Anonymous asked:
Because Rowling isn't writing specifically for YOU and YOUR pet political causes. Because it's not about YOU. Because it didn't come up in the story and she had no idea of the outrageously entitled tantrum people like you would throw when she made her off hand comment about Dumbledore being gay. Because there's zero moral reason why she had an obligation to represent what you wanted to see represented. The HP books open kids eyes to bigotry and make them better people. That's plenty good enough.
Also, very interesting how every single example you gave
involved a North American author, highlighting not only your
self-absorption but your ignorance. It was ILLEGAL to include gay
characters in childrens books in the uk until 2003. That’s the culture
JKR was writing in. So fuck off with your demands. Are you campaigning
for writers to represent more mentally ill characters? More disable
characters? More characters of diverse appearance? Why does Rowling have
to represent YOU personally?
[in response to my reply to @becketted‘s post about Dumbledore not being acknowledged as gay in the newest Harry Potter movie]
Oof. Three’s a lot to handle here. And while I acknowledge it’s not my responsibility to respond to anonymous anger complaining that I want too much diversity in children’s literature, my field is important to me, and I think this is worth discussing. There’s a lot here, so with many apologies for the length, we’re taking it behind the LJ-cut. Also, Harry Potter is not my fandom, so I’ve tried to check my work but please correct me if I get anything wrong.
Keep reading