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.

Neil Gaiman weighs in on Dumbledore's sex life and pretty much nails my opinion in one:

You always wind up knowing more about your characters than you can get onto the page. Pages are finite, and the story isn't about giving you all the information about everyone in it any more than life is. Things the author knows about characters (or at least, strongly suspects -- it's never really real until it hits the page, because the process of writing is also a process of discovery) that don't make it onto the page could include the characters' backstory, what they like to eat, the toothpaste they use, what happens to them after the story is over or before it began, and what they do in bed. That something didn't turn up in the books just means it didn't make it onto the page or wasn't relevant to the story. (Or even, it made it in and the author cut that scene out because it didn't work. One of my favourite scenes in Anansi Boys went because it made the chapter work better when it was gone.)

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

I definitely don't think that! I'm sorry that it came across that way. I'm glad that GC has joined the debate, though, so I'm not the only one on my side. :-)

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."

Exactly. I'm not saying there needed to be a love scene or anything, but a clear position on the matter would have been nice and taken no more than what Stephanie has posted here.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the series, I'm just irked by this issue now that JKR has raised it.

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

I would think it might cross her mind to have someone gay, and then decide it's not worth the bother--is that the sort of thing you're docking points for? Seeing the 'fight' and deciding not to engage?

I found it fascinating to read people's reactions to realising the protagonists of Neil Gaiman's Anansi Boys were black. I don't give Gaiman any points for it, though, since they didn't feel very Jamaican (to me the reveal was of the nationality--once I got that far I didn't pay much more attention, but it certainly didn't ensure their race) because it was just something he said, and some dishes he named.

Which is to say--would it have been enough for JKR to say a) Dumbledore was gay and b) Dumbledore was in love with a very bad man, or would she have had to go farther to do the whole thing either convincingly or responsibly (as furthering her message of tolerance)?

eta: Total crosspost with Victor

I would think it might cross her mind to have someone gay, and then decide it's not worth the bother

But it appears to be worth it to her now that the series is safely wrapped.

is that the sort of thing you're docking points for?

I'm not sure it's fair to act like I'm judging when I'm reacting to something that she herself has brought to light. I've never come in and been like, "Hey, it's bullshit that there are no gays in the Potter series!" That would be "docking points" (though I still think it's fair to notice the absence of such a character).

"I was blinded by love for a time."

Which, to be fair, is somehow less evocative, smaller even, than "You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me.'"

Because the gay revelation changes nothing about the character. There's not a code going on here. ... not really, anyway. I very much do believe that it was Grindelwald's ideas and intellect that Dumbledore was attracted to, that was the crux of their relationship, whether it be romantic or platonic.

Err ... and then Dumbledore mastered his wand.

I was using docking points to denote disappointment, and apologise if it came off as painting you as more highhanded. If truth be told, I was thinking house points, so entirely twee.

it appears to be worth it to her now that the series is safely wrapped

She's never been in a position to reveal this much of the scenery, though. Now we can ask her anything--it's not like she called a press conference on his sexuality.

I wonder if she'll write anything different. People are going to want to suck her dry on this 'verse for a very long time.

I hear what you're saying, victor. I guess since straight love is all over the place, it'd be nice to have a concrete statement of gay love in just a few places, you know? She doesn't have a responsibility to raise gay issues but if she's gonna do it, would it have killed her to just do it in the text where it would have been really meaningful to a whole lot of people?

I think that if you'd like to live in a world where sexuality doesn't matter it's quite fair to not make a point about the sexuality of your characters.

I also don't believe Dumbledore would have revealed his love for Grindlewald to Harry had Grindlewald been a woman. To me, Dumbledore is just not a guy who talks about his personal feelings.