I consider myself a suporter of gay rights. I'm no activist, but only because I'm too lazy. I think it's deplorable that gays are not allowed to get married
That said, I think J.K. Rowling's recent announcement that Albus Dumbledore was gay is head-shakingly stupid. Now, in addition to supporting the gays, I am also a big Potter fan. I think the depth and scope of the septilogy is staggering. But no right-thinking person could read that book..the LAST book, mind you...and pick up the super subtle hints that Albus was gay. They make mention of a boyhood friendship that turns sour. There is no mention of love per se. I mean, if he was gay, then SAY so in the BOOK! I'm not upset that a main character is gay. I'm upset that it feels like tinkering with the past, a la Lucas and Spielberg. I feel like she was trying to get a sympathetic gay character in there, but was either too scared or too unsure of herself to make it blatant. Now that the books are out there and she's done, she feels comfortable with expressing what she had in mind. Well, too late, lady! The characters in a book, and the story for that matter, belong to the author first, but us second. I think it's great that there's more to these characters than is on the page. There's subtext, there's backstory, there's depth. But I don't want Spielberg coming out in a interview saying, "Yeah, Indiana Jones was raped as a boy by his uncle, which is why his relationship with his father is so strained." That adds a completely unnecessary twist and subtext to my experience. If that fact about Indy's past was so important, then it should have been in the films.
So, in my opinion, if Jo Rowling felt so strongly about making Dumbledore gay, she should have made it clear he was in the storytelling. This raises another problem for me, though. This was all brought up in the last book. It's a bit of a shocking revelation to have Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard in the world, revealed as a homosexual. It would be too out of left field and cast a shadow of the other goings-on. Froma strict story-telling aspect, I think this whole gay revelation should have been a deleted scene, or a subtext left buried. I mean, if it was some sort of PAYOFF to reveal he was gay, that woul be a better. Like, if you were to go back and re-read the books and pick up all these things you missed before that now add a new dimension to his character and the story as a whole, I would have no complaints. But this feels too tacked-on.
But now there's another aspect of all this that fascinates me. J.K. Rowling has announced that in all 7 of the Harry Potter books, unbeknownst to all of us, Dumbledore is gay. We gasp and say, "We had no idea!" What would happen if tomorrow, JK Rowling announced, "I was just kidding, no one's gay!" Would that suddenly make it true? Would we all say, "Oh you fooled us!" Does she really have that much control over these characters once she's closed the door on the story? At what point does she lose control over the characters. Do the characters' stories continue to exist as long as she tells the story? What if she dies and her daughter begins to write stories about Harry Potter. Are those stories "genuinely" about Harry Potter, or do they become sort of "what-if" scenarios. Do the stories merely exist on the page, or are they truly part of J.K. Rowling's continuing existence? My feeling is the story is over when the story is over. People (including myself) want to know what exactly happens to the gang when they grow up, because it's not explicitly explained in the story. The answer is there is no answer. It's not like this really happened and we just missed it. If it's not in the story, it's not part of the story. Simple. Yet infuriatingly unsatisfying. Any more she may add to the narrative at this point is completely unreliable as far as I'm concerned. Of course that sounds silly and petulent, but I feel like my past experiences are being tampered with and I am insulted by that.
J.K. told us Dumbledore is gay, and so we must accept that that's the story she had intended and for whatever reason, neglected to let us in on it. I think that fact detracts from the story, but certainly doesn't negate anything in it or contradict anything. I think the whole "gay" thing is a big nothing, but the fact that it was brought up after the fact bothers me.