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.

Hmm...

I think the big fucking firestorm if she had included it in the book would have made Dumbledore's broken heart way MORE important than Snapes. And it really shouldn't be.

The way she did it, its a penny-drop thing.. "oh, that makes sense. he's gay" and treated like the minor fact that it is.

I don't think that Dumbledore's sexuality was quite as relevant as Snape's. Snape and Lily make much less sense if there's no there there. Dumbledore and Grindlewald's story is plausible platonically.

Dumbledore and Grindlewald's story is plausible platonically.

I'd say so, since it never crossed my mind that it was anything else.

Clearly you aren't reading enough fanfiction.

Or watching Smallville. *g*

I'm forever doomed to be the most pro-gay, non-HoYay person I know.

Kate, GF and I were irritated by the late reveal as well. Still love the books, but I agree that it's kind of like trying to get some sort of "gay points" when there wasn't any actual gayness presented in the story.

I get all sides of the argument and agree with a lot of them, but I wonder if she was *trying* to get "gay points" or credit for fighting that fight or if she was just revealing one character's sexuality.

From the accounts I've read of people who were there, it sounds like she hadn't particularly intended to go there, but was responding to a rather emotional question from a young woman in the audience. So - yeah, I too can see both sides of the thing, but I'm giving Jo the benefit of the doubt wrt trying to earn gay points.

I mean, yes, if Grindelwald (?sp?) had been a woman, I'm pretty sure she'd have made it explicit that Dumbledore had been in love with her. And so it's a damn shame that she didn't make it textual.

But...I don't know that I can get really angry with her for having shied away from doing that. Yes, kids need positive gay role models and gay heroes to counterbalance all the crap - but she's already got a lot of crazy rightwing people hating her and heaping abuse on her for encouraging satanism (!!??!!), and that can't be fun. I mean, yes, she's enormously rich, but - I don't know that I think she was obliged to stick her neck out and say "Dumbledore is gay". Because they're kids' books, and a huge chunk of the audience are therefor pretty oblivious to sex and sexuality - and, yes, it would have been terrific to have them first encountering the concept in a positive way, but an awful lot of parents would have been furious. Which is a cowardly reason to avoid it, but - I can't get really mad with her. The story works perfectly well without her having to go there, and I LIKE the fact that it's slash. But...

Ngah. I'm really torn, actually. I'm going to go with a glass half full interpretation of events, although I do see why it's pissed people off.

Aimee is Fay and Fay is Aimee.

Ben and Glory can sod off.

and, yes, it would have been terrific to have them first encountering the concept in a positive way

Well, I'm not quite sure that "Dumbledore was in love with one of the most evil wizards of the century" is necessarily a positive way...