JKR messed up........ no.

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 178335

Shelley:
> Snipping just so the last line is the one I want to address. When 
you read 
> Walt Whitman's poetry though, it's not about homosexuality. Thus, 
people of 
> all sexual types can appreciate it. 

Magpie:
Why can't a straight person appreciate something that's about about 
non-straight people the same way a gay person can appreciate 
something about straight people? If Cole Porter was writing about 
men in his love songs, and I know that, how does that make the song 
suddenly less meaningful to straight people? Sure if someone is 
writing about being gay their writing about an experience different 
from the experience of straight people, but that doesn't shut 
straight people out--unless it's by their own attitude of 
entitlement, something that goes along with being in the dominant 
group. 

Shelley:
When you see an actor play a role, as 
> well, if the role is not about anything gay, people of all sexual 
types can 
> appreciate the movie. 

Magpie:
Why is this different for gay people than for straight people? 
If "all types" can appreciate the movie as long as it's not 
about "anything gay" (iow, if it's about straight people) why 
can't "all types" appreciate a movie that's about gay people? Yeah, 
this is the way things work--minorities have to identify with people 
outside their minority because they're not represented. But if they 
can do it obviously it can be done. I have no trouble appreciating 
movies or books with gay characters at all, so I know it can be done 
that way too. For years it was illegal to even show gay people in 
any movie.

Shelley:

Something changes though when the artwork itself is 
> openly gay oriented, or the movie is gay based. And thus enters 
the subject 
> of Dumbledore. Before, the series was about Harry Potter, and not 
about 
> anyone's sexuality.

Magpie:
Not about anyone's sexuality? It's very often about lots of 
characters' sexuality, including Harry's. There's plenty of straight 
sexuality on display in it. It's not not sexuality because it's 
straight. I'm amazed anybody could read HBP especially (but it's not 
just HBP by far) and say this isn't about sexuality--how many 
romantic storylines did we hear about in that book alone? Why do 
Wizards make love potions again? What's that chest monster supposed 
to be?

Shelley:

By making Dumbledore gay now, she has made this work 
> about sexuality, and that does change things. When you read the 
work, it's 
> the gayness that comes through in the writing- of course, gay 
people can 
> write works that everyone can appreciate, but when you have gay 
characters 
> in your written works, the medium itself becomes a gay promotion 
or 
> political statement about homosexuality. 

Magpie:
Oh well. I mean seriously--so what? JKR includes couples of 
different races in her book too. So I guess that's a promotion and 
political statement about non-white people--it says: they exist! It 
hardly makes the series "about" being any one non-white race any 
more than Dumbledore being gay makes Harry "about gay promotion." 
Dumbledore still has the same priorities, which are Harry and 
defeating Voldemort. If there's a political statement in there isn't 
it already in there--or at least, wasn't it intended to be since JKR 
claims she's writing a long plea for tolerance? Did she mean 
tolerance for werewolves but not real people? 

Shelley:
Had she wrote the series promoting 
> homosexuality, the same way that she brought to light the racial 
hatred 
> (Mudbloods, Purebloods), the series would have been very different 
indeed, 
> and many people would not have continued reading the series, or 
supporting 
> the fandom. It's not necessarily about "hate"- which seems to be a 
very 
> common mistake the gays make- it's merely about choosing what you 
like to 
> read about. 

Magpie:
Pureblood/Mudblood is a fictional construct so can probably stand 
for any discrimination one wants it to stand for. (And just as an 
aside, maybe there are a lot of people who wouldn't have continued 
in fandom if there were a gay character, but a whole lot of fandom 
would have mightily cheered, so I don't see how that's any more of a 
big deal than having Harry get with Ginny instead of Hermione. 
Nothing she does pleases all of fandom.) 

Treading carefully here, but you're not saying "I don't want to see 
a movie that's all about gay political issues," you're saying youy 
don't want to see anything with gay characters in it and giving the 
reason that that makes it about certain issues, a reason I don't 
think is true. It seems more like it's the gay character that's the 
problem, since that's all we know about at this point. Whether or 
not you feel it's about hate, it sounds like something a bit more 
hostile than just not being interested in certain topics. If 
somebody stopped watching The Simpsons when they realized the show 
had gay characters, I'd have a hard time thinking they gave up the 
show because it became centered on exclusively gay issues since...it 
isn't.

Shelley:
I just don't care to read about gay lifestyles, and so that 
> would have definitely been an ice cube for me in this series. I 
would not 
> have continued to buy the books, nor would I have cared to read 
them to my 
> children had this series been about gays. That's just not 
something that I 
> even find to be remotely enjoyable.

Magpie:
Okay, first, I'm not sure what you mean about "gay lifestyles." This 
particular gay man's "lifestyle" included learning advanced magic, 
fighting evil, being headmaster of a school and liking candy. You 
already know Dumbledore's "lifestyle" and it wouldn't change if we 
knew he was in love with Grindenwald or that his sexual orientation 
was gay. If you want to put down any book that has a gay character 
in it, that's certainly your choice, but the overall story of HP 
would not change if one of the many people Harry came across showed 
physical attraction for their own gender rather than the opposite 
one, or if we knew that Dumbledore was in love with Grindenwald. I'm 
not sure what you are implying about how it would change to become 
about "gays" or "gay lifestyles." JKR seems to think Dumbledore 
could be gay just the way you already knew and liked him, that he is 
gay just the way he and the books just the way they are.

-m