While watching the news last week, I learned about a secretly gay man who held an esteemed position in a shadowy guild. Upon hearing this, I immediately thought it must be another Republican scandal. Imagine my surprise when I learned that it was not, in fact, some high ranking official from the GOP, but an ancillary character from a children's book series. Not to sound crass, but who gives a damn?
I suppose this revelation is just the latest in a long string of misunderstandings I seem to have regarding the Harry Potter book series. Initially I did not understand what all the fuss was about over books filled with what I saw as clichés, hollow metaphors, simple archetypal storylines and textbook characters. Perhaps I am being too harsh. After all, it is a children's book. Nonetheless, the fact that it is children's fiction did not stop it from fostering a widespread campaign from the religious right to warn the vulnerable readership that the work promoted hedonistic magic (or, as I call it, imagination). Thus began a long string of hype, which has always superseded the actual literary merits of the books. It has been this manufactured hype that has catapulted these mediocre works into the realm of legend - not literary merit, but lowest common denominator pandering. It is the kind of artistic process that Nietzsche criticized Wagner for after Parsifal. It is the phenomenon that makes Michael Bay's movies so successful.
The religious right had a field day with this most recent revelation. Those that already had not written off the Harry Potter books as promoting wizardry and encouraging subversive behavior among youth are now alleging that the books are furthering the Gay Agenda"" and are calling for them to be banned. They say that homosexuality has no place in children's fiction. I disagree. First, the works in question have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality. Second, is art not supposed to be a reflection of life? Maybe children aren't ready to understand the complexities of Proulx's Brokeback Mountain - just as they may not understand the contextual ramifications that drove Romeo and Juliet to suicide, but what is the harm in a child understanding that homosexuals exist and can exist outside of the ludicrously overblown stereotypes of pop culture? Are they afraid children might realize that gay men don't just host shows on Bravo or live in New York City flats with sassy female roommates? After all, those of us who are enlightened know that gay wizards are just as good at what they do as straight wizards are.
I do not really see this outing as a step forward for gay rights either. First, there has been little or no contextual evidence that the wizard was in fact gay - Rowling jammed that into her reader's brains only after the last book was published. I think it is also at least worth noting that the revelation conveniently propelled Harry Potter back into the spotlight right before the latest film came out on DVD. Furthermore, there are no openly gay characters in the books themselves even though it is set in contemporary England in an upper-class boarding school. These are typically places, as the illustrious Dan Savage points out in his latest piece, The Stranger, that are ""notorious hotbeds of situational homosexuality and commie homosexual conspiracies."" If Rowling truly wanted to be progressive, she might have made one of these characters gay - or at least not outed a withdrawn, seemingly asexual wizard months after the publication of her seventh book and with no contextual consequence.
Take this for what it is: a crafty public relations move that has given media pundits an avenue to discuss a hot-button issue in the United States today. To the more insidious members of the religious right, it has become an issue of secretly brainwashing children to accept the gay agenda. To some in the gay rights movement, it is an empowering assertion that amicable literary characters can be gay (even if it has little or no bearing on the story at large). It should be apparent, however, that this revelation is entirely inconsequential to both camps. I hope the mass media will soon understand this so that I can get back to hearing about OJ's indictment or Britney's custody tribulations.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
