call to action

[Susan McGee]

No: HPFGUIDX 3931

> > 
> >   > 
> >   > 7) Why didn't Dobby or Winky go work for the
> > Weasleys?
> > 
> >   (storm) I want to know this too - it's not like
> > they wouldn't have been appreciated!
> 
> With Winky being in the state she was, I doubt she is
> quite ready for working alone in a household quite
> yet.  Dobby may not have been aware of the Weasley's
> needing a house-elf initially (Dumbledore probably
> picked him up quite quickly), and now, I doubt that
> they can afford him.

This is going to sound snide, but I really am trying to be funny...
and NOT snide.
I want to say that although I'm very interested in your opinions (AND
in the opinions of all those on this list), I'd like to ask JKR the
question, because I'm more interested in her opinion.


> 
> >   > 8) Will you ever have any gay characters?
> > 
> >   (firebolt)I might be wrong, but I'm under the
> > distinct impression that 'gay' is
> >   considered derogatory. Can we word that as
> > homosexual, instead?
> > 
> >   (storm) I'm gay/lesbian (goodness, how much self
> > discloure can one list take?) I don't think its
> > derogartory, OTOH, homosexual sounds like somebodys
> > *very* uncomfortable but trying hard to be cool
> > parent (IMO)
> > 
> 
> I agree.  The term "homosexual" sounds very
> academic/educational.  The term gay may have been
> intended derogatory at first, but it has been
> "conquered" (sp?), and as such it is not conceived as
> derogatory by those to whom it matters most (I have to
> work more on my sentence-structures).  While I am
> interested to know whether there will be a gay or
> lesbian character in future books (being gay myself),
> I do not see any requirement for it.  I do not want to
> see it appear just because she is "supposed" to have a
> nice gay person in there (and that she wwould not do,
> either, I guess).

Why would a question -- are you going to include any non-heterosexual 
characters -- imply that she is "required" or "supposed" to do it?

Susan