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.

I spent a bit of time on the SFGate page reading the comments about the story - sorry nothing very smart there.

I am confused by the fuss. One of the things JKR has shared is that part of her writing process has been to create very full lives for all her characters - much of which never made in on the page.

I personally thought that the relationship between Dumbledore and Wizard G was as intense as lily and snape. I hadn't really though gay , but there is a time when relationships get really intense - with or with out sex. I just accepted it.

'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books' Christian Imagery.

She never said so in the book because it had nothing to do with the story. Dumbledore's sexuality was irrlevent. Which is sort of awesome.

For the first six books it had nothing to do with the story. In the last one, I'd say that Dumbledore's sexuality was as relevant as Snape's.