Is there room for sexuality in children´s books?

[MrsSpringsteen]

And I maintain that it was completely pointless to have Dumbledore be gay besides the fact that she just wanted to help "the cause" (can´t call it "agenda" anymore) of having more tolerance towards homosexuals. I have no problem with tolerance. I just have a problem with using a children´s book to further political views about sexuality.

People project onto literature many things that the author never intended. If she had some sort of agenda to further "political views about sexuality" she certainly would have revealed a long time ago that he was gay. I haven't read the books but from what I have read about this issue there's nothing there to indicate any sort of "agenda"-it seems the complete opposite.

She sure seems to love and respect kids, and that includes respecting their intelligence while at the same time respecting what is appropriate for them to be able to comprehend. Again, he wasn't having wild sex with anyone.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

 

[redhotswami]

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

i don't get what you are saying here...
it was unnecessary for her to honestly answer an honest question by an honest fan?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

And to add-hypothetically what would people rather see kids/teens read?

1. Books with sex scenes between straight characters

2. Books with gay relationships without the sex scenes

Is the issue sex or sexuality? They aren't the same thing. And again we are talking in this case about a gay character who is not even directly depicted as being in a gay relationship, if I am correct in my understanding.

 

[Irvine511]

´


I´ve read through this thread and have just posted what I could add on the subject but I´ll gladly answer any questions you ask me.

are you sick of all the blatant Latino inclusion you see on television and in the movies?

 

[BVS]

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

No, because then you would have to say it's unnecessary for anyone to be straight.

Can't you see your double standard? Why can't you just admit to that?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

are you sick of all the blatant Latino inclusion you see on television and in the movies?

No. It´s a different kind of inclusion. They include them because more and more they have become a part of American society.

No, because then you would have to say it's unnecessary for anyone to be straight.

Can't you see your double standard? Why can't you just admit to that?

I do admit that there could be a misunderstanding of a double standard. But being straight is the norm. It´s the "given" of sexualities, if you will. No one is trying to make people accept heterosexuality through their character´s example. That´s the whole difference.

I really do hope this doesn´t create more debate as I am just answering the questions I´m being asked as best I can.

 

[corianderstem]

No. It´s a different kind of inclusion. They include them because more and more they have become a part of American society.

Aaaaaand ... what - gay people AREN'T part of American society? Or any society?

 

[phillyfan26]

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

Your whole set of replies in this thread reek of bigotry and ignorance.

Someone asked her a question, genius. Was she supposed to answer, "He did, but I can't tell you, or I'd be accused of pandering an agenda?" Really?

It's clear to me that you have no understanding of the art of writing, and of creating a world with characters.

Your whole theory about "causes" and "agendas" could have been taken right out of the Conservapedia article on homosexuality. It's utter bullshit.

 

[phillyfan26]

I really do hope this doesn´t create more debate as I am just answering the questions I´m being asked as best I can.

So, let me get this straight ... you are making bold statements about homosexual "agendas," yet you don't want there to be replies?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

No, it´s just that I don´t want to piss anybody else off.

 

[redhotswami]

so what your saying is, you'd rather rowling take your approach when it comes to responding to questions and just not respond to them?

 

[phillyfan26]

No, it´s just that I don´t want to piss anybody else off.

Why did you post here in the first place?

 

[yolland]

Can we refrain from constantly saying "bullshit" and sarcastically referring to people as "genius," please.

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

Necessary, unnecessary...what does that have to do with it? The character as she imagined him just is gay, and you have no sound reason for assuming that Dumbledore took form in her mind in that way because she felt he "had to" in order for her to be "PC" and have that "token gay." People who love or have loved someone of the same sex are part of authors' (and readers') social worlds in real life, just like people who love or have loved someone of the opposite sex are--why should it be forced or "necessary" for an author's characters to reflect that?

It almost comes across as if you're saying, "Being gay used to be seen as unspeakably shameful and perverse, therefore a gay character would never have been included in a children's book any more than a rapist or pedophile would've been, and while I don't personally agree with that view of gay people, I still don't think we should acknowledge they exist in front of children, because then we're setting kids up to believe that being gay isn't unspeakably shameful and perverse, and I've really got a problem with that." Which doesn't make any sense at all. Yes, of course it's a fairly new thing to have gay couples appear in children's literature (setting aside for a moment that Dumbledore's one 'known' relationship never, in fact, actually appeared)--precisely because gay relationships were automatically seen as too intrinsically perverse for children to know about...whereas having heterosexual couples appear was fine. So, yes, naturally there had to be a 'first time' for it, just as (in the US at least) there had to be a 'first time' for showing an interracial couple in a children's book. But we no longer live in the social world the Brothers Grimm did, one where children certainly weren't seeing two men holding hands at the mall, so that time has come. Unless, of course, you don't really accept that two men holding hands at the mall, where children might see, is OK, because you're still holding on to the idea that it's innately perverse and somehow says SEXSEXSEX in a way that a man and a woman holding hands doesn't.

