Author J.K. Rowling recently stated that a primary character from her popular Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore, was gay.
Uh, no.
When I finished reading the series, Dumbledore was not gay. When I read the series again, he will not be gay. Homosexuality was never a central storyline, plot point, main idea, tone, or anything of the novels--let alone anything involving a central character.
It is tacky to create a groundbreaking literary series, like Rowling did, then to go back after they're finished and essentially say, "Oh, by the way, this is an important point I left out of the books...."
If it was important, it should have been in the stories themselves. What Rowling did was bleed her own emotional politics into her work post-facto, which was not only tasteless, but damaging to potential fans and readers across the world.
Forever.
Now there will be scores of children (and adults) who won't read the books because one of the characters is allegedly gay. There will be many parents who won't permit their children to read the series because of its new (and ridiculous) ties to homosexuality.
Rowling and supporters may argue that this hype is good because it teaches tolerance; but they would completely miss the point: If people won't read the books now, because of its new homosexual undertones, they won't learn the alleged lessons of tolerance espoused within the pages.
DUH-UHHH!
Having read the series, I can attest to the fact that tolerance is an issue throughout--but on a reasonable, non-ideological basis. The general concepts of tolerance, open-mindedness, and consideration for others, are decent morals and lessons promoted through various actions in the stories.
However, this newly tacked-on, forced, desperate attempt to be more tolerant (I guess) was unnecessary in order to teach the values of behaving and thinking respectfully toward others.
Perhaps Rowling's intentions were good, but her idea for expressing those intentions was horrible.
Again, it is absurd that Rowling retroactively changed a key character because it now associates the series with the issue of homosexuality, which has NOTHING to do with any of the stories in the series. She has thus alienated a potential audience and used "tolerance" as the shield from attacks.
Her books have enough about tolerance already. She didn't have to desperately reach back and change characters to say, "Now I'm more tolerant."
Where will it stop? Who's next to change?
Perhaps Harry actually had a drug addiction, and he secretly entered a rehabilitation program that cured his "illness" rather than just keeping him behind bars for years.
Maybe Hermione Granger became a prostitute to help feed her secret illegitimate children, before she adopted orphans from Africa and Asia who were dying of AIDS and SARS, respectively. Thanks to compassion from society and tolerance for her "life choices" she was able to get back on the straight and narrow and marry Ron, have two legitimate children, and live happily ever after.
(Then she cured her babies and, in her spare time, fixed New Orleans's levee system.)
It's possible that Ron Weasley headed the U.N. and stopped feuding in Darfur, Sudan, and ended AIDS with a magic spell. After that, he single-handedly paid African Reparations for America's history of slavery and allowed marijuana use for all citizens because, hey man, it's the earth.
(Then he did something that Africa actually needs, and helped limit the spread of malaria, a much larger epidemic than AIDS in that continent.)
Or maybe Draco Malfoy actually headed a rock band that led the revolution to control global warmng--by ingeniously holding concerts around the world that consumed tons of energy and required thousands of people to loiter and litter on grass fields and stadiums in support for the clean earth movement.
Finally, perhaps Professor McGonegal, the new Hogwarts Headmistress, banned organized religion and any association and reference thereof, except for Islam, because it was too often misunderstood as not being peaceful. No more Christmas trees, references to God, Christian symbols. No more yamicas for Jewish wizards, either.
All in the name of tolerance.
(Except tolerance for the intolerant, of course.)
Long story short, I have nothing personal against homosexuals in general; and neither tolerance nor prejudice toward homosexuality is the basis for my opinion.
I know the series was Rowling's creation, and she's allowed to say what she wants about it. But it's not that she shouldn't be allowed to say things like "Dumbledore was gay" -- it's that she shouldn't say it. In the best interest of her fans and potential future fans, it's desperate and alienating. She should write another book about gay people if there's a related message she wants to deliver.
And for those who think I'm just a bigoted, closed-minded individual--first, get a clue. Second, I promise not to change anyone else's histories or private lives either, when I again read the series.
For example, I won't pretend that the evil wizards with whom Harry, as an auror, combats are all radical Islamo-Facists. Nor will I have Hermione grow up to run a corporate empire that benefits the economy AND employs elves.
But did I mention they'd be homosexual, migrant-worker elves from Darfur?
No comments:
Post a Comment