Dumb
I wouldn’t even bring this up except down there somewhere in my previous posts I mention something about Harry Potter. Ok yes, I have read those books, and yes I have a problem with them. I don’t think the books have any power in themselves. Christian allegories use fantasy frequently and even Christ told parables of talking trees. But the Potter books are insidious. Harry Potter becomes popular; suddenly the bookstores are selling witchcraft manuals on their front display tables. And the kids that read them aren’t so innocent either. Huge numbers identify with the rotten kids in Slytherin house and the evil Death Eaters rather than the protagonists. The whole venue, while too simple to be threatening by itself, is a breeding ground for things a hundred times worse.
Speaking of worse, and bringing me to the point of my post, Rowling seems to be missing the attention garnered by her book signings already. She recently announced in a press conference (note to the press: the books are done, who cares?) Dumbledore’s little secret: she thinks he’s gay.
While in itself this is absurd, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the story, Rowling and her fans need a wakeup call. Dumbledore is not gay. He’s a fictional character who lives in a world of magic that’s no more real than he is and is therefore incapable of sexual orientation. He’s a figment in the mind of a too-wealthy British woman, written down and sold to millions of little kids and made into movies. He’s isn’t alive, never was alive, and his only character traits are those that survive the trip from a few storybook pages and into my imagination, where, I can absolutely assure you, he is not even remotely gay.
Even if this little tidbit had been percolating in Rowling’s little imaginary happy land all this time, she chose not to reveal it in or out of the story until her books and movie deals were all well and truly sold. She had seven books worth of opportunity to mention it. Not once was there any indication of homosexual activity in the “wizarding community,” which I find odd if she had been considering it, as she actively sought parallels just about everywhere else (except religion, and she claims to be a Christian too). But now that she’s made her money she can say whatever she wants, make the special interest groups happy, and stir up a whole mess of trouble with parents who don’t agree with that lifestyle and now have to explain it to their kids.
Just like the venue, this little post hoc tidbit is insidious. There are people who would not have purchased a book with a prominent gay character (if you’re in favor of the homosexual agenda, get over it; you probably wouldn’t endorse a book with a Baptist missionary for a hero either) but now that the bomb has been dropped, the entire book experience changes as readers now twist their memories to come to terms with former assumptions. I won’t say it’s deliberate, that would be crediting a lot to someone up to her eyeballs in £ because of a lucky success in writing what she, at least at first, called children’s literature. But it’s brainwashing nevertheless.