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.

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.

Ah, well, that's probably the saner point of view. *g* Part of my reaction is a response to all of the people I've seen (not just here) saying "yay, he was gay all along, rock on!" and I'm thinking "...you know, that doesn't actually win her any credit in my mind." Her comment that she would have told us sooner if she'd known the response would be so positive also bugs me, because I take that to mean that she was worried about a backlash if she outed him in the books. Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but it sure sounds kind of cowardly to me.

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

See, I think I was happier when I didn't think she'd joined the race at all. But now it sounds to me like she thinks she did join the race, and so I judge her for not doing a better job of it.

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.

Yes, I agree with this. The Dumbledore/Grindelwald backstory ended up being an important part of the plot, what with Dumbledore's appearance and major info-dump in Kings Cross station, and I think it would have made sense at that point for Dumbledore to tell Harry that he was in love with Grindelwald and it blinded him to what G. was capable of. I just don't think she would have hesitated to mention Dumbledore's unrequited love in that situation, if it had been love for a woman.

From the link Sue posted above, I think this is interesting...

The last question of the night referred to Snape’s portrait and Harry and she answered that Harry would have insisted that it be hung in the headmaster’s office at Hogwarts but that he probably would not have visited it to converse with Snape. Jo is still surprised when she reads that fans are torn about Snape, who is complicated character, and unequivocally stated that Snape was "bitter, vindictive and mean."

I wonder what aspect of "torn" surprises her? Is she saying she is surprised that they might admire or pity him? Or is she saying she is surprised that people find him a somewhat reprehensible guy?