Stereotyping

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 86818

Just chiming in on the "social attitudes" aspect of
this thread.  I'll jump off from something Sherrie
wrote; enough others have said similar things that I
hope it will be clear I'm not picking on anyone in 
particular.

Martha:
>> 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?

Sherrie:
> A few years back, there was quite a flap in New York 
> area schools when they tried to introduce books 
> dealing with homosexual families into the elementary 
> curriculum, under the umbrella of the "Children of 
> the Rainbow" curriculum initiative. . . .
> Granted, this was a decade ago - but regrettably, 
> attitudes haven't changed all that much in the 
> population at large in that timespan.  I personally 
> cannot see Scholastic, at least, swimming that 
> strongly against the general current and introducing 
> an openly-gay relationship in future books.  

I think the atmosphere actually has changed quite a lot in the U.S.
over the last decade or so.  Ten years ago, networks refused to
broadcast a same-sex kiss in prime time; today, they jump at the
opportunity for the ratings surge.  Ten years ago, "Ellen" was
groundbreaking in portraying an openly gay character; today, there are
several successful prime-time shows that are much more explicitly
gay-themed, and many mainstream shows with openly gay characters who
are portrayed as perfectly normal.  (Fans of "Friends" can contrast
the portrayal of Carol and Susan back in 1994, when they were
introduced, with their portrayal more recently.)  Seventeen years ago,
the U.S. Supreme Court was branding gay sex as "deviant"; today, it is
a constitutional right, and legal observers believe that gay marriage
soon will be as well (it already is in Massachusetts).  My guess would
be that UK culture has moved along similar lines, although that
impression is based on many fewer data points.

This is not to deny that there is still a segment of the population
who fear that their kids will be poisoned or something if they find
out about (gasp) homosexuals.  But these days, when a 2nd grader is
sent home from school for telling classmates that his mom is gay, the
story makes national news and there is much wringing of hands over how
culturally backward they are in rural Louisiana.  Yes, much of America
is still distinctly uncomfortable with homosexuality, but most people
understand that sticking their heads in the sand is no longer an
option, even where children are concerned.

What if Rowling portrayed a gay relationship in book 6 or 7?  Not
exploring the sexual angst of a main character; just a matter-of-fact
acknowledgment of a same-sex couple, much like Carol and Susan in the
more recent "Friends" episodes?  

Would schools or parents try to keep kids from reading the book? 
Doubtless a few would.  And Rowling has already told us precisely how
effective she thinks those taking such "Umbridge" would be.  (Who knew
the Quibbler could be so interesting....)  

Would a publisher refuse to print it?   You might as well ask whether
they'd refuse to print money.  (Which is essentially what printing a
HP book amounts to, whether or not you spice it up with a little
controversy.)

"But *children* will read this book!"  Golly, you're right.  I guess
it's lucky that no children were watching the MTV music awards (well,
only a few million!).  Shockingly, some children are also reading
Madonna's children's books, which she apparently was able to get
published despite her less-than-virginal public image.  Do you think
they'll catch anything?

-- Matt