One reporter reacts to JKR's revelations

[delwynmarch]

Magpie wrote:
> I would guess what was being said wasn't that 
> it was trampling on rights to say that, but that 
> the reason you were saying it is bigotry because 
> you don't want gay people to be represented in 
> literature the way straight people are, or 
> portrayed positively. they ought to not be allowed 
> in books that you want to read.

Del replies:
This makes sense, but I'm not sure it applies to the 
specific case of DD in the HP series. JKR was free to 
write DD as gay in the books: people who don't want to 
read books with gay characters would then have had the 
choice of either not reading any more HP, or sucking it 
up and reading HP anyway. They would not have been happy,
they would probably have made some noise, but overall 
they would have had to admit that JKR was free to write 
whatever she wanted in the books.

The problem as I see it now, is that JKR did write all 
the HP books, but she did NOT include any gay character. 
In fact, she even described a WW in which only heterosexuality 
seems to exist. That's what is in the books. And then 
now, she turns around and says "oh, by the way, there's 
a gay character in there". Well, I just don't see this 
as fair to those who don't want to read books with 
gay characters. Instead of being upfront and giving those 
readers a choice, she made the choice for them. I mean, 
this is what it all ends up looking like: "come, 
come and read my books, there aren't any gay characters 
in them... OK, you're finished reading? Well now let 
me tell you: there IS a gay character. Aha, tricked you!"
Of course, I'm not saying that this was her *intent*, 
but I can understand why those readers are upset. She 
should, IMO, have given them the choice to read or not 
to read, instead of waiting until *after* they had read to 
reveal that there's something in the books that they 
would normally choose not to read.

Do you see what I mean?

colebiancardi wrote:
> however, when group A takes that opinion and 
> tries to enact laws that restrict the freedom 
> of group B (yet that freedom is available to
> group A) then that is bigotry and prejudice 
> and there is no moral ground here for group A.

Del replies:
I think I know what you're referring to, and I 
really don't want to get there because I sure don't
see this issue as anywhere that simple.

> It is very easy to turn an opinion into hate
> speech, which can lead to horrible results 
> (re: the rise of the Nazi party)

I agree, but I think that this applies to anyone 
and everyone: for example, IMO, it applies to both 
those who despise gays, and those who despise those 
who don't think homosexuality is good or neutral. To 
be very blunt: whether it's "Faggot!" or "Bigot!", 
it's an opinion turned into hate speech all the 
same.

> However, in the case of JKR, it is her opinion - 
> and since DD is her brainchild(or brainwizard), 
> she has every right to be angry or disappointed 
> that the fans would take this to an extreme level.

I don't understand why? She created DD, she put him 
on paper, and she didn't present him as gay. And then 
she's disappointed because some readers don't want him 
to be gay. I'm sorry, but the way I see it, it's 
entirely her fault. If she wanted all her readers to be 
OK with a gay DD, then she should have WRITTEN a gay DD,
so that all people reading the books would know that DD 
was gay. If you don't tell people what you expect from 
them, and they do differently than what you hoped for, 
it's all your fault, not theirs. They can't read your 
mind.

> She shared DD with us, warts and all. 

Not for those who consider being gay a "wart". That 
particular wart was not in the books, it wasn't shared 
with them, instead it was imposed on them after they 
had finished reading the books. 

> JKR is not trampling on their rights to speak out 
> against her decision and the fans are free to express 
> their opinions about it.

True. But then, she couldn't even if she wanted to ;-)

> However, universal morality dictated that our gov't 
> intervene and make it a federal law that allowed 
> blacks to vote.

I disagree. It wasn't universal morality, it was simply 
the Constitution.

I must say I wonder at the phrase "universal morality". 
What do you mean by that?

> I never understood the argument "hate the sin,
> but love the sinner". I have always viewed that as 
> a cop-out to tackle the real reasons why someone 
> could "hate" a "sin".

Well, that's an example of why I believe it is so
incredibly important that people try and UNDERSTAND each 
other: for many Christians, "hate the sin and love the 
sinner" is a very deep, real and meaningful concept.

> Adultery, stealing, lying are all in the 10 
> commandments; being gay is not - you'd think if it 
> was such a moral sin, God would have made Moses 
> write that one out on the top 10

Since God ordered marriage between man and woman only, 
and then forbade all sexual relationships outside of 
marriage, homosexuality was automatically condemned. 
Condemning it specifically would have been redundant.

> Out of all of the passages in the Bible, there are 
> only a couple that deal with homosexuality and that 
> really was just a reflection and a backlash against 
> the Greek & Roman cultures at the time.

Many Christians understand a couple of verses in Leviticus 
and Deuteronomy to be directly about homosexuality. 
That would make them (the verses) part of the Mosaic Law, 
which is older than the Greek and Roman cultures if 
I'm not mistaken.

Many other Christians hold other positions which allow them 
to embrace homosexuality.

But who is to say which groups of Christians have got it 
right, and which ones have got it wrong? Who is to say that 
"these ones are interpreting the Bible correctly but those 
ones are misinterpreting it" ? There is no ultimate human 
authority on how to interpret the Bible.

And if people are sincerely convinced that they are 
interpreting the Bible correctly, then how can they 
be expected NOT to act on their beliefs?

The way I see it, it is EXACTLY the same situation on 
both sides of this or any other issue: people have 
convictions, and they try and mold the world according 
to those convictions, those who believe differently be 
damned since they are wrong anyway.

Del