![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
I feel a rant coming on.
ETA 5/10/10: I've locked comments in this post, because seriously? This post is three years old. I just don't give a fuck about your opinions regarding a fandom I left three years ago. And I'm sure neither do most of the people who published comments when this journal entry was originally posted.
I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when a friend managed to procure me a bootlegged version of it.
Never have I been so glad I did not spend money on something. This was one of the most offensive works of fiction I have ever read in my life.
First I will address the subject of queerness as it is, frankly, the least of what is wrong with this book and I prefer to start small.
It's not so much that she refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. It's that, as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, she saw fit to include an offhand reference to goatfucking with regards to Aberforth, and then on top of that, refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. "Oh, you want alternative sexuality? Have some bestiality. It's all the same to me, and now you freaks can't say you didn't get represented in my book."
Thanks, J. K. Rowling. Thanks ever so.
Of course, it's not just the homosexuals who are written out of the book. They were merely written out more quietly than any other minority group. Tonks and Remus die. Fred dies, and the freakishness of being one half of a pair of twins dies with him. Snape, the recluse dies. Dumbledore, the genius. Creepy Creevy, the artsy kid. Dobby, the unhappy slave. In fact, the only freaks alive at the end of the books are Loony Luna and slow, bumbling Hagrid—aspermetaform pointed out, the relatively helpless freaks. Aren't they endearing? Why no one could kill such adorable puppies. Look at those eyes!
Now, the epilogue.
Of course it is clear that the epilogue was a pile of publisher pleasing heteronormative cat piddle. Again, that is the least of what I think was wrong with it. What truly disappointed me about the epilogue was the fact that twenty years later, all the main characters were, essentially, still in high school.
Everyone married their high school sweethearts. Ron was congratulating himself for getting away with cheating on tests. Nobody's careers were mentioned, as apparently everyone made careers out of repopulating the wizarding world with red haired children. Slytherin house was still full of shady buggers, and all the old rivalries remained in place.
Didn't Hermione want to change the world? She started a political movement when she was twelve, and then it fizzled. Ron, the master strategist, defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven. The most notable thing he ever used this talent for was ... playing chess. At the age of eleven. All of these children had amazing potential, and Rowling actually wrote it into the canon that none of this potential was ever realized, that these children never grew up. Two decades later all they're doing is congratulating themselves on the good old days.
I'm sure you can guess my opinion of thirty-six year olds who think their years spent in high school were the best years of their life and continue to behave like petty teenagers even when they have children to raise. Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is not high.
Of course, Rowling is nothing if not consistent. She's contended since book one that ambition is a dirty word, a characteristic of a lot of Western literature, and one which I've always found fault with. The only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase. Dumbledore's ambition led to terrible consequences and he spent most of his life trying to clean up his mess. Snape was a broken, friendless child, and he died a broken, friendless adult. The only reason Harry survived emotionally is because friends fell into his lap on his first day of school, without him having to go looking for them.
Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals.
I grew up in a very dysfunctional home. I was unusually intelligent, the kind of intelligence that meant I could be as lazy as I wanted to be and still pull A's and score in the 99th percentile in most standardized tests. I was friendless in the seven grade. I made friends in high school. I did not accidentally trip on friends. I made friends. I left high school. I did the same all over again in college, and then with fandom. I'm working to be a professional artist. If I had been a character in this book, I would have died a martyr, because according to this book, that's the only thing a broken freak like me is good for.
Of course, I was written out of this book, along with the rest of the queers.
I'm somewhat horrified that Rowling actually thinks Ron and Hermione would be good parents. I mean, seriously? It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.
Really, Hermione? Their own good?
Clearly Ron and Hermione's children are going to develop eating disorders and/or go into therapy by the age of twelve.
But I digress.
Another point of contention is the plight of Petunia. She hated the wizarding world out of jealousy. Asgoluxexmachina pointed out to me, if Rowling had taken it upon herself to make Petunia a real person, instead of a cardboard cutout, Petunia could have had a perfectly valid reason for hating the wizarding world.
After all, the wizarding world secreted her sister away at the age of eleven, got her pregnant before the age of twenty, and then killed her before the age of twenty five. I don't see how she could not hate the scary cult that killed her baby sister.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was how Rowling treated the subject of slavery. I, and I know many other fans assumed that the purpose of the house elves in the books was to make a commentary on the flaws inherent in a society dependent on slavery and illustrate how it leads to said society's stagnation and how the system is ultimately self-defeating. But no. Apparently Rowling thinks slavery is great, so long as the slaves are predisposed to enjoying their servitude. The last chapter before the epilogue ends with Harry wondering to himself "whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich." After all, he's "had enough trouble for a lifetime."
Rowling finds nothing at all wrong with Harry having Kreacher's sandwich. And eating it too, I'm sure.
Dobby's last words, mere seconds before his death are, "Dobby is free." Yes, Dobby is free to die. For wizards. He is even honored with a shallow grave and a pile of rocks. And some tears too, of course. Here liesFido Dobby. He was a good dog elf. No one could fetch like old Dobby.
