Queer as Folk
Re: "There's Something About Harry" by Michael Bronski (July 30-Aug. 6)
Harry, are you queer? Cover, are you misleading? A little bit, yes. But that's not my real beef with the article. (Get it? Beef? That must be a reference, right?)
Two words: Bad taste (the cover).
Two more words: Totally pointless (the article).
I found this article to be so far beneath the Weekly Planet's standards that I was laughing out loud. This is a paper that used to publish thought provoking, intelligent and, most of all, interesting articles. This article was not cover worthy, in my humble opinion.
Sure, the cover makes it seems interesting, as offensive and inflammatory as it is, since, ya know, Daniel Radcliffe is only like 14 years old, which is also kind of sick. Perhaps you should have used one of the many illustrations or paintings of Harry Potter instead of a press photo of Daniel Radcliffe. Because the article didn't mention anything about the actor being gay, but the cover kinda makes you think that.
Back to the article. After I got through the many references of other published materials on Harry Potter, I found the article lacking any meat. Get it? That's a gay reference. Because obviously the writer thinks everything is a gay reference, right? Here are a few:
Perhaps it's just that the writer thrusts the gay allegory in our faces so forcefully and with such flamboyant determination, that I find myself just thinking "No, you're wrong." But not thinking much else. The article doesn't ask much of its reader, and if you're going to ask such a bold question on the cover, how about backing it up with a bold article? That would be nice.
The article got a few of the books' facts wrong, by the way. Just a few.
Also, I have to point this out. It was the one thing that bothered me about the article beyond the others: Just because something is secret, like say, an entire world of wizards, does not make it an allegory for the gay world. Just doesn't.
The "gay" world is no longer secret. The entire world is aware of the presence of homosexual men and women, whether they support that lifestyle or don't. I also feel that articles like this perpetuate a line of thinking about homosexuals, about unneeded references that are not written into stories and that just feel outdated and stunted to me.
Today isn't Gore Vidal making one actor play the scene gay behind the others' backs (pun intended). Today there are shows about gays on NBC primetime. Today is "open" for lack of a better term. I know, there is still a long way to go before homosexuality is accepted by the entire world, or our own government. But it's not a secret.
My point is, if you want to write a story about being gay, you can in today's world, and it'll be OK. I don't think we should look for things that are not there. We don't need to, and I don't feel there is anything queer about Harry Potter. It's just a cool series of books that has become a cool series of movies.
Hope I made my point well enough. Let's get some engrossing, interesting and dramatic stories back on the cover. If you're going to do stories about homosexuality, lets not make it sensationalism, please. This cover feels sensationalistic, and you guys are not Jerry Springer.
—Noeland Collins
Tampa
The beliefs and traditions of a culture/ religion should continue only as long as they maintain relevance. C'mon now — if a flying car, a Golden Snitch, and a boy who can talk to snakes can turn you away from your faith, well, how valid is that faith?
If the Christian Right/Muggles would pay attention to their own relevance issues, and stop trying to fight everything that appears to be a threat, maybe their credibility could be saved, and they wouldn't lose any more of "the flock."
My advice? Forget about the fear mongers of the Christian Right. Follow the teachings of Jesus (who would surely be shunned by the Muggles).
—Lewis Fishman
Tampa
Of Fish and Men
Re: "Sea Hunt: The breathtaking adventures of the freediving Karcher brothers" by Eric Snider (July 23-29)
After reading and re-reading the article, I find it obvious that the Karcher brothers and their ilk just don't get it. A couple of Ted Nugent wannabes, they randomly kill whatever they please (can you say "whack 'em and stack 'em"?), even killing a nurse shark that was supposedly ready to attack. The nurse shark is arguably one of the more docile members of the shark family, so their story just doesn't fly — or swim for that matter. And yes, what they are doing is cruel, extremely so. Fish feel pain every bit as much as you or me. So, until these snorkeling simpletons get a clue, I'm rooting for the sharks.
—Durk Gescheidle
Dunedin
I commend Mr. Snider for his great piece on freediving. It is truly a unique sport generally reserved for unique individuals. I think it is worth taking a moment to remember another Bay area freediving enthusiast, Sarp Kayan. It has been five years now since Sarp drowned while practicing the sport that he loved. It was his intention to try out for the U.S. freediving team that same year. Sarp was my closest friend and I miss him very much, as do many others who were lucky enough to have known him.
—Todd Bates
Seattle, Wash.
You're Welcome
Re: "Score One For Privacy" by Keith Roberts (July 23-29)
Hello. Just a brief note to say that was an extremely well written and cogent article. Appearance of such is why I read the paper each week. Nicely done.
—Tony Witlin
St. Petersburg
This article appears in Aug 14-20, 2003.