Stereotyping

[Martha]

No: HPFGUIDX 86709

"arealin" said:

> I think there are lines even JKR won't cross in her books. After 
> all, even if we don't consider them children's books anymore, they 
> are read by children and even if she thought it ok to introduce 
> homosexuality issues to minors, I doubt her publishers would agree. 

Martha replies:

Without wanting to get into any sort of flame-war, I must make a few 
points. Where is it written that children shouldn't read 
about "homosexuality issues" or that publishers are unlikely to allow 
these issues to be dealt with? Exhibit A: the books of Jacqueline 
Wilson. She writes for specifically for children ("adult" versions of 
her books, with with "adult" covers, are not available) and deals 
frankly with all sorts of issues, including sexuality, living with an 
alcoholic parent, mental illness, adoption, being in care, 
adolescence... I could go on. I don't think I've ever heard of an 
incident of anyone claiming her books were unsuitable for children 
and young people.

To be honest, I think the reason that there are no overtly gay 
characters in Harry Potter is because nobody's sexuality is dealt 
with full stop, other than Harry's. OK, there are married couples in 
the books, but what they get up to is entirely their own business. 
For all we know, Arthur and Molly's bedroom is a rubber-sheeted 
bondage dungeon with whips and handcuffs - no, I'm not suggesting it 
actually is, I'm just saying - we don't know. (Apologies to anyone 
with slightly squicky mental image now floating around in brain.) ;-) 
The point is, the only sexuality dealt with at all is Harry's, and 
even that to a fairly minor extent. We know he kissed Cho, but that's 
it. That's all we know. He's fifteen and from that we can infer that 
he may well have certain... urges, shall we say (isn't there 
something somewhere in Oop - just after the kiss, I believe - along 
the lines of "whenever he had imagined a scene involving the two of 
them it had always included a Cho who was enjoying herself"? No 
prizes for what that may - or may not - refer to) but we don't 
actually know. OK, and we see other couples kissing, but that's all, 
and it's usually relevant to the situation. Roger Davies (is that 
right?) and his girlfriend snogging in the teashop has the purpose of 
making the situation more embarrassing for Harry (and presumably for 
Cho, although again, we don't know).

I guess the point here is that there is little discussion of 
characters' sexuality because it's not part of Harry's story - and 
arguably because it's just not important either way. IMO it's not 
because "there are lines even JKR won't cross" (not the way I'd put 
it myself, either), or because Bloomsbury (Scholastic, etc) would be 
afraid to publish it. It's because it doesn't figure in Harry's life. 
The poor kid can barely work out that he's supposed to ask someone 
out at the age of 15, after all. He's working on sorting out his own 
life and his own sexuality. Other people's sexualities just don't 
figure.

In any case, I sincerely doubt any publisher is going to refuse to 
publish a Harry Potter book because it makes reference to something 
like sexuality - this is Harry Potter we're talking about. Hasn't OoP 
sold something like 2.5 million copies since release in the UK alone? 
Think about it.

~ Martha, contemplating writing a book called "Harry lives with 
Sirius and Remus" ;-)