[HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Sexual Preference

[Jen Faulkner]

No: HPFGUIDX 79352

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, jdr0918 wrote:

> Maybe the 'closet' metaphor for Harry is deliberate.

Without getting into the question of authorial intent (that is, whether
JKR deliberately intended to do anything in her writing), I think one
can safely say that the closet metaphors in the book are not
coincidental.  Even without JKR's meaning to (or perhaps she did; it's
quite irrelevant), the books definitely tap into our cultural
fascination with the closet; that is the structuring metaphor for any
type of secret.  Knowledge is fetishized to the extent that it is
regarded as a state of being, so that one either is knowledgeable
(possesses a certain knowledge) or is not.  One is 'in the dark' or not.
The closet is a place of unknowns.

Harry in the books must gain knowledge first for himself; as he learns
more and more about Hogwarts, the wizarding world, and who he 'truly is'
at the beginning of PS/SS, he moves further and further out of his
cupboard (to the smallest bedroom, then out of the Dursley house, then
to another world [Hogwarts] altogether).  He is being barraged with
letters, i.e., with knowledge, until finally knowledge is embodied in
the person of Hagrid; at that point Harry becomes enlightened with
self-knowledge: he is a wizard.  That this transformation resonates with
the metaphors of a gay person's coming out to him/herself echoes the
common pattern in literature (see here Eve Kosofsky-Sedgwick's
*Epistemology of the Closet*) and in popular culture (think of the scene
in X2 when Bobby 'comes out' to his parents as a mutant or the huge
number of fans who see Clark Kent on Smallville as gay).  The writers
and producers may not necessarily *intend* to be telling a gay story,
but culturally we are attuned to seeing narratives of secrets as a
narrative of closeting, with 'I'm gay' being the ultimate secret to be
hidden in the closet.

Which is not to say that the character Harry will be gay.

Nevertheless, I think his experiences do resonate strongly with the
story we as a culture tell about gay persons' experiences, because that
is how we tell narratives about secrets and knowledge.

> My controversial opinion is that boys can be sissies and girls can be
> tomboys, but that actual sexuality cannot be determined until one
> meets one's soulmate. Then, if that person is of the same gender, then
> one may call oneself homosexual.

As you call this a controversial opinion, I am sure you're already aware
of the counterarguments: that personality, interests, and interactional
style ("sissy boys" and "tomboy girls") are quite different from sexual
orientation, that many people do not believe in "soulmates" at all, that
"homosexual" is best left to a description of behavior and not of
orientation, and that, of course, many of us know we are gay long before
meeting anyone who might be described as a 'soulmate' anyway.

> By that definition, Percy is just a priss. He'd be a perfectly happy
> heterosexual with a wife like Aunt Petunia. Justin F-F: gay. The
> Lockheart thing *is* a dead giveaway. The Creevey brothers are just
> creepy.

Are you suggesting that Lockhart is Justin's soulmate? *g* I do think,
using a sort of Occam's Razor interpretation, we should read Justin as
gay due to the Lockhart thing, seeing that the text did mention his
reactions to Lockhart and all.

Also in this thread, Sue Porter wrote:

> If I think about it rationally, I can't honestly say that I think
> Harry will be gay or even bi. I just don't think JK will do that to
> poor Harry.  He has enough problems in his life without having to deal
> with the bigotry of any anti - gay wizards. Not to mention that if the
> Daily Prophet got hold of the news that the Boy Who Lived was gay,
> there would probably be a run on new Death Eaters waiting to join LV!

Being gay isn't a curse or an affliction, so I wouldn't see JKR as
particularly 'doing anything' to "poor Harry" if she were to make the
character gay or bi.  Gayness isn't a "problem" one has to solve; the
bigotry you refer to is the problem.

I don't think we've yet seen how the WW deals with people who are not
straight; I think it's reasonable to make a case either for homophobia
or a sort of tolerance.  Personally, I think the latter rather more
likely, for two reasons.  The first is that the WW doesn't seem to have
kept up with the Muggle world very well, socially, so I suspect that
their notions of queer people are a bit antiquated.  I doubt gay men or
lesbians, as we understand them, are really categories recognized by
most wizards; instead you'd have 'confirmed bachelors' or 'romantic
friends' spending their lives together.  Not that this tolerance would
extend to anyone who identifies as gay or really brings sex into the
picture; I can see in that case a sort of Wilde-like reaction forming.
But as long as 'propriety' be maintained, I doubt there would be any
type of active persecution, since persecution requires a formed and at
least partially stable notion of who your Other is.

The all-female Quidditch club, the Holyhead Harpies (QTtA 34f.), strikes
me, anyway, as this sort of old-fashioned nod to lesbianism, before it
had a name to speak (founded in 1203).  Not only is the team all-female
(one hardly need invoke the stereotype of lesbians and sport), but the
anecdote in QTtA also hints at the Harpies' lack of interest in men:
"The Harriers' Captain Rudolf Brand famously dismounted from his broom
at the end of the match and proposed marriage to his opposite number,
Gwendolyn Morgan, who concussed him with her Cleansweep Five" (34-35).
I think reading this team as lesbian is not too far a stretch.

The second reason I see the WW as likely to have a sort of tolerance
about homosexuality is the absence of racism parallel to what you'd find
in the Muggle world; introduced to the same growing diversity of
ethnicities as the Muggle world, the WW seems not to have reacted with
any particular prejudice.  (The WW instead has its own unique prejudice,
that against Muggles and Muggle-born wizards.)  There is too the lack of
the overt sexism that one might expect, given the WW's somewhat
Victorian mentalities.  There does not seem to be any particular
ideology of separate spheres or 'the Angel in the home', despite the
fairly traditional division of labor (Molly Weasley as mother and
homemaker, for instance).  A lack of entrenched ideological sexism bodes
well for a lack of homophobia.

Thus I think if we assume the WW would react to a gay Harry with violent
prejudice, we are, to a great extent, acting upon our own prejudices, as
the WW might not share them at all.

Besides, it's obviously McGonagall, Tonks, Justin Finch-Fletchley,
Lupin, Hooch, and Grubbly-Plank who are gay. *g*

--Jen :)

* * * * * *
Jen's HP fics:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jfaulkne/fan/hp.html
Snapeslash listmom: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/snapeslash
Yes, I *am* the Deictrix.