Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences)

[dicentra63]

No: HPFGUIDX 40649

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> 
> But if we want to speculate, the most compelling clue we have is 
> that JKR has the *power* and *influence* to object to this change 
> and she hasn't.  That ought to be the beginning and end of the 
> question of whether the change reflects her vision of Hogwarts.  It 
> obviously does.
> 

Er, Cindy?  At the time Book 1 was published, JKR was not a powerful
person.  She was the timid author having her first book published, and
therefore was willing to be very accommodating to her publishers, whom
she perceived to be more powerful than she. If this were not so, we
wouldn't have a "Sorcerer's Stone."  

Having said that, I don't mean to imply that Dean's race was imposed
on her or that she agreed to it against her better judgment.  We don't
know that.  And I strongly suspect she didn't object then nor does she
now.  Later editions, after all, still say he's black.

If we're going to get upset about Scholastic making changes to Book 1,
the title should offend us far more than Dean's race, because we KNOW
they changed the title to "dumb it down" for American readers. 
Specifying that Dean has dark skin isn't a dumbing down, as far as we
can tell--it's a clarification. And it doesn't "ruin" the book at all;
"Sorcerer's Stone," however, does.  You can't find "sorcerer's stone"
in the encyclopedia, but "Philosopher's Stone" is historical, and
therefore you can research it to get more insight into the meaning of
the series. 

But let's say that we *know* that the editors at Scholastic are
actually closet racists but they change Dean's race to appear to be
inclusive to their publisher friends (who are also closet racists who
don't want to appear unfashionable either). Now what?  We roll our
eyes at how shallow they are and move on.  

If, however, we feel that the mention of Dean's skin color is
*offensive* because of the publisher's shallow motives, that adds
another dimension.  It implies that changing the skin color of a
character is itself problematic.  Is it?  Why?  Because the editors'
motives were shallow?  That goes back to the editors, not to the skin
color.

I'm not going to accuse those who are outraged by the change as
racist; I have no way of knowing what's in your heart.  I do wonder,
though, if you identify yourselves as conservative, and because being
politically correct is perceived as an activity of the "liberal left"
(at this point in history, anyway) you might have a hard time
accepting it.  I myself am conservative, but I refuse to let treating
people as people, regardless of skin tone, be an exclusively liberal
cause.

Anyway, I think it's cool that Dean has dark skin.  I'm glad they
pointed it out.

--Dicentra, who really needs to get back to work