J. K. Rowling is at it again with her revisionism of her own books. In an interview added to the blu-ray edition of The Crimes of Grindlewald, she said that longstanding characters Dumbledore and Grindlewald had a 'love relationship ... with a sexual dimension'.
This is far from the first time Rowling has been called out for taking credit for representation she never actually included in her books or the movies that were based on them. There are many elements about this that annoy me.
I'm angry on behalf of a younger self who would have so valued an openly gay character in one of my favourite book series. There's also the fact it seems that Rowling essentially wants to be praised for queerbaiting Harry Potter fans, and for creating a character who would've spent his entire life closeted.
But as a queer writer, what perhaps annoys me the most is that this comment reignites the debate about subtext that is or isn't there in the original Harry Potter series and associated Harry Potter media, while at the same time there are so many brilliant queer books that don't get nearly as much time or attention as they should.
Though there is definitely a rise in LGBTQ+ novels and people who want to hear more LGBTQ+ voices, queer young adult fiction can sometimes face gatekeepers, particularly when the author themself is queer.
This gatekeeping can happen at various levels. Chain and department stores that won't stock or promote books that are 'controversial'. Editors who ask for characters to be straight or to tone down the queerness. Parents and other adults who won't buy queer books for their kids.
Public and school libraries that won't stock a book with queer characters, and educators who won't be put queer books on the curriculum or on reading guides. Schools who won't ask an author to talk about their work or, in the case of Will Kostakis, cancel his talk because it was deemed 'inappropriate' after he came out on his blog. And in extreme cases, around the world books are still being challenged or banned.
"What I want now is for Rowling to use her platform to shine a light on queer authors while accepting her own books' place in history as flawed texts."
On top of all that, it's not uncommon to hear that queer authors will self-censor their works in fear that their books won't succeed because of these gatekeeping tactics.
While the internet has mitigated the effect of this gatekeeping somewhat, many young people find new books to read at their schools and libraries, so books aren't going into the hands of young people that need them. There is also the financial reality that a large part of the money authors earn in Australia comes from their books being borrowed in libraries and from talking at schools.
And that's just in the present. When Rowling first started publishing Harry Potter books in the UK, section 28 was still in effect, which banned local authorities and schools from 'promoting homosexuality', meaning libraries were often afraid to stock LGBTQ+ books. Including an openly gay character in a book for children in 1997 most likely would have been a hard sell to a UK publishing house since this law wasn't repealed until 2003.
Of course, that didn't stop people from writing young adult books with queer characters in them during that time. In the UK, Aidan Chambers wrote Dance on my Grave and Postcards from No Man's Land. There was also The Shell House by Linda Newberry and Sugar Rush by Julie Burchill.
This context, for me, makes it hard to swallow that Rowling still wants it both ways — all of the kudos for representation that she never explicitly included, with the benefit of no actual risk. Back then, having an openly gay character would have been taking a decided stand. But now, in 2019, a straight author winking at queerness is just not good enough.
Even if Rowling didn't want to take the risk when she was writing the original Harry Potter series, she had the power and ability to include actual representation in follow-ups such as Crimes of Grindelwald and The Cursed Child, and she still didn't do it. While it's possible there might be an explicit demonstration of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship in an upcoming movie, it feels far too late for me.
What I want now is for Rowling to use her platform to shine a light on queer authors and accept her books' place in history as flawed texts that sparked a generation of empathy, but were also mostly white and very heterosexual.
This is the last time I'm going to talk publicly about J. K. Rowling for a while. Instead, I'm going to give my time, money and energy to authors like Will Kostakis, Malinda Lo, David Levithan, Alison Evans, Erin Gough and Jacqueline Woodson, to name just a few. To support those who are actually doing the hard work, not just talking about it.
Neve Mahoney is a student at RMIT university. She has also contributed to Australian Catholics and The Big Issue.
Main image: J. K. Rowling attends the UK Premiere of Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald at Cineworld Leicester Square on 13 November 2018 in London, England. (Photo by John Phillips/Getty Images)