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!"

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.

That makes sense to me as a writer, because I know TONS about my characters that never makes it to the page because it's simply not central enough to the story. And I can totally picture myself someday, if I'm ever fortunate enough to get published and have some tiny, tiny fraction of Rowling's fame, sitting there in some Q&A saying things like, "Oh, the kid you meet in Book 4 isn't Jack's firstborn, because Sally was actually pregnant when she left him in Book 1, but it's OK because she married a nice man who's raising the girl as his own, and you're welcome to slash Jack and Arthur as long as you accept that they're basically straight and happy with the women I married them to, because I was fully aware of the slashy vibe and occasionally played it up for the amusement of one of my CPs, and Kitty married a nice Irish boy, and..."

And if I'm really, really lucky, I'll be popular enough that my admissions will generate online discussion in some small way.

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!

Yeah, this is my feeling as well. I didn't *need* for there to be a gay character to enjoy the books, but I did notice the absence of one and wished there had been one. So to find out that all along, she considered Dumbledore gay, but never said so in the books -- and I think it's pretty safe to say she would have revealed his feelings for Grindelwald, had one of them been female -- to me, that means she took the safe road by deliberately keeping any mention of homosexuality out of the books. Which is her prerogative, of course; I just reserve the right to be disappointed that this was how she handled it.

It never occurred to me to wonder about the sexual demographics of Hogwarts.

That's cause you're not gay :)

ETA: Just so as not to look all "sexually deviant" and shit, I don't mean that only teh gays look at sexuality in stories. I mean that you notice that those like you are not represented in the story.

And totally not to pick on connie cause I've wondered this many times before, but I do find it interesting that "sexuality" comes into play when you mention teh gays, but no one thinks it overtly sexual to mention Harry's crush on Cho, or Hermione's on Ron.

How would you have had Rowling show Dumbledore's preferences in a plot relevant way? I got the definite impression that the thing with Grindelwald was on the border line of the typical boarding school-esque passion (I was never clear on how old Dumbledore was during all that), with all the possible "they're just good friends/there's UST all over the place" variants that one's particular worldview might see. I don't see how it could be more explicit without becoming in the way.