Wow, I missed a lot....

I actually find it a little strange when JKR answers questions about her characters outside of the books. Not that it's wrong, or that she wouldn't be the best person to know the answers to these questions. For me, however, the entire character is contained in the story and any extra-textual information, even coming from the author, is virtually meaningless to me.

In theater terms, I guess we'd say she's a little more Method -- she has a whole back story (apparently boxes and boxes of it) and gets into motivations etc., You're more Practical Asthetics -- whats on the page is all that matters.

Of course, both say they're based in Stanislavksky, so what are you going to do?

I did notice that there was no one in the HP series who was gay or questioning prior to the Dumbledore reveal. While it is a YA series and is not about anyone's sexuality, there was quite a bit about romantic feelings (Ron/Hermione, Harry/Cho/Jenny) and couples (the aforementioned as well as Tonks/Lupin, Charlie/Fleur, and others). I always thought it would have been quite nice to have a random kid (or even one of the main kids) who was gay w/o a big deal being made of it. To have this Dumbledore thing after the fact just feels silly to me. Either go there or don't, you know? It would have been nice for gay kids to have someone to relate to in that way and what a coup for it to have been Dumbledore!

It's like deleted scenes on a DVD, really. Nice to know, but not necessarily canon.

not necessarily canon

In what way? I mean--either it is or it isn't. I've been wondering recently if there's a word used in fandom like fanon, except by the work's creator--not in the primary text, in fact, just delivered conversationally.

I've been wondering recently if there's a word used in fandom like fanon, except by the work's creator--not in the primary text, in fact, just delivered conversationally.

I've heard the word "supertext" used, though more for things like "This actor had to leave the show because of a contract dispute," and how that kind of knowledge can affect your reading of a text.

I think fanon from the work's creator is still just fanon - albeit from an especially credible source. If the creator wants it to be canon he or she needs to write a short story or poem or comic book or something.

In what way? I mean--either it is or it isn't.

Yes. But which is it? Maybe I think it's canon because she wrote the book, and you don't think it's canon because it's not in the book. Perhaps I should have said "not clearly canon" or "not canon by definition but some might regard it that way."

I think ita or someone actually gave an good example of why "not in the book" equals "not canon". Joss Whedon was famous for making comments and then later in the actual show contradicting what he said. (Of course that happened with stuff actually in the show as well...)

Joss can Joss himself, but he can Kripke himself also.

I probably look at it as a case by case thing. I'm totally down with Dumbledore being gay. But I'm also sure there've been things in articles about other 'verses that made me respond "No, you needed to say it!"