[HPforGrownups] Re: I am so happy. There is a gay couple in canon after all.

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 178173

Tonks blessed us with this gem On 21/10/2007 12:00:

C.J. said:

> JKR's outting of DD tells us no more than that the DD of her
> imagination was homosexual. The DD of canon, OTOH, not so much.

> Has no one ever heard of the concept
> of celibacy? 

As a former monk (Order of Cistercians) I can assure there's at least 
one other person in this discussion familiar with celibacy. Nor do I 
have a problem with homosexuality. I know several of the monks in my 
house were homosexual; one was my best friend. So I don't have a problem 
with a celibate DD.

My reaction -- and I think it parallels yours -- is, (as someone here -- 
was it Ceredwin? -- put it) -- the sacrifice of consistent 
characterization for the sake of political correctness. It is not merely 
  irrelevant to the narrative, it is -- what's the proper word? -- 
outside the scope of the character so far as he exists in the canon 
(thought obviously not so far as he exists in JKR's imagination). And -- 
as another listie put it -- forcing us to re-evaluate a major character 
after the fact is, to use a Britishism -- a bad show.

> IMO, it is not appropriate for her to bring in such a
> controversial item as someone being gay at this late date, 
 > and into a childrens book.

On this point, however, I will defend JKR: she has never said she was 
writing a children's book. And, I would argue the last couple of books 
were certainly not appropriate for younger children at least. In 
cinematic terms, I'd rate them PG-13, and at that age, I think children 
(though maybe not all) are ready to handle concepts such as 
homosexuality. However, for the above reasons, I do feel it was 
inappropriate of JKR to drop such a bombshell at this stage. If she 
wanted us to think of DD as homosexual, she should have a) made the DD 
of canon homosexual and b) made it integral to the story. Yet another 
reason to discount her interviews.

--CJ