Dumbledore's gay?My thoughts, in no particular order:
-Given that Dumbledore bears a striking resemblance to a certain Gandalf the Grey, was Rowling inspired by Ian McKellen?
-Why now?
-The Harry Potter books are bringing an interesting
hermeneutical question to light. There's a longstanding debate on how best to read texts: do you read them as entirely independent entities, drawing your own conclusions, or do you try to read them the way the author intended? Usually, it's not particularly easy to figure out what the author intended. You can't go ask Dante how we're supposed to react to his finding all his role models in hell. But here we have J.K. Rowling traveling around the world telling children facts about the characters, their pasts, and their futures that do not appear anywhere in the book, and often aren't even really hinted at. The Dumbledore thing I'll buy, but Hermione becoming a wizard lawyer after the only mention of her thinking about law is her saying that she'd hate to be a lawyer? I guess it works, but I'd be hesitant to claim it's in the text.
A further example of what I'm talking about: In telling the world that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling also described the Harry Potter story as "a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry." While I think there is definitely bigotry in the book, and it is uniformly frowned up, my take is that the bigotry is more a function of people being good and people being bad. Yes, Voldemort wants to create a master race of pureblood wizards, but that's secondary to his general malevolence and his status as a dark wizard. Now, I'm not saying my reading is right, and according to Rowling, it's wrong, but the question I'm really trying to raise for your consideration is ultimately one about the final arbiter. Is it Rowling or the book? Who's righter?
Coming full circle in my post, it sorta reminds me of Tolkien's adamant claims that The Lord of the Rings is not about World War II. Whether he meant to or not, the WWII stuff is there. I think the key difference between Harry Potter and other cases like Tolkien, is that Rowling is not merely offering her own interpretation of the material but relating facts that are not mentioned in the book. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, but I do think it's interesting to consider.