I pointed this all out topermetaform who then pointed out to me that, clearly, when Hermione created S.P.E.W., Rowling really did mean spew. She was essentially equating Hermione with a PETA fanatic.
No, I do not dislike this book as a fan, because my fic got Jossed. I do not dislike this book because I think it is a bad story. I dislike this book because I think J. K. Rowling is a bad person. Because she wrote out people like me in this book. Because she killed off people like me in this book—
—so that Harry Potter could enjoy his sandwich in peace.
I read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows when a friend managed to procure me a bootlegged version of it.
Never have I been so glad I did not spend money on something. This was one of the most offensive works of fiction I have ever read in my life.
First I will address the subject of queerness as it is, frankly, the least of what is wrong with this book and I prefer to start small.
It's not so much that she refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. It's that, as
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, she saw fit to include an offhand reference to goatfucking with regards to Aberforth, and then on top of that, refused to include any offhand references to homosexuality in any way shape or form. "Oh, you want alternative sexuality? Have some bestiality. It's all the same to me, and now you freaks can't say you didn't get represented in my book."Thanks, J. K. Rowling. Thanks ever so.
Of course, it's not just the homosexuals who are written out of the book. They were merely written out more quietly than any other minority group. Tonks and Remus die. Fred dies, and the freakishness of being one half of a pair of twins dies with him. Snape, the recluse dies. Dumbledore, the genius. Creepy Creevy, the artsy kid. Dobby, the unhappy slave. In fact, the only freaks alive at the end of the books are Loony Luna and slow, bumbling Hagrid—as
permetaform pointed out, the relatively helpless freaks. Aren't they endearing? Why no one could kill such adorable puppies. Look at those eyes!Now, the epilogue.
Of course it is clear that the epilogue was a pile of publisher pleasing heteronormative cat piddle. Again, that is the least of what I think was wrong with it. What truly disappointed me about the epilogue was the fact that twenty years later, all the main characters were, essentially, still in high school.
Everyone married their high school sweethearts. Ron was congratulating himself for getting away with cheating on tests. Nobody's careers were mentioned, as apparently everyone made careers out of repopulating the wizarding world with red haired children. Slytherin house was still full of shady buggers, and all the old rivalries remained in place.
Didn't Hermione want to change the world? She started a political movement when she was twelve, and then it fizzled. Ron, the master strategist, defeated the genius Dumbledore's chess set at the age of eleven. The most notable thing he ever used this talent for was ... playing chess. At the age of eleven. All of these children had amazing potential, and Rowling actually wrote it into the canon that none of this potential was ever realized, that these children never grew up. Two decades later all they're doing is congratulating themselves on the good old days.
I'm sure you can guess my opinion of thirty-six year olds who think their years spent in high school were the best years of their life and continue to behave like petty teenagers even when they have children to raise. Suffice it to say, my opinion of them is not high.
Of course, Rowling is nothing if not consistent. She's contended since book one that ambition is a dirty word, a characteristic of a lot of Western literature, and one which I've always found fault with. The only people in the book who attempt to better themselves are either evil or going through an evil phase. Dumbledore's ambition led to terrible consequences and he spent most of his life trying to clean up his mess. Snape was a broken, friendless child, and he died a broken, friendless adult. The only reason Harry survived emotionally is because friends fell into his lap on his first day of school, without him having to go looking for them.
Rowling puts forth a very consistent message that people can only be bettered by fortunate circumstances, that freaks who are too traumatized to make friends during childhood will remain freakish and friendless thereafter, that the only way they can contribute to society is by sacrificing themselves for the good of the normals.
I grew up in a very dysfunctional home. I was unusually intelligent, the kind of intelligence that meant I could be as lazy as I wanted to be and still pull A's and score in the 99th percentile in most standardized tests. I was friendless in the seven grade. I made friends in high school. I did not accidentally trip on friends. I made friends. I left high school. I did the same all over again in college, and then with fandom. I'm working to be a professional artist. If I had been a character in this book, I would have died a martyr, because according to this book, that's the only thing a broken freak like me is good for.
Of course, I was written out of this book, along with the rest of the queers.
I'm somewhat horrified that Rowling actually thinks Ron and Hermione would be good parents. I mean, seriously? It's as if Lisa Simpson married Homer Simpson. That is, if Lisa Simpson were a completely insane control freak who wiped her parents brains and packaged them off to another country, supposedly for their own good.
Really, Hermione? Their own good?
Clearly Ron and Hermione's children are going to develop eating disorders and/or go into therapy by the age of twelve.
But I digress.