 

[Diemen]

Say what you want, but there´s this whole "homosexual agenda" where everyone is trying to put at least one gay character or one gay person in every show, book. It´s no longer the "token black guy" but the "token gay guy". And that´s what I have a problem with. There´s a time and place for everything and HP books shouldn´t have been used for that.

So you would prefer if they didn't have token black guys or token gay guys? Yes, what our children need when growing up is pure white, heterosexual stories. That way, when they walk out into the real world, they'll have just as many irrational phobias and biases against minorities, gays and anyone different than them as the parents who sheltered them.

Give me a break. Homosexuals are a part of society. To ignore that or try to hide is utterly ridiculous at best, and plain bigotry the rest of the time.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Aaaaaand ... what - gay people AREN'T part of American society? Or any society?

Sure, they are. But I´m against making a character for the sake of furthering tolerance instead of it being a legitimate literary need.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Sure, they are. But I´m against making a character for the sake of furthering tolerance instead of it being a legitimate literary need.

I've read this entire thread and, after this last reply, all I really have to say is

 

[phillyfan26]

Sure, they are. But I´m against making a character for the sake of furthering tolerance instead of it being a legitimate literary need.

Who said it was for the sake of furthering tolerance?

 

[Diemen]

You are making a huge assumption that that is the reason Rowling made the character gay. Authors like to flesh out their characters, and often times not all of the character makes it onto the page.

And besides, even if (and that's a big if) she made him gay to further tolerance, since when is furthering tolerance a bad thing?

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Who said it was for the sake of furthering tolerance?

You really think there´s a "legitimate" literary need? Process of elimination, really...

 

[Diemen]

You really think there´s a "legitimate" literary need? Process of elimination, really...

Authors like to flesh out their characters, and often times not all of the character makes it onto the page.

It's called making the characters more real. The more backstory a character has, the more real and convincing they are, to the audience and to the author.

 

[phillyfan26]

You really think there´s a "legitimate" literary need? Process of elimination, really...

What is a "legitimate literary need?" Was it necessary at all to write a seven part series on wizards? Was it necessary for any work of fiction to exist?

Give me a break.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Ugh, tolerance.


No, seriously, why do you always ignore some important facts, like:
1. She was asked, so she answered, honestly.
2. She didn't include it in the book because it was not relevant for the story, but to create this story she developed complex characters with a backlife.
3. Children will not think for a second about what you include here, the sex aspect, of sexual orientation.

You are constantly ignoring those facts and speaking of this mysterious "agenda" people have. Why?
Isn't it because of your own bias?

And children's books should deal with social aspects and educate children. No child will be left traumatized by it.


And isn't there even death of characters involved, violent death? So, seriously, why all the fuss about one character being homosexual, and nothing about violence?

 

[BVS]

Sure, they are. But I´m against making a character for the sake of furthering tolerance instead of it being a legitimate literary need.

Someone could ignorantly argue that there isn't literary legitimante reason for black or latino characters, in fact we could just go back to the day where all the female characters were actually played by men.

Your arguments are baseless, useless, and ignorant.

 

[Vincent Vega]

thinkprogress.org

gay homosexual

Well, I would be shocked if he was a gay heterosexual.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Nobody here would even concede the fact that it was unnecessary for her to do something like that.

To answer a question? These things have a canon, the authors own thoughts on the subject probably have implications for the criticism of the book.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Does anyone think Frodo and Sam were gay? Just sayin...

 

[Irvine511]

Sure, they are. But I´m against making a character for the sake of furthering tolerance instead of it being a legitimate literary need.

and what if i told you that's how i feel about Ugly Betty? and that she got an Emmy just because she's Latino?

 

[anitram]

Does anyone think Frodo and Sam were gay? Just sayin...

Gayer than a picnic basket.

Seriously the woman was asked a question, she answered it as she saw fit. She didn't call a press conference on CNN out of the blue to push some kind of gay agenda, whatever that's supposed to mean.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm still waiting for an answer to what I asked a few pages back:

When the character's sexual orienation wasn't known, none of you were bothered, but now that it is, all of a sudden it's a big deal? Come on now. If he were straight, would those of you who have issues with this still be having all this hoopla?

Anyone? I really want an answer.

It's just a character in a book, people. Get over it already.

Angela