call to action

[Susan McGee]

No: HPFGUIDX 4045

-Susan said-- 
> > Why would a question -- are you going to include any non-
heterosexual
> > characters -- imply that she is "required" or "supposed" to do it?
>
Amanda replies: 
> Because it implies that the reader considers such inclusion the 
norm, or
> wants it to be, especially if one takes that reader to be a 
representative
> of the general audience. 

Susan says:
Or it implies that the reader consider lesbians and gays to
be part of the population and is curious why they are not in the book


> 
> Myself, I think that physical relationships and the physical adult
> expressions of love are not part of the scope of these books.

uh? We hear about Harry's crush on Cho; Viktor's infatuation with
Hermione; the boys' physical response to the Veela......

Why do you assume that including a lesbian/gay character involves
"physical relationships" and the "physical adult expressions of love"?
when having acknowledged heterosexual couples -- the Dursleys, the 
Potters, the Lestranges, the Crouches, doesn't?

Now, I'm sure people are going to start to tell me to be quiet any 
moment.




 There may
> already *be* a gay character there (author's profiles of their 
characters
> are often much more detailed than what makes it into print--helps 
with
> authentic characterization). I don't think a gay character would 
necessarily
> "show up" unless he or she stated it in so many words, which is 
also not
> really the sort of thing discussed in these books. Kind of the way 
there's
> no foolin' around in Lord of the Rings. Lots of love, no sex. Not 
relevant
> to the story. Distracting.
> 
> --Amanda


Again, why do you assume that "lesbian/gay relationships" would 
involve sex while heterosexual ones just involve love? 
There is an absolute double standard here.

Susan