Please note, that in Harry Potter, to my knowledge, J K Rowling has not written about or included any lesbians, drug users, singers, alcoholics, one legged Peruvians, Russians, people in to dogging, unemployed people, or even glamour models.
Gay friends of mine have never thought it funny that there is no gay character in the Harry Potter stories either, so quite why we should have to worry about it, heaven knows !
Update : For the record, Harry Potter also includes no traffic wardens, car mechanics, sun worshippers, Jamaicans, Inuits, or even Leeds City Councillors. Although now having mentioned Leeds City Councillors, David Morton (sorry, Councillor David Morton) will now accuse me of being Leedsist or a Councillorphobe. Well, perhaps not accuse, but he will drop strong hints that that is his view.
16 comments:
I don't think CTTLOM was exactly expressing outrage at the lack of gay characters in Harry Potter - it was just an observation! Quite why you need to cringe, I really don't know.
The same thought has occurred to me as well on reading the HP books, especially given the fact that there is some material in there that looks suspiciously like gay subtext, as Alex W points out. I think it's a perfectly reasonable discussion to have.
Oh a direct comparison between gay people and benefit cheats and drug users. How affirming.
The original post was quite mild. Harry Potter is a major piece of contempory culture. a quizical reference to why 6% of the population aren't represented seems harmless.
I hope you would show a bit more cultural awareness if a pupil of that age bracket talked to you about the difficulties the lack of positive role models causes.
I picked out a random group of stereotypes not included, not linked in any way other than the fact that I cannot remember them being included in the book.
I am sure my numerous gay friends would find it laughable to suggest, as you have done, that I am homophobic.
I agree with the others who have remarked that your choice of comparisons is rather unfortunate. The reason J.K. Rowling has not mentioned "one-legged peruvians" or "benefit cheats" is because there is no way they could have an bearing on a wizarding world in quite the same way you would expect homosexuality to permeate through. Especially when you consider that the later books (namely 5, 6 and 7) deal with a clearly more hormonal and adolescent Harry.
Therefore, the question of why there are no homosexuals is a legitimate one, but equally legitimate are questions such as "why does Harry have his first kiss aged 15 rather than earlier, as is per the norm for most people his age?", or "why is the word sex never mentioned in the books, let alone Harry never actually losing his virginity?"
The reality is that Rowling has ignored all these things, not just the existence of homosexuals. The books are completely unrealistic. So there. Anyone could tell you that from the fact that they talk about magic and flying broomsticks and enchanted train platforms and dragons. This is a book which is clearly not intended to be realistic.
Is it discrimination against homosexuals, as the question semi-infers? Definitely not, because there are a number of more glaring omissions which surely would be essential to a realistic portrayal of teenage life, eg sex and more excessive kissing.
In a sentence, it's not discrimination because Rowling is indiscriminately unrealistic, leaving out whole swathes of adolescent issues probably for the sake of her younger, more innocent readers.
Your analysis is a good one, although again I think people read too much in to my other stereotyped groups that I picked out at random.
Of the list of 9 sterotypes you use in your example 8 of them are clearly cultural negatives at best. Some are illegal and others physical illnesses or disabilities. Its interesting you defend your self against the charge of Homophobia despite no one using the word. I only wish I hadn't pulled my punches. Its a disgusting , nasty, insidious, illiberal and homophobic posting.
Nich
I was tempted to give a short four lettered response.
It may not have come across in the post, but what I was really pushing at wasn't why aren't there any LGB people in the HP books? I was merely amused by the thought of the reaction from the Christian Right if there had of been.
Bernard
I do agree with the observation comment, it seems to be one of those idle meanderings that heppens either over a beer in the pub or on blogs.
No Cllr David Morton (how self important are you that you ahve to use your cllr title in your blogger ID),. You know very well what you implied, after all, you refer in your second comment to pulling your punches, so you definitely knew what you meant when you tried to make out I was being homophobic.
Your comment is, at best, disgusting in that you make blind assumptions about someone, deeply iolliberal, simply because someone question someone elses comments.
What you have said I find deeply offensive and actually rather disgusting. If knew anyting about me you would retract what you have said straight away and apologise, otherwise, refarin from commenting, indeed, don't visit this blog again.
I cannot explain how angry I am with your comments quite frankly.
Bernard, thanks for your tempered response.
Oh Nich you have made my day! I accept the Umpires decision and you will hear no more of me. It seems though that as my Mother used to say " you can hand it out but can't take it". You are probably right about the blogger ID though!
Farewell.
I can accept criticism of my comments, but to be called homophobic (or to insinuate in a snide way) is out of order.
In the same way as I banned comments from an abusive Labour poster a few months ago, sadly its a shame when you get abuse from a Lib Dem.
I don't think it's fair to call David abusive because you don't like the terms on which he criticised you.
[Mind you, you would think I would learn as I have been in trouble when defending people who are just experessing an opinion against those who take even the mildest criticism on the internet to be abusive. I've also been slanderously labeled as abusive myself merely for standing up for others against bullies.]
I disagree Simon, and let me explain why.
Cllr Morton felt there was an innuendo to my message. He was "reading between the lines" for what he felt was my true intention, which was to denigrate and put down anyone who was homosexual.
he has the right to accuse me of this, if he beleive this is what i was trying to imply.
However, when I am clear in my rebuttal, in fact angry that he could have suggested this, he should have had the decency to withdraw his allegations that I am homophobic. My actions all my life show this not to be the case and actually what he said appalled me and would would too amongst the many gay friends of mine too.
he has the right to allege, but when it is not true, she should haave had the guts to withdraw the allegation.
As for his friticism that "i can't take it". If I couldn't take it I would not have allowed his comment to be posted. how would he like to be called a racist ? It's not nice.
What some people fail to realise is that on the internet we are our opinions. Your "how dare you judge me badef on my comments" line is very silly.
But then Leeds is not far from Keighley. Perhaps the fact I have met David gives me an unfair advantage in being able to correctly judge how comments are meant and justified.
Again, I make the point that he resorted to name calling. He could have taken me on on my comments, and I may have disagreed, but I have done that with many people on this blog and happily link to them because they don't start throwing around libellous accusations.
Post a Comment