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.

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

Heh. Pretty much everyone I know said, "They're the new Xavier and Magneto!" Which led right into slash territory.

Does anyone in the older generations ever even kiss? They get married and they have babies but (much like real life) to the teenagers they're sort of eunichs.

I don't think its a defense so much as an analysis

Sorry, maybe that was a poor word choice on my part. I read it as a defense in the context of this conversation.

Yes, I read the article. It was interesting, but this is where the author and I fundamentally disagree:

Throughout the series, she has been diligent not only in her narrative exploration of bigotry and intolerance, but also in her commitment to the inclusion of characters of different races, cultures, classes and degrees of physical beauty. It would, in fact, have been a glaring omission had none of the inhabitants of her world been homosexual.

Because I *do* see it as an omission. I mean, if we had to be told after the fact that Dumbledore was gay -- which clearly came as a surprise to many, many people -- then I don't consider that it really was in the books. She could tell us all kinds of things about the characters or the story that she considers to be true, and no doubt we could find support for them in the text, but until she actually goes ahead and says it *in the books*, then IMO it doesn't really count for much.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I gotta say I feel a little piled on. It seems like often times when the gay thing comes up in fiction, TV (hello Willow/Tara), and the like that gays take issue with it, there is a big backlash of "No, you're not being fair" or the like. Unless you are gay, you don't know how gays should/would react. Period. There's nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, but I am entitled to feel that that this is irritating. I know that you guys are all cool with the gays, but that's not the same thing as being gay. It doesn't give you a right to tell gays how they should feel, or that they're feelings are wrong.

I'm sincerely not trying to start something or do the whole "take my toys and flounce off," and I hope that this doesn't start some big kerfluffle, but this isn't the first time I've felt this way and I just feel like I had to share it. Consider if this were a racial issue, for example. If you weren't of the race that was offended, you'd probably have comments and opinions, but I don't think you'd come in and tell someone of that race that they are wrong or shouldn't feel the way they do.

And on one final note, the idea of acting like the world is the way you'd like it to be only works for those who have all of the rights and freedoms. Gays do not.

Now, I swear I'm done on the subject and I still love HP and b.org!