Harry Potter is a CHILDREN'S BOOK

Mon Sep 1 10:35:24 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 79419

Harry's sexual preference:

EXCUSE ME Harry Potter is a Children's Book!!! There are plenty of
SLASH websites if you [want]. I personally feel you're giving JKR a
great insult by thinking she'd put it in her books.

<snip>
As for guessing on Harry's sexual preference, again Harry Potter is a
Children's Book!!!

<Verin>
1. Why is homosexuality an invalid discussion? We are a discussion
list. We theorize. We argue our points. We occasionally believe our
peers are just plain wrong. It is not invalid to bring up a
character's *theorized* sexual orientation so long as the argument is
based in canon. You may think that this particular view on Harry's
(or anyone's) sexuality is incorrect, but please argue the point, not
the morality.

2. Why is homosexuality an insult?  I don't feel it is.  I don't think
it's insulting to say that in a cast as large as JKR's there's
probably one or two people who aren't straight.  Whether or not she's
choosing to represent that is her choice, but we should still have the
opportunity to speculate whether she is.

3. Why do you think the status of these books as "for children" makes
showing a homosexual relationship impossible?  From the tone of your
e-mail, it sounds as if you believe it's wrong to show children any
relationship but a straight one.  I'm sorry if I've misconstrued what
you meant, but while you have a right to feel that way, please
understand that not all of us share those opinions.  Leslea Newman
wrote "Heather Has Two Mommies".  While I can't remember the names of
them off the top of my head, I know I read a few aimed at a 12-16 year
old audience.  The point is: there are children's books that address
this issue.  There are people like me out there who feel children
should be educated about this.

4. These are children's books: children's books that have gotten
substantially darker and more complex as they have proceeded.  This
has been argued by far better orators than I, but look at the trend
from SS/PS to OoTP, at the crux of which Harry, the protagonist,
attempts to torture Bellatrix Lestrange.  Hermione, his close friend,
with apparently very little remorse beforehand, lures Umbridge to what
may be her death.

"Around fifty centaurs were emerging on every side, their bows raised
and loaded, pointed at Harry, Hermione, and Umbridge, who backed
slowly into the center of the clearing, Umbridge uttering odd little
whimpers of terror.  Harry looked sideways at Hermione.  She was
wearing a triumphant smile."  (Pg. 753 US hardcover)

I honestly didn't expect to see Umbridge again.  I thought Hermione
had willfully and knowingly brought her to her death.

Also Harry is now only 15. He has never had friends before Hogwarts. 
and there was only one described crush in the Potterverse... Cho.

<Verin>
This is your argument. The best "Harry isn't gay" argument is that
he's shown with an interest in girls. I'm not entirely sure why you
feel it's relevant that he never hand friends before Hogwarts -- aside
from the chronically unadressed fact of the Issues he probably has
from being raised in a neglectful and, on Dudley's part, abusive
household -- but Harry's conscious sexual focus at this point through
books four and five has been on Cho.

As for Harry not understanding girls, what male does?

<Verin>
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you arguing that
because Harry doesn't understand girls, he's obviously straight? 
<shrugs> I personally don't think that argument would hold a grain of
salt, but I do admit that a number of my male friends bemoan that
they'll never understand women. I think it's as much of a cop-out as
me replying, "What male tries?" JKR gives the reader precisely what
Cho is thinking via Hermione.

"...you were a bit tactless...  You shouldn't have told her that you
wanted to meed me halfway through your date.  ...You should have told
her differently.  ...You should have said it was really annoying, but
I'd *made* you promise to come along to the Three Broomstick, adn you
really didn't want to go, you'd much rather spend the whole day with
her, but unfortunately you thought you really ought to meet me and
would she please, please come along with you, and hopefully you'd be
able to get away more quickly?  And it might have been a good idea to
mention how ugly you think I am, too.  ...Look, you ypset Cho when you
said you were going to meet me, so she tried to make you jealous.  It
was her way of trying to find out how much you liked her."  (Pg. 572
US hardcover)

The whole scene is quite brilliantly done, IMO, and explicates quite
clearly how some girls act.  I say it's not impossible to understand
why a person is doing what she is.  You may not *agree* with what she
does, but that doesn't mean you can't understand why she's doing it. 
I think Cho's method is completely rediculous, but so does Hermione. 
"I'm not saying what she did was sensible... I'm just trying to make
you see how she was feeling at the time."  Every person is not going
to act and react in the same way, and that is implicit in the scene
between Ron, Hermione, and Harry.

The theorized rape of Umbridge:

Also I think you have a strange view of the Centaurs. They strike me a
bound by honor. They will not harm a child and I don't believe they
would act without full consensus of their tribe (herd, whatever they
call it).

<Verin>
They are bound by their own version of honor. They did not consider
Harry and Hermione to fall into the category "child" after they
discovered how Hermione had manipulated the situation. "'[Harry and
Hermione] came here unasked, they must pay the consequences!' A roar
of approval met these words and a dun-colored centaur shouted, 'They
can join the woman!'" They were full ready to deal out to children
the same penalty as to an adult woman. This sense of honor applies to
other centaurs, not humans. If anything, they are actively willing to
hurt humans.

The Centaurs may very well might have killed Umbridge, but I would
never believe they'd rape her. That would more repulsive to them than
Firenze's crime of serving humans.

<Verin>
That depends entirely on how heavily JKR is drawing on mythology for
her sources, which isn't something we can know. Like you, I came to
the conclusion she'd be killed, but I can see an argument for the
rape. I don't buy it, necessarily, but I can see where it comes from.
 Centaurs don't have a perfect mythological record, here.

If you're interested, check out:
http://www.theoi.com/Okeanos/Kentauroi.htm (which is what I'm quoting)

It notes historical references to centaurs, or "kentauroi", in the
original Greek mythology and subsequent works.  Some relevant points:

"When she was grown Atalante guarded her virginity, and when she went
hunting in the wilderness she was always fulling armed. The Kentauroi
[centaurs] Rhoikos and Hylaios tired to rape her, but she killed them
with her bow and arrows." -Apollodorus 3.106

"Theseus fought with Peirithous when he was waging his war against the
Kentauroi. For when Peirithous was courting Hippodameia, he gave a
banquet for the Kentauroi because they were related to her; but they,
unused to wine, drank too much too fast and got drunk, and when the
bride was ushered in they tried to rape her. So Peirthous put on full
armor and with Gheseus' help started a battle, and Theseus slew many
of them." -Apollodorus E1.21  (also recounted in Plutarch Theseus 30.3)

"At another marriage, when Pirithous was taking Hippodamia, daughter
of Adrastus, Centauri, full of wine, attempted to carry off the wives
of the Lapithae. The Centauri killed many of them, but by them
perished." –Hyginus Fabulae 33

"For Eurytus, the fiercest of the fierce Centauri, was fired by wine
and by the sight of that fair girl, and drink was in command, double
by lust. Tables were overturned, the banquet in confusion, and the
bride, held by her hair, was seized and carried off. Hippodame was
seized by Eurytus; the others seized what girl each would or could." 
-Metamorphoses 12.112-544

There is a cultural link between centaurs and rape that, while it may
not fit your interpretation of what happened, provides evidence for an
equally valid interpretation that says she was.  While this is a
children's book, the rape -- if such it was -- was no more than
alluded to.  JKR is perfectly capable of making references an adult
would catch but a child would read at face value.  For a perfect
example of this, see the movie "Shrek", which manages the most perfect
blend of "over the kiddie's head" humor I've seen in a long time.  It
can be done.  Whether she's done it is another issue.

-Verin