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

[Susan McGee]

No: HPFGUIDX 4241

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, Amanda Lewanski <editor at t...> wrote:
> 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
> 
> Amanda:  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.

Susan: Except for the married couples, and the adolescents with 
crushes, and those who are asking others on dates....
So we have a whole lots of people whose sexual orientation is 
mentioned and they are all heterosexual.


> 
Amanda:  > > > Myself, I think that physical relationships and the 
physical adult
> > > expressions of love are not part of the scope of these books.
> >
Susan: > > uh? We hear about Harry's crush on Cho; Viktor's 
infatuation with
> > Hermione; the boys' physical response to the Veela......
> 
Amanda:  > 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.
> 

Susan: great. Why not two girls falling out of rosebushes, one boy 
asking another to the Yule Ball, and two same gender partners who 
live together? Adolescent same gender stirrings as well as opposite 
gender?



Susan:  > > 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?
> 
>Amanda:   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.

Susan:  Nor does she need to put any sort of "scene" or "evidence" 
for lesbian/gay characters, she can just state that they are lesbian 
or gay.


> 
Amanda:  > 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.

Susan: Well, we don't know what all we "role model" seekers want.
Please don't be dismissive of this. There are lesbian and gay youth
who are terribly isolated and desperate.

It's fine to have a character identified as lesbian and gay 
without "living it" which I assume from your past posts means 
identifying physical intimacy. There are plenty of single lesbians
and single gay men and single bisexuals and single transgendered 
people who are not having sex. It's fine to say Bob, who was gay,
didn't do well in Potions.

Amanda:  " Nor
> am I sure anything less than total identification as gay would be 
enough."

Susan: Not true. Lots of adolescents experiment with same gender 
crushes, etc. but end up in mixed gender partnerships. It would
be fine to have someone figuring that out.


Amanda: > 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.

Well, I'd like them explicitly identified. But Lois and Jane living 
together with their children Dick and Linda who come home and kiss 
each other on the cheek and say "how was your day, you look tired" 
would be fine. 

Having Joe and Bob introduced as partners would be fine.

 
Amanda:  > 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.

Susan:  Except for all the married couples, Percy and Penelope 
kissing, and all the boys asking all the girls to the Ball, and all 
the girls asking all the boys. 


 Amanda:  So, how to show us a gay person within the scope of these
> books, without handing us the label? 

Susan:  Have a boy have a crush on a boy; have a girl ask a girl to 
the Yule ball. Whatever has happened with mixed gender pairings could 
happen with same gender pairings


Amanda:  otypical 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.
> 

Susan: Holding hands is nice! 
Saying this character is gay or lesbian  would distract YOU from the 
story
Perhaps it would distract other heterosexuals from the story, those 
who are used to seeing only mixed gender relationships/attractions 
portrayed, and anything outside that as disturbing or discordant or 
just not normal (like flesh colored bandaids being black. Maybe not.

It probably wouldn't distract lesbians and gays from the story.
> 
Susan:  > > 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.
> 
Amanda:  > 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.

Susan: And portrayal of lesbian and gay characters can be portrayed 
easily by identifying them as lesbians or gays. That does not addres 
the physical aspects directly ANY MORE THAN SAYING THAT SOMEONE IS 
MARRIED addresses the physical aspects directly. One assumes that 
married couples have sex; one assumes that two people who are 
identified as lesbians or gay male couples have sex. 


>