Harry Potter is a CHILDREN'S BOOK re: rape sexual preference

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 79625

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" <deemarie1a at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sue Porter" <sues0101 at h...> 
> wrote:
> > 
> >> 
> > I would like to add my agreement to this post. Why is it that 
it's 
> ok for JK 
> > to write about war, death, racism, opression, torture, cuelty etc 
> etc, but 
> > some people seem to think that it's not ok for her to write about 
> sexuality? 
> > Why is it not ok to write about something that is good and 
> beautiful? Why 
> > are we so scared to let kids read about love and sex (and no I'm 
> not talking 
> > about reading graphic porn here, even I'm not so stupid as to 
> approve of 
> > that!)?
> > 
> > Before I get shot down by those who disagree and say that JKR is 
> not writing 
> > a book about teenage love, het or gay or anywhich way, and if its 
> not 
> > important to the storyline it wont be in the book, let me say 
this. 
> Harry 
> > will win the battle against evil somehow. Love is the key here. 
> Love saved 
> > Harry from LV when he was a baby. Seems to me that an exploration 
> of some 
> > other forms of love will be something that JK will do in the next 
> two books. 
> > Exploring love would bring a nice balance to the books after 
> dealing with so 
> > much evil. Harry has to learn about love somehow if he is going 
to 
> have the 
> > ability to defeat LV, and unless there is some exploration and 
> understanding 
> > by Harry, he won't have the emotional depth to deal with it.
> > 
> > JMHO, but why is writing about something so good, so frowned 
upon? 
> Are we 
> > saying that kids are better able to deal with evil, death, 
torture, 
> murder, 
> > war and opression than with love?  You can say kids don't need to 
> know about 
> > sex/love until they are old enough to understand it, BUT why are 
> they old 
> > enough to understand the evil stuff and not the good stuff? Is it 
a 
> comment 
> > upon our society that
> > we have become immune to how bad evil is, and have lost the 
ability 
> to teach 
> > our children how to love?
> > 
> > I probably haven't worded this as well as I might, but I hope you 
> all get 
> > the point I am trying to make.
> > 
> > Sue
> 


Donna:
> I do see the point Sue is trying to make.  It is just as important 
> for our children to see love in literature as well as hate.  I just 
> want to point out that violence and mayhem have always been an 
> accepted part of Children's Literature.  Has anyone read Grimm's 
> Fairy Tales in their orignal versions?  They are quite a bit darker 
> and more violent than they are today.  Lewis Carroll wrote about 
the 
> Walrus and the Carpenter devouring those poor little oysters who 
were 
> given quite human characteristics.  
> 
> Even Disney has presented violence in their latest movies.  From 
Snow 
> White and the 7 Dwarfs, the defeat of the old queen (seeing that 
hag 
> fall from the rock, to a small child, pretty scary) to Atlantis 
> (sorry that's the last Disney movie I have seen), when the villain 
> gets blown up!  Yes, even child abuse - Cinderella!
> 
> But over time, only romantic love has been presented.  It is only 
> recently that other forms of love have been represented in 
Children's 
> Lit.  And it is spotty at that.  "Heather Has Two Mommies" is the 
> only recent literature that comes to my mind about alternative 
> lifestyles.  
> 
> I believe, that if it is essential to the story, JKR will show 
> alternative lifestyles.  IMO, she is broadminded enough to write 
> about that in a way that shows respect and acceptance.  We still 
have 
> two books to go...who knows?
> 


Geoff:
I think there is a problem in the group - problem is probably the 
wrong word - in that there is a hothouse atmosphere because of the 
intense scrutiny which all our gathered minds give to the books. I 
have a feeling that Jo Rowling does not stop to consider the weight 
of every word which she writes because somebody on hpfgu will start a 
thread interpreting it which will run for months!

Someone like Tolkien probably does operate in this way. If you 
consider that "The Silmarillion", published posthumously in 1977 had 
first started taking shape around 1915, likewise LOTR took about 14 
years to completion and you look at the material amassed by 
Christopher Tolkien showing how his father niggled away at tiny 
points of detail, the size of the project is awe-inspiring. Bbu that 
was JRRT.

Some years ago, I wrote a sci-fi novel - for my own satisfaction. Two 
or three years and several rejection slips later, my point was 
proved. It was for my own delight! When I visualised the characters, 
I really though them out in rough (40ish, tall, well-built, brown 
hair etc) as far as I needed for the plot line. The question of the 
sort of relationship they were in etc. was only tackled as and when 
necessary. I agree with other posters who say that we cannot skirt 
questions of sexuality, any more than we can skirt violence or racism 
but if these themes have to be brought in, then it is as part of the 
fabric of the tapestry not just because we feel we ought to nod in 
that direction.

One of the things which has made the HP books rapidly into favourite 
reading for me is the seamless and subtle way in which they have 
moved from the 11 year old point of view to the rising 16 view. Harry 
has changed gradually from a naive, wide opened eyed entrant into the 
Wizarding World (ooh-ing and wow-ing at everything) to someone who 
already has a track record of coping with a wide range of events 
which would leave many an adult breathless (and has also a sometimes 
rather cycnical and worldly wise view of events) and through whose 
eyes we can view growing up - and relate it back to our own rites of 
passage. This is the secret of the books; it is not "in your face" 
stuff just for the sake of it; anything which occurs is a valuable 
brick in the construction of the WW wall (even if we are not sure 
quite what the brick is supposed to do until Boook 7!).

Geoff