J. K. Rowling, symbolism, and context

I thought that I really ought to write something about the recent kerfuffle around J. K. Rowling’s revelation that Remus Lupin’s lycanthropy is a metaphor for HIV, which I thought we all knew already, but apparently not.

More specifically, I thought that I really ought to write something about the claim, which took me right back to the Dumbledore-is-gay revelation, that if she wanted to write a gay character she should just write a gay character and stop fannying around with all this symbolism.

Then I thought that I really couldn’t face writing something about it.

Then I remembered that I already had.

I wonder: has anyone done a study on the correlation between section 28 and the underrepresentation of LGBT characters in UK teen lit?

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

Section 28 was in force when I was at school. This is what it said:

a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”

Local authorities are responsible for, among other things, public libraries and state schools, and one of the effects of this was the complete absence of LGBT characters in children’s and teen literature that was written or published in the UK. We didn’t have the British equivalents of David Levithan, Alex Sanchez, or Nancy Garden. Nobody would publish them. The one book with any queer characters in my school library that I remember was Dare, Truth or Promise – written and published in New Zealand. Mentioning Nancy Garden above reminds me that the school library did have The Year They Burned The Books. Oh, the irony.

My theory is that UK children’s publishers have never got over section 28; there’s a whole tradition missing here.

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

It took even Jacqueline Wilson, who famously doesn’t shy away from Difficult Issues, years to include a gay character.

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

(Somebody asked me which book that was in. It’s kind of a spoiler, but if you click on the tweet it should take you to the question and my answer.)

And if you can’t, or your publishers say you can’t, say it explicitly, you do it with symbolism.

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

Which is why I think the debate around JKR is missing some important context. Section 28 was repealed in 2003 – the year that OotP came out.

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

And it took a good few years for the UK teen publishing world to catch up, and yes, I do have a horse in this race:

I’m pretty sure I’d have found a publisher for Speak Its Name had I been in the USA, writing about a US setting.

— Kathleen Jowitt (@KathleenJowitt) September 10, 2016

Which is not to say that I think that it was a good idea to come out now (pun not exactly intended, but I’m not deleting it now I’ve noticed it) and say what the symbolism actually, like, means. If the reader didn’t pick it up the first time round then bashing them over the head with it isn’t going to help, and it’s just going to annoy the ones who got it, didn’t like it, and were doing their best to ignore it.