There is a good summary of the Q&A in NY here:

[link]

When eight-year-old Mia asked an Aberforth question, Jo asked her age and said that just for her the answer would be "that the goats were easy to keep clean and that they had curly horns," as the audience roared with laughter.

Har!

Man, I'm actually pissed at JKR over the Dumbledore reveal. How hard would it have been to put that in the freaking books?? This is the line that makes me maddest:

"If I had known this would have made you so happy, I would have told you years ago."

Way to have the strength of your convictions, lady. I'm so glad that you feel comfortable revealing this now that you've already sold billions of copies of your books. I mean, not that it wouldn't have been problematic in a different way, making the only gay character one who was basically asexual, but still -- think of the platform she had! Think of how many people read those books for whom this might have been the first positive portrayal of a gay character they'd ever seen. She's also quoted as saying that she views the books as "a prolonged argument for tolerance," but as written, they're very (if unintentionally) heteronormative. I can't believe that she knew all along that Dumbledore was gay, but never made a single reference to that fact in all seven books. Yeah, that's real useful, JKR. Way to fight the good fight.

See, and I totally thought that it was in Book 7. I mean, Dumbledore wasn't wearing Gay Pride robes, but I was like, "Huh, so he's gay. That totally fits."

Of course, now everyone's going to be saying he's the British public school headmaster pedophile archetype (if that's an architype...caricature?)

I think someone started a Werner Hezog one as well.

Oh BWAH!

Way to fight the good fight.

If she'd signed up to fight the fight (or any fight, really) I could see the harsh judgment. But she's a YA author. That's the extent of her responsibility. There are a million things she knew that didn't make it down on the pages, and I think basic "being decent" is well covered by her not slagging any groups unduly, etc.

We're not all fighters, even those who have the lofty platforms. It would have been great if she did, but I can't be mad that she didn't.

Well, I disagree to a certain extent about her responsibility. Children's and YA authors in general tend to write with a somewhat didactic purpose, which often takes the form of introducing characters who have certain characteristics or are in certain situations. Of course that's not always the case, and plenty of children's & YA books don't purport to teach any kind of lesson at all; but didacticism is still common to both genres.

So when JKR says that she considers her books to be advancing an argument for tolerance, I have to figure that that's partly her purpose in writing them. Of course her purpose, first and foremost, is to tell a good story. But in telling that story, she created a world that addressed differences among people (and magical creatures), and took some care to populate that world with diverse characters from a variety of backgrounds. And yet, in all those hundreds of characters she created, not a single one of them, on the page, was anything other than Totally Het. So to find out that all along she considered a major character to be gay, yet she never acknowledged that fact in the books -- when it would even have made sense plotwise to do so! -- yeah, I take issue at that.

I think her books were huge on tolerance. I just don't dock her points for not hitting every sort of tolerance out there. She didn't address weight either (and you might argue she was negative about it--way worse in my book than not addressing sexuality).

I guess I don't judge her for not running fast in a race I'm not sure she joined.

I'm with ita. Aside from the Weasleys, there weren't ANY sexual relationships until book 7 or so. And none of the teachers seem to have any private life, at least not one we know about. If Dumbledore had been the sole professor whose romantic life we don't see, it would bother me.

And yet, in all those hundreds of characters she created, not a single one of them, on the page, was anything other than Totally Het.

I think that this is an overstatement. She didn't discuss the sexuality of any of the characters unless it was directly relevant to the plot. We know that Tonks and Lupin are hetero because they had a relationship that was relevant to the plot. We have no idea if McGonagall or Sprout or Flitwick were gay, because their sexuality/relationships weren't relevant.

We have no idea if McGonagall or Sprout or Flitwick were gay, because their sexuality/relationships weren't relevant.

Eh, permission to assume all the single characters are gay (since all the romantic relationships on the page are het) doesn't count for much as far as I'm concerned.

I don't necessarily think she loses points for writing in a heteronormative universe, but I also don't thinks she earns any retroactively for telling us Dumbledore was totally gay all along.

I don't necessarily think she loses points for writing in a heteronormative universe, but I also don't thinks she earns any retroactively for telling us Dumbledore was totally gay all along.

yes, this.