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

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

There were gay and lesbian characters in Louise Fitzhugh's mainstream YA books too. It's especially true in The Long Secret which had a society pianist in it named Bunny as I recall. Though it has been, oh, 25 years since I looked at it, so who knows. And of course even Fitzhugh's greatest hit, Harriet the Spy, probably sold less than 1/1000 the number of copies of any Potter book. Still, there she was with precisely that subversive idea of gay characters whose lives were not limited to their gayness ... and she was writing in the early 1970s!

[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.

[pauraque]

Did Harriet the Spy have gay characters? I read it when I was a kid, and I don't recall.

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

Gah. This is why I have articulate people like you on my friends list.

I think that nothing-to-get-worked-up-about idea is a really important idea that more people need to use...especially slash writers. Though, glossing over the 'problem' of being gay entirely puts me off as well.

But at the same time, I kind of would rather have subtext, instead of having anything explicitly stated. Sometimes I feel like putting things into words 'ruins' it. Does that make any sense?

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

What, you mean besides Harriet? *g*

I seem to recall that one of the people Harriet spies on is pretty clearly coded as lesbian, but my memory is pretty bad for books I read that long ago.

Man, I loved those books, though.

[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.

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

Much as I wish I could say that children's literature should have moved past the era of "coded gayness" by now, I suspect JKR would never explicitly state whether Remus, or any character, was gay or bi. British children's series - C.S. Lewis, Enid Blyton - operate in a nostalgic fug where sexuality is just not mentioned as it destroys the illusion of youth and innocence. Not that it's not there in Blyton's MALORY TOWERS - the butch horse-riding Bill and her pretty femme friend Clarissa are an inseparable couple and even plan to go into business together by the end of the series! - but it has to be described as a "special friendship". Nothing more.

(Kannaophelia has written some brilliant Bill/Clarissa, btw, if you haven't already sampled the delights thereof.)

So, yes, British children's series tend to want to preserve the innocence of its characters: if gayness is mentioned, it's coded so that the reader sees only what s/he is capable of seeing and there's no suggestion that the young and impressionable child has been "corrupted".

As for Peter Pettigrew, maybe the twins thought the possessor of that name was a ickle Gryffindor in Ron's year?

[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.

[maidenjedi]

Sometimes I feel like putting things into words 'ruins' it. Does that make any sense?

That *does* make sense. Subtext exists for a reason, and to actually *act* upon it, or spell it out, can make it cheap and almost like selling out to the audience.

Things that come to mind (granted, they're het...) are Moonlighting (David and Maggie), and The X-Files (Mulder and Scully).

[pauraque]

Hm! I never read Harriet as a queer character. Perhaps I'll re-read the book... I did like it as a kid, though it wasn't a great favorite.

[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.

[wootsauce.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly. And it seems so much more magical, if you will, and somehow important, and stronger--you don't actually HAVE to say it.

[pauraque]

With slash, I think it depends on the characters and their situation. If you're writing about a couple of tough American cops, then it would be unrealistic not to at least allude to the problematic aspects.

HP is already fantasy, so HP slash can usually afford to skip over the grim and gritty problems of (internal and external) bias against queers. On the other hand, the HP universe is very concerned with blood and heirs... keeping pureblood families alive. Homosexuality would be a problem for that. In HP, I think you can plausibly take it either way, depending on what story you want to tell.

[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]

In a way, this is the heart of what good storytelling is all about, isn't it? Show, don't tell.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

About ten years ago the Village Voice published an article about Louise Fitzhugh. It turns out she was a big ol' Greenwich Village lesbian, a perfect Ann Bannon character. When I read that, all of a sudden those books made a whole different kind of sense ...

But yeah, don't you see Harriet as the prototypical baby dyke?

[pauraque]

Nope! Or at least, it didn't occur to me at the time, when I was in sixth grade or so. I related to Harriet in an uncomfortable sort of way... we behaved similarly, and I was sometimes embarrassed at the recognition.

But I have to admit, to some extent lesbianism didn't appear on my radar screen. I was very alert to gay male subtext at an early age, but the female variety didn't hold the same interest.

[lolaraincoat.livejournal.com]

And then, precisely the opposite for me. I was just so into the tomboy/lesbian subtext thing by, yeah, about grade six. Hmmmm ....

[maidenjedi]

Exactly.

Subtext is an artform unto itself, and it requires subtlety. I almost think that if the writer (actor?) is conscious of subtext as a tool and tries to manipulate it, that's the point at which everything is exposed and very possibly ruined. The reader/viewer will pick up on what is intended to be shown - the skilled reader/viewer will pick up on what is unconsciously intended - and finally the regular/repeat reader/viewer will pick up on what he or she *wants* to find, intended or not. That's where the idea of a reader or viewer being an essential part of the process comes in. It isn't fully realized art until we're dissecting for things even the author didn't concieve.

Or, anyway, that's my take on it.

[pauraque]

Hm! How very unexpected.

We are so predictable. :)

[overly-shy.livejournal.com]

(drive-by commenter here--I hope you don't mind.)

It's perhaps not all that mainstream, but Diane Duane's YA So You Want to be a Wizard series (I first read them in the early '80s) has a fairly clearly gay couple as secondary characters. They're not explicitly identified as gay, but they're two adult males living together, bantering like a married couple. And when one of the main characters discusses revealing her own identity as a wizard to her parents, one of the men talks about the difficulties of passing vs. coming out of the closet--which is overtly about being a wizard, but can obviously be taken in other ways. (Also, one of her adult series has overtly homosexual and bisexual characters.)

And yeah, nobody in the books gets worked up about it. "Oh, look, these are our friends and neighbors living happily together, and they happen to both be men," appears to be the message. Now, the books are nowhere as visible as the Harry Potter books--I'm sure the controversy would be much greater for the latter.

[maidenjedi]

If HP slash were political (in the sense of pushing, and forgive me for a lack of a better term, a queer agenda), then sooner or later someone would have to deal with the pureblood agenda head on. I wouldn't be surprised to know for sure that it hasn't been dealt with, but looking at it from that standpoint, wouldn't the Blacks have just as much a problem with a gay Sirius as they do with a Muggleblood-defending/loving-one? Wouldn't the Malfoys? Wouldn't *Voldemort*?

Huh.

[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.

[pauraque]

Wouldn't *Voldemort*?

Boy, doesn't that open up a can of worms? The old DEs=Nazis issue comes to mind, for one.