odds :: Gay characters in YA lit :: ends

[pauraque_bk]

eponis asked a good question the other day: Didn't Fred and George ever wonder why this bloke named Pettigrew was always shown on the map in Ron's dorm?

---

scarah2 has a post on the perennially popular topic of whether particular characters may be gay in JKR's mind, regardless of whether she'll ever tell us so.

This put me in mind of a discussion keladryb and I recently had on the subject, more focused on whether JKR can/would explicitly state that a character is gay in the books. I'm not sure what purpose it would serve, beyond diversity for the sake of it. Remus is already figuratively queer, so it would seem a bit odd to make him literally queer as well, wouldn't it?

We agreed that JKR can write whatever she wants; no one could possibly stop her. We also discussed the precedent of gay characters in children's/young adult literature. Kel brought up Annie On My Mind, one of the very first YA novels about gay characters.

I've read Annie On My Mind, and it was pretty frank for the age-bracket it was aimed at. With that as a standard of what's acceptable, allowing Remus Lupin to be gay as a small part of an epic series seems like something that should be taken in stride.

Yet, it doesn't feel like it would be taken that way, at least not to me. We talked about the fact that Annie On My Mind is not just a novel with gay characters, it's a gay novel. You'd know that as soon as you read the back cover. It's in its right place on the Gay Interest shelf, where it's easy to avoid if you don't like it.

But mentioning at this point in the HP series that Remus is gay -- that's quite different. It tells us that he's a human being first, a teacher, a wizard, an expert on dark creatures, a person who makes mistakes -- all these things first, and then he also happens to be gay. It tells us that being gay isn't the end-all-be-all of someone's personality and life experience. It tells us that there isn't a great divide in the world with all the gay people conveniently Over There on their proper shelf where you don't have to see them (separate but equal).

And that's what I think would cause the controversy if JKR did decide to tell us Remus is queer. Even if it was only a passing, minor point -- perhaps especially if it was a minor point -- the message that being gay simply isn't anything to get worked up about is something I think a lot of people would have a huge problem with in a very mainstream YA series.

Any thoughts?

---

On a totally different note: If you, like so many of us, are possessed by an unexpected love for movie!Remus, go here to add 'lupin's cardigan' to your interest list.

Comments

[maidenjedi]

I don't think Rowling will "out" Lupin or any other character in the series....not so much for social or sales reasons, but from an allegorical standpoint. Lupin's carrying the burden of most minorities as it is, and while I have my doubts that he's the allegory for "gay" in the series, right now he's probably the best there is. If Rowling's writing an allegory, and I know some doubt that she is and still others quibble over *what kind* of allegory, then it's safer to assume she won't bring up the issue on the page.

She's not really dealing with sexuality, on any level, within the series. Her primary themes have been filial love, loyalty, friendship/brotherhood, etc. She's touched on blossoming attraction at the adolescent stage, but hasn't made it a central point. To bring up the "fact" that Lupin (or Sirius, or Pettigrew, or anyone else) is gay would be purely an afterthought, and it would serve little purpose. I don't think she has *room*, much less interest, in touching on the politics of being a homosexual in the wizarding world.

I think she's more than aware of what's being written in the fanfiction realm, and is happy to leave us to our imaginations in this as well as other points.

[fernwithy.livejournal.com]

Right... lycanthropy has a lot of allegory already attached to it; there is also the overkill factor.

And if it was allegorical of homosexuality, then making him gay as well as being an allegory of being gay would be, um... odd. Generally, what one is an allegory of isn't the case anyway. Since I tend to see it more as an allegory of mental illness (a stigmatized and terrifying behavior behavior pattern that no one really understands and knows how to cure), I also wouldn't give him schizophrenia.

[maidenjedi]

I'm not sure what I see him as allegorical of, to be honest. Since he can actually hurt people and is an actual danger at least once a month, it's hard to pin it down. But I can see how mental illness would work - there's a "drug"/potion that will keep him docile during his "fits"/the full moon, the lunar cycle is mythologically tied to people being "crazy", etc.

[pauraque]

I agree with you -- narratively, I don't see what purpose it would serve. Our discussion was really using the HP books as an example.

To bring up the "fact" that Lupin (or Sirius, or Pettigrew, or anyone else) is gay would be purely an afterthought

The idea of JKR stating that Pettigrew is gay struck me as viscerally alarming, and I had to pause and examine my reaction to figure out why. Of course, my Peter *is* gay; the notion certainly doesn't disturb me in fic. However, in canon, singling out a character who's consistently portrayed as criminal, immoral, and loathsome, and then saying he's also gay -- no. That's scary and uncomfortable for me. I would feel the same way if, say, it was suggested in canon that Umbridge was a lesbian.

