17 votes

It’s not enough for JK Rowling to say her characters are queer. Show it to us

13 comments

  1. [10]
    cfabbro
    (edited )
    Link
    I honestly loathe this sort of mentality. Stop attacking our allies for not representing us perfectly! Could JK have had the characters be more open? Sure, I guess... but the fantastic beasts...

    I honestly loathe this sort of mentality. Stop attacking our allies for not representing us perfectly! Could JK have had the characters be more open? Sure, I guess... but the fantastic beasts series takes place in 1920s UK, which is not exactly a time/place known for welcoming openly gay relationships, and one of the basic conflicts in the series is a prejudicial law forbidding wizards and muggles from marrying... so them being open wouldn't really make sense.

    IMO JK doesn't need to "grow up", it's actually the author of this article and all the others out there letting perfect be the enemy of good that do.

    14 votes
    1. alyaza
      Link Parent
      it's not that she isn't representing LGBT+ people perfectly (although that too is a criticism you can levy at her) so much as she literally did not even try to include any of this diversity in...

      Stop attacking our allies for not representing us perfectly!

      it's not that she isn't representing LGBT+ people perfectly (although that too is a criticism you can levy at her) so much as she literally did not even try to include any of this diversity in sexuality and what not that she's canonified in the past few years from the safe confines of her twitter feed in any of the work she's done since. it's maybe understandable with the harry potter books themselves, but not so much with like... everything after that. as is, her representation entirely comes off as her trying to score diversity points and not because she actually wants to include or reflect LGBT+ people or all the other marginalized people she likes to talk about in the harry potter canon (because otherwise she'd... you know... write about it in any way other than twitter postscripts and things that bury the lede). also, i don't necessarily buy the time period of the setting as a reason why she can't do it at all. i can accept certainly that there would most likely be restrictions in the visibility of gay relationships and how LGBT+ people exist during a time like the 1920s, but that doesn't mean you can't represent them at all, it just means you have to be a little bit more creative with your depiction--and really, i don't think that's too much to ask of fucking JK Rowling, lol.

      15 votes
    2. [5]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      One of writing's primary dicta is "show, don't tell": if a writer wants to convey a particular trait of one of their characters, they should show that trait in action, rather than merely tell the...

      One of writing's primary dicta is "show, don't tell": if a writer wants to convey a particular trait of one of their characters, they should show that trait in action, rather than merely tell the reader about it via narration. Saying "Jane was a thief" isn't as effective as writing a scene where Jane casually shoplifts a scarf. In that context, this is the ultimate "tell", because Rowling isn't even telling us about the characters' traits in the books themselves, but elsewhere. The books themselves have no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality or his relationship with Grindelwald.

      Literary texts should stand on their own merits. Readers shouldn't have to follow Twitter to learn about character traits in a book: those traits should be demonstrated in the book. If nothing else, this reflects bad writing by Rowling.

      It's like she's trying to have it both ways. In her books, she gets to avoid any mention of LGBT relationships and characters. Then, in other forums, she gets to say that there's a gay relationship in her books. On the one hand, she doesn't include LGBT characters in her books. On the other hand, she says there are LGBT characters included in her books. It's non-committal. It's wishy-washy. On a more cynical note, she gets to reap the kudos for including LGBT characters in her books without taking the risk of actually including LGBT characters in her books. That's just cheating.

      14 votes
      1. [4]
        mrbeehive
        Link Parent
        Does anybody actually feel like she reaps any kudos from it? I think the most positive thing I've heard a person say about it is that it's good to have a famous person that made a thing you like...

        On a more cynical note, she gets to reap the kudos for including LGBT characters in her books without taking the risk of actually including LGBT characters in her books. That's just cheating.

        Does anybody actually feel like she reaps any kudos from it? I think the most positive thing I've heard a person say about it is that it's good to have a famous person that made a thing you like show support for a community that you may be a part of, but that's not exactly high praise. There are dozens of other celebrities around who do the same in ways that have more substance. It feels like low effort pandering to me.

        Love your username, by the way. Two of my favorite things.

        1 vote
        1. [3]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Yes. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/opinion/l31gay.html https://ew.com/article/2007/10/30/dumbledores-outing-why-it-matters/...

          Does anybody actually feel like she reaps any kudos from it?

          Yes.


          The author replied: 'My truthful answer to you...I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.' The audience reportedly fell silent - then erupted into prolonged applause.

          https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books


          By outing Albus Dumbledore, J. K. Rowling has removed the invisibility cloak that keeps positive gay role models out of public awareness. She is showing gay and straight kids, their parents and their school administrations that the true measure of an individual’s worth stems from his actions, not his sexual identity.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/opinion/l31gay.html


          What Rowling has done, brilliantly, is to turn Dumbledore purple. She didn’t reveal his sexuality in order to unlock a new way of reading the books, or as a provocation. She simply told the world that a main character in the best-loved books of the last 10 years is homosexual, and asked her audience to contend with it — and with the fact that it shouldn’t matter.

          https://ew.com/article/2007/10/30/dumbledores-outing-why-it-matters/


          Many fans were thrilled with the announcement.

