I've never been interested in the "Harry Potter" series, but I've overheard about 1000 conversations about it in the dining halls, so I recognize its importance to both kids and (apparently) adults.
When J.K. Rowling outted Albus Dumbledore, I passed over it without much thought. Silly little me to think that such a trivial sound bite wouldn't ignite the gay and political blogosphere. Clearly, I was wrong.
Her announcement was one of the most inconsequential, yet incredibly relevant, any author could make. It's almost completely superfluous because Dumbledore's queerness never shows up in any of the books explicitly, making the point all but moot. Nonetheless, the children who read and follow these books - and the parents that buy them - follow such trivial miscellanea like Britney Spears follows ice cream.
What riles me is how angry readers and observers got with Rowling, as if she should have no control over her own creation, or should have censored herself for fear of exposing children to the hideous specter of the gays.
Ironically, the same disgruntled commentators that label her a "fascist," as one contributor to the blog Red State did, are essentially saying she should not have the right to dictate and imagine the biographies of her own fictional characters - isn't that a quasi-fascist stance?
Bill O'Reilly, ever the paradigm of tolerance and level-headedness, labeled the announcement an "indoctrination" of America's children, saying, "There are millions of Americans who feel that the media and the educational system is trying to indoctrinate their children to a certain way of life, and that includes parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals...So many kids read it, that she comes out and says, 'Oh, Dumbledore is gay, and that's great.'"
Isn't that a fantastic argument? The "tolerance of intolerance" one, I mean. Does no one else find it ridiculous that these conservative bigots want an author to respect their "right" to hate gays, essentially asking for tolerance of their intolerant views?
It is the same argument the government uses regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Serving with gay men makes some soldiers uncomfortable? Oh, really? Deal with it! It should not be the government's position to tolerate bigotry, just as it should not be a writer's responsibility to cater to a dogmatic political faction that adheres blindly to a shaky religious condemnation of something they simply find "icky" - gay sex.
It is as if parents today would rather maintain the status quo of their own childhoods, where things like homosexuality were simply not discussed - a social climate that created people like O'Reilly, who believe tolerance is too extreme for kids to handle.
For many fear-stricken parents or conservatives chomping at the bit to let loose on Rowling's announcement, it boils down to sex. But I'll bet the last thing in the mind of any child in earshot of Rowling's announcement was the wizard bent over a desk.
I realized I was gay when I was about six, and I can tell you that having any kind of role model to whom I could relate would have made the whole self-identification process far easier, way before I even understood sex. Representation does not equal indoctrination.
Dumbledore won't make any kid gay, but he may help him or her feel more comfortable coming out at an earlier age.
Billy DeGregorio is a senior majoring in English and Spanish with a minor in communications and media studies. Contact him at william.degregorio@tufts.edu.
