1) Just because an element isn't central to the series in question doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. If the things you cited are what the books are about, why do they have any romance at all--why aren't all the characters asexual? Probably because Rowling thought it would be absurdly unrealistic to not have romance in a story about kids and teenagers, and she was right (her inability to write romance well notwithstanding).
2) You seem to be implying that homosexuality is inherently sexual in a way heterosexuality isn't. Here's what I mean: you repeatedly talk about how Rowling's books are "subdued" about sexuality, but actually there's a lot of romance in them--Harry dates Cho and later Ginny; Ron dates Lavender and then Hermione (kinda), etc. Hell, half the sixth book was devoted to shipping, yet despite that the books still "deemphasize sexuality" to you.
There is actually very little romance in the AQ books. There was David/Angelique in Book 3, Alex/Payton and Alex/Torvald in this book, and that's pretty much it. And yet you think the books emphasize sexuality in a way the HP books don't, and (apparently) one of the reasons is because of "the gay thing."
Needless to say, the notion that gay people are sexual in a way straight people aren't is incredibly offensive on a wide variety of dimensions. I do not believe you think that, so I ask for an alternate explanation for what you've said up until now.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-04-25 02:04 am (UTC)1) Just because an element isn't central to the series in question doesn't mean it shouldn't be there. If the things you cited are what the books are about, why do they have any romance at all--why aren't all the characters asexual? Probably because Rowling thought it would be absurdly unrealistic to not have romance in a story about kids and teenagers, and she was right (her inability to write romance well notwithstanding).
2) You seem to be implying that homosexuality is inherently sexual in a way heterosexuality isn't. Here's what I mean: you repeatedly talk about how Rowling's books are "subdued" about sexuality, but actually there's a lot of romance in them--Harry dates Cho and later Ginny; Ron dates Lavender and then Hermione (kinda), etc. Hell, half the sixth book was devoted to shipping, yet despite that the books still "deemphasize sexuality" to you.
There is actually very little romance in the AQ books. There was David/Angelique in Book 3, Alex/Payton and Alex/Torvald in this book, and that's pretty much it. And yet you think the books emphasize sexuality in a way the HP books don't, and (apparently) one of the reasons is because of "the gay thing."
Needless to say, the notion that gay people are sexual in a way straight people aren't is incredibly offensive on a wide variety of dimensions. I do not believe you think that, so I ask for an alternate explanation for what you've said up until now.