Mind you, I find the idea that Dumbledore's one great love occurred, what, 70 years ago? to be really sad. So I'm assuming he had an unmentioned longtime companion.

It is sad and sadly I think he didn't have another love. Just like Tim Gunn! Although I think Tim Gunn maybe just had a bad breakup and his ex- wasn't actually evil. But who knows?

I think anyone who could make Tim Gunn swear off love has to be evil.

Tim Gunn: just like Dumbledore.

I think you're right, Dana.

And Tim Gunn really is rather a lot like Dumbledore.

Tom is dead and that's where I left off. I had to sit in my car to get to that point.

The whole wand thing leaves me a feeling a bit unsatisfied, I think there could have been better ways to go about it. It doesn't ruin the book for me or anything like that though.

I never would have thought it would be Molly who finished off Bellatrix, but I can totally believe it.

Kreature and the house elves (sounds like a band name) were great. A hoard of house elves with knives actually sounds kinda scary.

Neville killing the last horcrux was great too. It's ironic that Harry never destroyed a single horcrux in the book. Of course Neville is a true Gryffindor, he's always been brave. He lacked confidence, but his bravery has been all the more impressive because of that.

One thing I did like about the final confrontation despite the wand stuff was Harry calling Voldemort by his actual name, Tom Riddle. Something about that whole sequence gave me the impression of Voldemort being lessened and that was a big part of it.

There's a bit more left, but I'm sure it's all just wrap up from here on out.

Salon.com has a Dumbledore article that basically posits that only to a hetero-normative society is it not plain that Dumbledore and Grindewalde are in love. She gives lots of examples. I found it very interesting.

Then on the second page she talks about how authors need to stop writing since the book is over now and she wants to imagine things -- and there are lots and lots of letters.

(Personally, I think the author should do whatever s/he wants to do)

only to a hetero-normative society is it not plain that Dumbledore and Grindewalde are in love.

See, I find this defense problematic, because most of us live in a heteronormative society. Except for those of us who live in lesbian separatist communes, perhaps (or San Francisco). With a few exceptions, the culture that we live in expects and assumes that straight is normal and anything else is "alternative." I'm talking movies, TV, advertisements, textbooks, news reports, *laws* -- most of what surrounds us is heteronormative. Maybe less so for us fannishly-inclined Internet weirdos, but probably *more* so for most kids out there reading these books, who don't have as much agency as we do to seek outside the mainstream quite yet. And those kids are the primary audience I'm concerned with here, since they would be the ones least likely to see queerness in the books and the ones most likely to be positively affected by the inclusion of queerness.

For another thing, the society that JKR created in the HP books? Also heteronormative. We can talk about queer readings of the text, and god knows I believe Sirius and Remus were lovers, but the world that she wrote, on the page, is explicitly and exclusively heterosexual. So the idea that it's just our own heteronormative blinders that prevents us from seeing Dumbledore's feelings for Grindelwald as romantic doesn't really fly with me, because I don't think we were given any reason, in the text, to see it that way.

I mean, look, I'm a slasher, and I didn't read that relationship as particularly queer (although I know some people did). In a list of HP characters I'd expect to be queer, I doubt Dumbledore would crack the top 20. I'm not saying it's not there if you look for it, but IMO it's pretty damn subtle.

her pronouncements are robbing us of the chance to let our imagination take over where she left off, one of the great treats of engaging with fictional narrative.

Guessing this writer hasn't really thought about fanfiction much, if at all. It reminds me of a lj post I once read that explained very patiently how people shouldn't write AUs because it's not what the author intended.

Also, I really like those things at the end of movies: "Jerry never did marry Linda, but they still raise dingos together. Mame and Frances left for the Caribbean, never to be seen again."

I'm a slasher, and the Dumbledore and Grindelwald thing didn't even ping me.

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 wouldn't disagree with this, but I don't think she *was* trying to create a world where sexuality doesn't matter (or if she was, I don't think she did a very good job of it). All she ended up doing was creating a world where homosexuality isn't mentioned, except for one time when someone uses it as an insult.

And for that matter, except for Dudley's "Is that your boyfriend?" line, we've never gotten any mention of homosexuality at all, so she may envision the wizarding world as one where it doesn't need to be mentioned because it's not a big deal.

She may envision it that way, but I certainly didn't read it that way. As you pointed out, the one time it comes up at all is when Dudley is trying to insult Harry. I find it hard to make the leap from that to "being gay in the HP universe is totally not a big deal!" when we're given nothing else to support that reading.

See, I find this defense problematic

I don't think its a defense so much as an analysis (not everybody sees Rowlings choice as needing to be defended). Did you read the article? It has an air of "how did I MISS that? Its so obvious"

For another thing, the society that JKR created in the HP books? Also heteronormative.

I don't think we can say that. Maybe to wizards Dubledore is gay and its not worth mentioning -- again, the examples given in the article sort of point to that.