Another point of contention is the plight of Petunia. She hated the wizarding world out of jealousy. As
goluxexmachina pointed out to me, if Rowling had taken it upon herself to make Petunia a real person, instead of a cardboard cutout, Petunia could have had a perfectly valid reason for hating the wizarding world.After all, the wizarding world secreted her sister away at the age of eleven, got her pregnant before the age of twenty, and then killed her before the age of twenty five. I don't see how she could not hate the scary cult that killed her baby sister.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all was how Rowling treated the subject of slavery. I, and I know many other fans assumed that the purpose of the house elves in the books was to make a commentary on the flaws inherent in a society dependent on slavery and illustrate how it leads to said society's stagnation and how the system is ultimately self-defeating. But no. Apparently Rowling thinks slavery is great, so long as the slaves are predisposed to enjoying their servitude. The last chapter before the epilogue ends with Harry wondering to himself "whether Kreacher might bring him a sandwich." After all, he's "had enough trouble for a lifetime."
Rowling finds nothing at all wrong with Harry having Kreacher's sandwich. And eating it too, I'm sure.
Dobby's last words, mere seconds before his death are, "Dobby is free." Yes, Dobby is free to die. For wizards. He is even honored with a shallow grave and a pile of rocks. And some tears too, of course. Here lies
I pointed this all out to
permetaform who then pointed out to me that, clearly, when Hermione created S.P.E.W., Rowling really did mean spew. She was essentially equating Hermione with a PETA fanatic.No, I do not dislike this book as a fan, because my fic got Jossed. I do not dislike this book because I think it is a bad story. I dislike this book because I think J. K. Rowling is a bad person. Because she wrote out people like me in this book. Because she killed off people like me in this book—
—so that Harry Potter could enjoy his sandwich in peace.
no subject
There is a huge difference between representation and integration. For all we know, any of the characters could be bisexual or homosexual. Just because orientation is not mentioned does not mean that you or anyone else is being purposefully oppressed--it just means that these characters' sexualities were not important to the plot. For all we know, Dumbledore could well have been gay, or McGonagall and Trelawney and Luna could have been lesbians, but the fact of the matter is no one knows, save for the author, and that's assuming that she even bothered to create a sexual identity for them at all. I'm not surprised that the epilogue entailed so many couplings, since one of Harry's core desires is for a family. And yes, both of the main pairs married their "high school sweethearts," but you seem to be ignoring one critical factor: they all went through a fucking war together. Situations like that do tend to pull relationships closer together, or at least result in marriages (though they were often "good-bye marriages" in situations like WWII). It's not so strange that after all they've gone through together that they'd end up, well, together. As for Remus and Tonks, who's to say that Remus didn't have romantic feelings for Sirius, or even a full-fledged relationship with him? Again, just because something is not mentioned does not mean that it absolutely does not exist. For all we know, part of his desire to run off with our young heroes could have been guilt not only for putting Tonks in a socially undesirable situation for marrying a werewolf, but also guilt for not mourning Sirius's death longer before romantically moving on. Of course, this is all assumption and not canon in the least.
What I don't understand is your apparent need for validation through the canon of a novel series. Why does J.K. have to write about sexual identities? Why does she have to write about anything at all? Fact is, she doesn't; she does not need to cater to any of her audience's whims, and it's preposterous to impose your own desires on an author like that. You have what she has written, and you are free to make suppositions as you please from that; you are free to read into as much subtext as you want, and to make extrapolations from where things are not quite spelled out.
(Sorry, reposted due to html error.)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-07-31 04:59 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
Rowling has made numerous comments to that effect as well. She knows that children around the world are reading her stories, and was upset to think that children might be inadvertently stumbling upon sexually explicit fanfiction. She knows what kind of impact her books have had on the world.
Hence, when I say that she failed to include queerness in her novels, I am not saying that as a writer she is obligated to represent me or validate me. She is, in fact, the one who decided it was her responsibility to write about people in the depths of poverty as well as people in the higher echelon. She is the one who decided it was her responsibility to make sure people of African, Middle Eastern and Asian descent were represented and validated in her novels.
The fact that she went so out of her way to represent every minority group *except* homosexuals reeks of exclusion.
Simply put, her books are bigger than her, and she knows it, and she's known it for years. She's written the bestselling book since the Holy Bible. She's created an entire world with her stories, and populated it with every sort of person she could think of, except this one particular type of person. The fact that the only offhand references to non-heteronormative sexuality are pedophilia and bestiality means something in this context.
It means something very disturbing.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-07-31 07:55 pm (UTC)(link)See? I'm sorry but JKR does not have to cater to everyone's wishes, and that doesn't mean that she thinks homosexuality or having any non-white skin colour is bad. Get a life. Really.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2007-08-05 08:33 am (UTC)(link)Actually, upon reading Deathly Hallows, I got the *distinct* impression that Albus Dumbledore was gay and that he and Elphias Doge had been involved in a long-term relationship (after the breakup of Dumbledore and the other person whose name escapes me - Grendel?). Nothing specific, but that's the way those scenes read to me.
He wasn't the only character that I thought might be/was homosexual, but he was the most prominent. There are quite a few others that are possible.
While any work of art should be questioned, I have to say that I disagree with the OP's conclusion here. This was not a work that specifically excluded homosexuals and/or bisexuals, in my opinion. If you wanted to argue that she should have been more definite about her definitions, that's another story.