          "This is a victory for homosexuality the world over," one wrote. "Dumbledore is iconic, and I can't wait for all those little children to hear about this. I am so insanely proud of [Rowling] for doing this."

          https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3755544


          9 votes
          1. [2]
            mrbeehive
            Link Parent
            Well damn. I've never heard of any of this. Thank you.

            Well damn. I've never heard of any of this.

            Thank you.

            2 votes
            1. Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              Well, most of the reaction happened ten years ago, when she first announced Dumbledore was gay. Since then, the information has become just part of the background of the franchise. And, recently,...

              Well, most of the reaction happened ten years ago, when she first announced Dumbledore was gay. Since then, the information has become just part of the background of the franchise. And, recently, the reaction has started to turn negative because Rowling keeps telling us that Dumbledore is gay, but never shows it.

              But, back then, she got a lot of praise from people for this "brave" decision. Which wasn't actually brave at all, as I already said.

              2 votes
    3. [3]
      Whom
      Link Parent
      What "good" does JK Rowling do by tweeting these things? Who is helped? If tomorrow everything was reversed and she suddenly never said it at all, all that would be different is that some Harry...

      What "good" does JK Rowling do by tweeting these things? Who is helped? If tomorrow everything was reversed and she suddenly never said it at all, all that would be different is that some Harry Potter fans would have a more healthy idea of how to think about storytelling without getting all caught up in """canon."""

      "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" is generally a poor criticism that does little but prevent getting better, but here it doesn't apply at all. Rowling saying these things is at best neutral and at worst a bit of a nuisance.

      7 votes
      1. [2]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        All she did was confirm was what implied in Crimes of Grindelwald, that he and Dumbeldore were in a gay relationship... how is that a nuisance to anyone? And IMO your point about storytelling...

        All she did was confirm was what implied in Crimes of Grindelwald, that he and Dumbeldore were in a gay relationship... how is that a nuisance to anyone?

        And IMO your point about storytelling would only really apply if this article was literary criticism, which it's very clearly not. It's a personal attack, calling her a "coward", "Queerbaiter", and being guilty of "toxic vacuity" and "betrayal". What good does attacking someone like that for trying to be inclusive do?

        Could she and should she have revealed Dumbeldore's sexuality in the original novels if that's truly what she had in mind for the character all along instead of "ex-post-facto"ing it in now? Sure, but it was a kids novel released by a then unknown author via a major publisher in 1997 so that's a pretty big ask, IMO. And even if it is being retconned in, Gay representation in a series as huge as Harry Potter, especially in the form of a beloved character, is still a good thing... not perfect but still good!

        Should the relationship have been less implied/more overt in Fantastic Beasts and their relationship been open instead of closeted? Sure.. but as I stated before, that would be incongruous with the setting and time period the story takes place in.

        p.s.

        "Letting perfect be the enemy of good" is generally a poor criticism that does little but prevent getting better

        I disagree. The more gay representation there is the more normalized it gets making it easier and less controversial for others to include in the future. But all that shitting on anyone who tries (and maybe fumbles like JK has) over being inclusive accomplishes is make it less likely people will try to be inclusive at all in the future since it's just not worth the risk of inflaming the ire of not only the bigots but also the people they are trying to include. And that's the worst possible outcome of all, IMO.

        1 vote
        1. Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          Back when I was a youngster, I read a book which included a scene where two young teenage boys actually kissed. That book was written in the 1960s. Rowling didn't have to go as far as writing a...

          Sure, but it was a kids novel released by a then unknown author via a major publisher in 1997 so that's a pretty big ask, IMO.

          Back when I was a youngster, I read a book which included a scene where two young teenage boys actually kissed. That book was written in the 1960s.

          Rowling didn't have to go as far as writing a sex scene for Dumbledore and Grindelwald, but if other characters in the 'Harry Potter' books can be married or go on dates, then Dumbledore could whisper something romantic to Grindelwald at some point, or have a flashback to a memory of a romantic date. There are ways to incorporate LGBT content without turning the book into 'Fifty Shades of Dumbledore'.

          3 votes
  2. [2]
    Catt
    Link
    This article was worded very aggressively, but I do support the jist of it. While, it's better than not supporting other races and the lgbt community, I feel it's extremely lazy from a...

    This article was worded very aggressively, but I do support the jist of it. While, it's better than not supporting other races and the lgbt community, I feel it's extremely lazy from a storytelling pov. It's easy to make statements when there's no risk associated with them. And a name as famous as Rowling can take a lot of risks, so why not introduce them into the stories themselves instead if just tagging them as if they are afterthoughts?

    8 votes
    1. Grzmot
      Link Parent
      Gotta sell those books in the countries were it's illegal/lowers sales if you openly feature LGBT characters. I don't really think that JKR is like that, I think she just wants to stay relevant,...

      Gotta sell those books in the countries were it's illegal/lowers sales if you openly feature LGBT characters.

      I don't really think that JKR is like that, I think she just wants to stay relevant, or she wants a bit of that worldbuilding pie that GRRM and Sanderson have made fairly popular recently, but has none of the skill to support it.

      7 votes
  3. Dragon
    Link
    Ok, this is my opnion, but I think she's just putting in LGBTQ+ stuff for her books as a means to an end and not out of being genuine.

    Ok, this is my opnion, but I think she's just putting in LGBTQ+ stuff for her books as a means to an end and not out of being genuine.