JKR messed up

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178318

mandorino222:
> However you feel about homosexuality, it is naive to ignore the 
fact that JKR has definitely 
> damaged the long-term viability of this series.   There are legions 
of people who are 
> viscerally disturbed by homosexuality, and I'm afraid that 
homophobia is not going anywhere 
> fast.  

Magpie:
Perhaps in the longterm homophobia will have gone somewhere--I'm 
optimistic! But regardess I don't think those people have much to 
worry about. If those people read the books the first time and didn't 
think he was gay when they read it, people will be able to do the 
same thing in the future. Far smaller legions of people will have 
heard of the interview, I'm sure.

Not that I think this damages the long-term viability much either 
way. And I think many artists would choose being true to their 
creation and thoughts over marketing--especially when they're already 
gazillionaires. Authors with less money have taken far far more risks 
in that area.

mandorino222:
While this stunt has certainly worked to her benefit in the short 
term (i.e. the 
> megalomaniac who was feeling empty and starved for attention has 
gotten her name back in 
> the paper), it will accomplish nothing in the long term but to 
limit her audience and stifle 
> exposure of her book to children of future generations. 

Magpie:
Their loss, then, right? Whether JKR is a megalomaniac or not, I 
don't think the only thing this could possibly accomplish is to limit 
her audiences. I can't imagine generations from now people primarily 
associating these books with "OMG, these are the books that have that 
one character out of a hundred that the author said she thought was 
gay in an interview!" There are lots of books people don't read for 
arbitrary reasons. Their loss. She doesn't need the money. And the 
books aren't so fabulous that people can't do without them.

mandorino222:
It's a shame she had to rain on the parade of the people who liked 
> their Dumbledore straight. 

Magpie:
It's a shame she had to rain on the parade of the people who liked 
their Harry marrying Hermione, or liked their Remus, Tonks or Sirius 
gay. Why should the straight!Dumbledore crowd (or the "Straight!
Everyone crowd, really) get special treatment? Wait, they already get 
special treatment. Remus, Tonks and Sirius all got given straight 
stuff in canon. Harry/Hermione got sunk in canon. Dumbledore just got 
a line in an interview.

mandorino222:
  I pity her and I pity 
> the countless generations of future children who won't get to read 
Harry Potter because JKR 
> needed a headline.  Shame on her.

Magpie:
I pity those kids too, but I wouldn't blame that one on JKR. She's 
not the one forbidding the kids to read the books because she 
dislikes gay people. Maybe there are kids forbidden to read the books 
because there is interracial dating too. Why not feel happy for the 
gay kids and the kids with gay parents who get some representation? 
(In an interview at least, not outright in canon.)

Actually it's really hard for me to imagine these books as having 
this problem. They're really conservative. Even this is a made-up 
controversy. Gay people are invisible in the books. We see people 
being straight and showing that their orientation is straight all 
over the place. Straight is great in these books. I think that's 
going to overcome, years from now, the vague memory that the author 
said maybe one person in this huge cast of characters was gay once 
but didn't put it in the books so their kids don't have to see it.

That said, this does verify an opinion I've always had about topics 
like this--you might as well take a firm stand on one side or the 
other. You'll be less successful trying to have it both ways.

-m