More gay discussion, lots, and I'll stop now

[Amanda Lewanski]

No: HPFGUIDX 4070

Susan McGee wrote:

> 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

And as I pointed out in an earlier post, they may well *be* in there. JKR
does not write big neon signs to point out the characteristics of her
characters, she just writes the characters. If some aspect of their
personality, such as sexual orientation, becomes relevant to the story, it
is included; if not, it may not be mentioned.

> > 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......

These are not adult expressions of physical love; they are adolescent
stirrings. So far the most involved actual physical contact with sexual
intent which we have seen is people falling out of rosebushes when Snape
goes by. Harry's asking Cho to the dance is the closest we've gotten to a
love scene. Even the married couples don't do much schmoozing onscreen. It's
not relevant to the story, at least not so far.

> 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?

Of course the acknowledged heterosexual characters imply sex offscreen. The
children make it a certainty. Whatever it may imply for our cultural
awareness, the fact of the matter is that approaching it as a writer she
doesn't *need* to put any sort of scene or evidence for heterosexual
characters, she can let it be assumed.

The problem I've been addressing is how to identify a character as gay both
clearly and satisfactorily without a physical relationship being identified
or implied. It is a physical preference, and the nuts-and-bolts of physical
relationships are not things that have shown up in these books. I'm not
anticipating a Harry/Sirius "birds and the bees" scene either. It's just not
what the story is dealing with.

Simply stating a character's gayness in passing, without showing that
character living it, is not what I think the "role model" seekers want. Nor
am I sure anything less than total identification as gay would be enough.
Nobody answered an earlier question, as to whether a same-sex couple living
together, with or without children, would be the "role model" wanted unless
it were explicitly identified that they were gay.

JKR seems to prefer simply describing her characters and letting us
experience them, which is how we meet people, rather than handing us the
labels outright. So, how to show us a gay person within the scope of these
books, without handing us the label? Stereotypical tags are not what I mean;
should two men kiss? Exchange a lingering hug? Hold hands? Etc. And if she
doesn't *show* us a gay person, how then to go ahead and hand us the label?
It's a physical preference, how detailed do you get? Etc. Either way it
really doesn't seem relevant to the story underway, and would distract from
it.

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

No, not so much that you be quiet as that you give me any idea that you
understand the points I'm trying to make.

> 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.

Where did you get *that*? I don't think the married couples here have taken
any sort of vows of celibacy; I don't think the Weasleys live together
because Arthur loves Molly's cooking. Sure, they involve sex. But as I said,
portrayal of heterosexual characters is easy, since the physical aspects can
be assumed without addressing it directly.

And certainly gay relationships involve love. Jeez, how else are they
relationships? At least in my psyche, love is essential before sex can even
be contemplated. But is a deep love between characters of the same sex
enough to identify them to readers as "gay"? I don't know that it should be,
or would be accurate. Because I love several ladies very, very much and
would walk through fire for them--but I don't have the slightest interest in
a physical expression of it with them, and am very much heterosexual. The
same for my husband--"shield brother" friends. Perhaps we don't have the
same definitions of gay or lesbian? I brought up the physical aspects
because I considered that a physical component of some sort would have to be
included so that the reader would have no doubt that this is, indeed, a gay
character. It's that explicit identification that I don't know how to do,
relevant to the story.

Okay, I'm tired of talking now.

--Amanda