Friday, October 26, 2007

Professor Dumbledore and Unrequited Love

"Don't join the book burners. Do not think you are going to conceal thoughts by concealing evidence that they ever existed."
Dwight David EISENHOWER
American general and 34th President of the United States (1890–1969)



The J.K. Rowling fictional series regarding a young male wizard and his adventures during his school years while attending a school of magic remains the most challenged books of this century. J.K. announcing at Carnegie Hall that Dumbledore was gay may not help her books remain on the shelves of sectarian libraries everywhere. Nor does it do much in my opinion to further [or detract from] the issues that gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, queer, and questioning deal with in everyday living. With gay bashings and hate crimes flourishing in a nearby county and the continued assault on civil rights for non-heterosexuals in the United States, I find it difficult to care that a fictional character is a homosexual. Nothing in the books themselves-- aimed at a primarily juvenile audience-- addressed Dumbledore's sexual orientation. There were no mentions of a lover and no steamy sex scenes. When I was engrossed in the books and the movies, I spent zero time analyzing which characters might not be straight. I didn't care. Perhaps that makes me less of an activist for the variety of causes for the community of which I am a part. So go ahead, try to rip my radical identification card out of my pagan bisexual hands. It won't work yanno. But don't despair just yet. After all, the hetero-or-die crowd can still rejoice that both hockey and Iran are safe from the likes of us. Bully for them!

An article appearing in the Boston Globe yesterday indicated that a parochial school priest removed the Harry Potter book series from the school library. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune drew a distinction between the ability to rightly decide between reading material that may or may not be appropriate for oneself and one's legal charges [read: children] and the allergies that public institutions [read: public libraries] have to folks challenging reading material for all patrons of the public institution. St. Joseph's School in Massachusetts is not a public institution and so the priest was acting within his office to do as he wished with the Potter books.
If a priest wishes to believe that Hogwarts accurately portrays what witchcraft is about, he obviously is vastly *unfamiliar* with real circle work. Young Harry Potter fans everywhere can sleep at night comfortable in the knowledge that reading a book or watching a movie cannot convert one to either witchcraft or to *falling in love with someone who happens to share the same gender* that they do.
Kinda makes one wonder about the priest though.

Did a chord resonate deep within when young Harry's wand picked him at Ollivander's in Diagon Alley? Or was there a sort of crush on the fictional Dumbledore who for all his cavorting with Harry demonstrated not one molecule of misplaced pedophilic affection? Or a fantasy of the old tottering wizard showing up at the rectory to rectify some misunderstanding regarding the difference between pedophilia and gay love, between fictional and human children [something which those who run Live Journal still show evidence of confusing], between the transfiguration of Professor McGonagall from a feline sitting on a desk and the transubstantiation of blood to wine and body to wafer? Alas, how does one measure accurately the differences between fantasy and reality?

Dumbledore is gay [and dead too], unlike the entire country of Iran and all hockey teams where nary a gay can be found. Hatred is real and has direct and sometimes bloody consequences. J.K. is worth a cool four mil and pedoheads will continue to gather in chat rooms strung out across electronica. In comparison to the news of the day, the announcement of Dumbledore's gayness is hardly worth all the fuss it has been stirring up. I remain a staunch advocate of civil rights for all civils. The vids on YouTube will continue to amuse me at random intervals. No real or imaginary children were harmed in the typing of this blog post.

radical sapphoq

No comments: