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.

This Dumbledore conversation has been so interesting to me. It never occurred to me that he might be gay or that he and Grindlewald might have been more than just friends.

But I think GC is right - it never occurred to me because I'm not gay. I wouldn't have objected to a gay character, but absent it being in the text, I wasn't looking for it, or missing it. Which I guess is the difference.

This conversation reminds me of discussions in college about how you tend to see the world as you are. As a straight, white woman, I tend to assume other characters are also white and straight until told otherwise. I think it's like assuming that a "police officer" or "judge" is a man until told it's a woman.

I think JKR could have mentioned something wrt Grindlewald and why his ideas were so appealing to Dumbledore. Something along the lines of "I was blinded by love for a time."

If Dumbledore's love for Grindlewald was a notable component of his feelings for Grind's positions, then it should have come up. If it was "just another thing" then it falls into mood-setting for me. Since I think the story works very plausibly without thinking out of the platonic box, I don't think she did her story any damage by leaving it out.

Above that, though, what is her responsibility?

I think it's consistent with Dumbledore's character not to talk about his feelings.

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.

What GC said.

I think JKR could have mentioned something wrt Grindlewald and why his ideas were so appealing to Dumbledore. Something along the lines of "I was blinded by love for a time."

Yes, exactly. And, not to sound like a broken record, but I think if the situation had been Dumbledore and a woman, she *would* have said something about his feelings.

Above that, though, what is her responsibility?

ita, I don't think she had a responsibility to write gay characters. I'm pretty sure most writers don't have a responsibility to write gay characters. But I can still be disappointed when they choose not to.

Kate, please don't think I'm attacking you or telling you not to have your point of view.

I'm pretty sure most writers don't have a responsibility to write gay characters. But I can still be disappointed when they choose not to.

Especially in light of this "reveal." It's almost worse in a way because I would have assumed it just never crossed her mind as a hetero woman to include a gay character. Now we find that yes indeed it crossed her mind but she chose not to include it.