The first Harry Potter movie is about to open, and I don't doubt that Hollow-wood is going to give us a snappy adaptation with great special effects that will make a mess of the whole wonderful, evocative series of books. And I expect the movie will spoil, for me, the entire queer subtext that I have conjured up in my imagination while reading.
Harry Potter's story is a boy's Cinderella story. It's easy enough to relate to that outsider theme. Harry is ostracized by his awful, narrow-minded, magic-phobic family because he's that THING they can't abide: a wizard. In fact, they are so uncomfortable having Harry around that they blame him for everything that goes wrong while at the same time they try to keep him powerless, out of sight under the pantry. ( Where have we encountered that phenomenon before? )
When Harry does discover his true nature and is able to attend a school where his difference is appreciated...Hogwarts...he finds that most of the students have parents who are already "in the life," so to speak. Many have parents who also attended Hogwarts. In fact, so did Harry's, but this knowledge had been kept from him by his Muggle ( non-magical ) side of the family. A dirty little family secret, you know.
Is a gift for making magic genetic or cultural? According to author J.K. Rowling, it can be either. At Hogwarts, Harry's close friend Hermoine is the one who's "different"...her parents are both dentists, not magical folk...and because of this some other children call her bad names. Yet she has an impassioned desire to lead the lifestyle of a witch. Good for her! I have no doubt that Hermoine is also a lesbian. And if Willow ( from Buffy the Vampire Slayer ) can come out, why can't Hermoine? It's only natural.
Like Willow, we first see Hermoine as a brilliant if pedantic bookworm. Even at age 13 her knowledge of spells and potions is impressive. She compensates for her feelings of insecurity at not fitting in by becoming an overachiever at her magic. She's adopted a cat who may be enchanted ( I expect we'll find out before the book series ends ) . Initially, Hermoine was a rigid stickler for obeying orders, but once she understood the limitations of rules, she came into her true personality. She's rock-solid loyal. And she's supersensitive toward injustice. Her political conscience has crystallized in the most recent book in her effort to organize the hard-working elves in the Hogwart's kitchen.
But these are such awkward growing-up years! I worry about Hermione's future. In the Goblet of Fire, our gawky wallflower has emerged as a young prom queen. I'm afraid that she's going to remain unaware of her lesbianism, and will have to marry Ron Weasley or run off with that Bulgarian quidditch player before she realizes she's a Friend of Dorothy as well as of Harry.
A number of the professors at Hogwarts seem to be as queer as Bertie Bott's Every Flavor Beans. The Headmaster, wise Albus Dumbledore, reminds me of several elderly gay gentlemen I know...and since he mercifully has not displayed a glimmer of heterosexuality ( so far ) , I prefer to presume he's gay. I suspect that Professor McGonagall, the stern Transformations teacher, would be happier if she Gotagal. In fact I sense that something intriguing has been brewing for a long time between her and the punctilious witch who runs the infirmary, Madam Pomfrey. But I don't suppose Maggie Smith will fan the flames of this dyke fantasy in the movie.
None of this is explicit in the books. Of course I have no idea what Rowling has up her sleeve, but marketers are such worrywarts. As you may know, even the title of the book Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was changed for the U.S. market, to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and the movie is following suit. It was supposedly changed to avoid being "offensive" to a U.S. audience.
I suppose the average consumer might be offended by philosophy, since it involves thinking, which most American minds shrink from like a vampire backing away from a crucifix. But who, really, would be offended by the phrase Philosopher's Stone? And anyway who gives a hoot owl about the feelings ( or, more to the point, the buying power ) of philosophers? No. Obviously, Sorcerer's Stone was thought to have more seductive connotations, along with more sibilants. It whiffs of the popularity of Buffy and Disney's mass-market Sorcerer's Apprentice. Philosopher's Stone sounds utterly academic by comparison, and mainstream America doesn't want to learn about the phrase's historical reference to Alchemy, either...ugh! What is that, something sorta like science?!?!
With this kind of bulldozer marketing sensibility, there will be no openly gay or lesbian characters...young or old...in Harry's magical saga, even if Rowling wanted to out them. Instead, as usual there is the ubiquitous presumption of heterosexuality, even in a parallel world filled with witches and wizards. Of course I'd love it if Rowling pushed that envelope...wouldn't that be really magical? But I bet even if she wanted to, now there's just too much money ( witches forgive me ) at stake.