perhaps what values she 
thinks she ought to like. 

Many instances that others find funny, I don't--some I do. If the 
Dursleys had knocked Dumbledore over the head with mead I might have 
found it funnier than him doing it--or else I'd just find it 
satisfying, which seems like another draw of the scene. Everybody 
likes to see characters they want to see humiliated humiliated. 
We're just not always on the same page of who it would be satisfying 
to see smacked down.

So basically, I don't think it's going to usually be about whether 
or not a reader demands everything conform to his/her political 
beliefs. People would rarely read anything if that was the case. 
People who are like that usually make that pretty well known, like 
someone who won't read anything unless it's about Jesus or won't 
read anything unless there are a certain amount of minorities shown 
in very specific ways. But those are extremes. I think most people 
just read the book for entertainment and only get annoyed by its 
politics or values if the story makes them feel that way. One can 
enjoy GWTW and still be uncomfortable or discuss the romanticized 
version of the antebellum South in it.

Carol:
> Anyway, I simply do not understand this idea of passing judgment 
on a
> book based on its content, and particularly passing moral judgment
> based on political content. (It's politically correct; therefore, 
it's
> a good book.) I, OTOH, judge a book by its entertainment value (its
> re-readability, if that's a word), its style, its ability to move 
me
> to laughter or tears, its characters (are they memorable? Do they 
have
> individual voices and distinctive personalities? Do I care about
> them?), its appeal to universal concerns (love, death, growing up,
> growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope, despair ad infinitum).
 I
> absolutely do not want to be preached at (which is one reason that 
I
> hated SPEW) even if it's an imaginary cause.

Magpie:
Well, sure, but just because you're reading for entertainment 
doesn't mean you can't wind up being annoyed by something in a book. 
You might not like what a book has to say about love, death, growing 
up, growing old, joy, suffering, courage, hope or despair. You can 
pass judgment on a book based on just about anything. I remember 
reading Seventeenth Summer when I was a kid and not being able to 
stand it. I didn't like what it had to say or how it said it, or the 
characters. Was I passing judgment based on some politica agenda I 
shouldn't have been applying to the book when I was ten? Or was I 
just reading a book that annoyed me and I wanted to say why? To me 
this is all a normal part of reading. I've never read just to 
say "Well, that was vaguely amusing." It's not a videogame where I'm 
just finding something skillful to do for a while.


Carol:> 
> Thank goodness, I have no idea how JKR feels about, say, global
> warming. I get the idea that she disapproves of child abuse, but so
> does virtually every intelligent reader, and we can see the 
Dursleys'
> treatment of Harry as a plot device, not a reason for getting 
upset.
> (Someone call child Protective Services!) Obviously, she approves 
of
> interracial dating, but thank goodness, it's just quietly there in 
the
> books, not leaping off the page as a *noble cause*. 

Magpie:
Are there people who want her to run down a list of specific causes 
and giving her views on them in the books? I think she gives views 
on quite a lot of things in the story. I thought it was pretty clear 
the Dursleys treatment of Harry was supposed to be bad. And then 
Hagrid comes and smacks them down.

It seems like this is somehow tied to the gay issue, but I'm not 
sure how. Pointing out that JKR did not include any gay people in 
the book that she showed doesn't mean one judges books only on 
whether they show support for gay people. 

Carol:
I guess that's why some readers are upset that
> she didn't free the House-Elves. Me? 

Magpie:
I couldn't care less that she didn't free the House-Elves, myself, 
but I consider it a perfectly valid analysis to look at what she 
actually did do with the House-Elves and give me reaction to it. I 
don't know whether I'd really consider that a political discussion, 
since it's not part of modern day politics. If it's GWTW rather than 
Uncle Tom's Cabin it seems fine to just say that.  

-m