Underestimating JKR (was Snape: The fact that he exists)

[oh have faith]

No: HPFGUIDX 71008

> Pickle Jimmy - in the same vein as Laxer:
> After reading the Stephen King review, I was happy to see that he 
too 
> feels Harry has a long literary future. So my question regarding 
> Homosexuality in the series is - why would JK do it? Surely it 
would 
> be suicide as a writer to alienate a percentage of your readers by 
> including an unnecessary reference to someones sexuality. What 
> relevance could it possible have to the plot. I am sure JK suffers 
> enough from people with the whole witch, wizard, occult thing 
without 
> opening the gay can of worms.

Faith's Girl says; 

Other people have responded to this post in the same vein as me, but 
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to say it.

"Suicide as a writer to alienate a percentage of your readers" 
indeed?  *deep breaths*

Firstly, the reference need not be unnecessary – I don't know why 
you assume it would be. As I don't 
personally know the plot to the next two books, I couldn't tell
you exactly 
how it would be relevant, but sexuality is a big motivator in the 
lives of most human beings.  

Secondly, JKR has shown she is not shy of controversy with her 
occult can of worms – opposition from the conservative Christian 
right has not cowed her in the least - she even jokes about it in 
interviews. I don't see it cowing her on this issue, if she chose
to 
tackle it.

Thirdly, I believe her to be a woman of principles, and I hope also 
she is a brave woman.  And funnily enough, some people don't see
the 
mere reference to homosexuality -explicit or implicit- as something 
to freak out and panic over.  That Which Must Not Be Named, eh?  As 
someone already pointed out, many books and soaps here in the UK 
aimed at 11-16 year olds deal with homosexuality – Philip
Pullman, 
another British author who writes books aimed at teenagers (though 
like JKR he has many adult readers too,) manages to feature 
homosexuals without panic or public stonings. 

To regard it as That Which Must Not Be Named is a very irresponsible 
attitude, IMHO, and to me, being that way inclined, it's kind of 
offensive.  I had to address gay issues while I was growing up – 
many of JKR's readers will too.  If we believe statistics, 10% of 
the population will have some kind of homosexual encounter at some 
point in their lives, so to treat it like it's a taboo subject
and 
pretend it's something too terrible to talk about only increases
the 
sense of alienation and the prejudice that surrounds it.  As 
Dumbledore would no doubt tell you, fearing to talk about a thing 
only increase fear of the thing itself.  

On the back of my copy of OOP is a picture of the woman herself 
(British adult ed) against a bookshelf.  A scout at the bookshelf
–
assuming it's hers, which I admit, it may not be- reveals that
she 
is not as squicked by homosexuality as you seem to be - or as 
another poster, Dream, worried that she might be.  She has a copy of 
a book called The Well of Loneliness, which is a lesbian love story, 
and I'm told – though I can't spot it myself –
there's a book about 
historical lesbians the Ladies of Llangollen.   If she doesn't
see 
it as something to go "Eep!" and run away from, then I'm sure
she'd 
take the attitude – like me- that if some readers can't get
over it, 
then the real problem is theirs, not hers. Does she worry about 
alienating neo-nazis when she condemns those obsessed with pure 
breeding?  Nope.  Books aside, she is a modern woman from a country 
with generally liberal moral standards.  If she is not prejudiced 
herself, I don't see her pandering to anyone else's prejudices. 

This is by no means evidence that she will include an explicit or 
implicit homosexual relationship in any book – I'm not sure
she 
will, myself- but there's no reason at all why she shouldn't
or 
can't.

Faith's Girl. 

No xxx's this time, I'm in a bad mood.