This may not be entirely logical on my part. Of course, all sorts of people are gay, and it has nothing to do with any other personality trait -- that was exactly my point in my original post. But there's also a historical trend in film and literature to make villains gay, or code them as gay (cf The Celluloid Closet), and the idea of JKR outing Pettigrew slams that button hard, to me.

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

Yes-- in fic, where many people are gay or generally queer, it's not so much of a problem... but to have him be THE ONE TRUE GAY in an epic series with bajillions of other implicitly straight (because that's the default, right?) characters just pushes it in the other direction entirely. Not that it would necessarily be intended as a comment on homosexuality, but it could concievably influence people or play off their homophobia, whether it was meant that way or not.

[pauraque]

Yes, exactly. No matter how awful a fan writer makes him, and even when his horridness is directly connected to his sexuality (as in Cut With Diamonds), the portrayal still exists in a context that's queer-positive, or at least queer-who-cares? Even knowing that JKR is a liberal person and very likely not a homophobe, she's writing in the context of society at large.

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

Right. And slash writers *are* writing for a queer-friendly audience, which automatically gives you way more leeway than if you're writing for Average Person.

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

...my grammar in that comment was stupid. I dunno why I capitalized (the) average person, either. Oh well.

[maidenjedi]

Your reaction makes a lot of sense - it's really almost the same as *my* reaction to the idea of a canonically gay Lupin. I mean, he is consciously aware of the fact that his lycanthropy can be a danger to those around him - *including* the children he teaches - and to make lycanthropy an allegory of homosexuality seems dangerous. It's something that, in the Rowling-verse, people *catch* from lycanthropes, etc.

And, like you, I'd be upset by a canonically gay Pettigrew (and, at this point, a canonically gay Draco), for all the same reasons. I think it's dangerous in this social and political climate to portray a villianous or otherwise weak character as also being gay, especially if that character is the *only* gay character. Kids pick up more about society and social mores from literature than we give them credit for.

Umbridge....I would be equally upset if she were a lesbian....but there are other things about her and what befalls her that I wonder about the portrayal of. She's wicked, yes, downright morally blank (of all the evil characters we've encountered, even Bellatrix Lestrange does not exude the utter absence of morality that Umbridge does - she's a candidate for a serial killer profile). But what Hermione does to her, and what we can safely assume happened to her in the Forbidden Forest amongst the centaurs....is that justified?

Different thread, obviously.....

[pauraque]

I mean, he is consciously aware of the fact that his lycanthropy can be a danger to those around him - *including* the children he teaches - and to make lycanthropy an allegory of homosexuality seems dangerous. It's something that, in the Rowling-verse, people *catch* from lycanthropes, etc.

This is a good point, and I understand why a lot of people don't like to see him as allegorically queer for these reasons. But it somehow doesn't read like queer-is-scary to me -- I end up separating the fantasy/plotty elements from the allegorical/emotional ones, if that makes any sense.

The "what is Remus an allegory of" question is certainly up for debate, and people have all kinds of answers. I've heard it argued that Remus is allegorically female, which is truly bizarre to me, and bordering on offensive.

But what Hermione does to her, and what we can safely assume happened to her in the Forbidden Forest amongst the centaurs....

You're right that this probably is another thread, but yeah. The centaur thing was intense -- it's such a dangerous, sexualized moment, like dark old fairy tales before they're cleaned up for Disney.

[maidenjedi]

I've heard it argued that Remus is allegorically female, which is truly bizarre to me, and bordering on offensive.

I can see how that allegory is reached at - again, looking at the moon (which is used as another mythological construct for womanhood - monthly cycles, etc), and at the possible allegorical use of lycanthropy in literature in general. But it doesn't work for me, either, and I agree about the borderline offensiveness of it.

The centaur thing was intense -- it's such a dangerous, sexualized moment, like dark old fairy tales before they're cleaned up for Disney.

Exactly. It's the cleaning up (which WILL happen when this comes to film) that I actually dislike, even though I understand it from some angles. Some Disney films, to use concrete examples, hardly shy away from the darker, more sexualized side of the issues presented - The Hunchback of Notre Dame comes to mind, as does Sleeping Beauty - and I've felt uncomfortable watching these films with children in the room, especially Hunchback. I have a hard time with the idea that small children (I'm talking under 11) have read OotP. Just because they won't necessarily read into it what we have, doesn't mean they aren't picking up on it on some level. And that seques into yet *another* thread, so I'll stop there. ;-)

[pauraque]

I was 14-ish when the Disney Hunchback came out, and I was quite stunned by the frankness of its sexual subtext -- I remember it vividly. I wanted to talk about it, but I didn't really have the vocabulary, and my mom either wasn't interested or was too uncomfortable discussing it. It would be interesting to see it again.