Seriously, if Things the Author Arbitrarily Decided About Her Characters That Have No Impact on the Story So Everyone Can Just Calm Down, Thanks were to be released, I'd buy it.

Turns out that Longbottom is a huge Black Sabbath fan.

ITA.

Plus it feeds my Harry Potter fix. Fanfictions are all well and good, but nothing beats the real thing.

Well hanging around with cute Hobbit guys all the time, and played by Sir Ian McKellan, definately Gay!

Dumbledore gay too!! yay!!

Now all I need is for my other favourite wizard, Raistlin, to be outed too.

She does the tours because..the book really didn't come out that long ago and authors, you know, tour to promote their books. And quite frankly, people want to know these things! These books are without precedent in their popularity (besides the bible anyway!) and the characters for a lot of children/young adults have been almost like real people whilst they have been growing up. People want to know more about these characters then could reasonably be told in the confines of a plot.

Painting it like JKR is some desperate has-been frantically attempting to recapture those long gone glory days (i.e. 3 months ago) when millions people paused in their lives to read her story, is just silly. 17 years she spent writing these books. Some of you aren't even 17 years old! That is a very long time and as Estarra said, there is sure to be just a ton of information that did not make the books that she would love to share. And I am sure her fans will love to hear it.

The thing is, people don't always want to know these things. It is vital that authors have an understanding of the background of their characters and world for the sake of consistency. This kind of understanding can make the difference between a good book and a flop. I am glad she understands her characters, her world, etc.. However, most people like to read the book and com up with their own idea of the reality of the world - this is why books are better than movies. I don't want her to come and tell me all of her ideas of the intricate details of Dumbledore's (or anyone else's) life; I have my own imaginary ideas. I relate this kind of experience to when you read a book first and then go see the movie afterwards, only to discover that the actors in the movie do not match your concept of the characters at all. In the same way, people become tied to the characters and the world as they understand it. Releasing a lot of details about what is "canon" ruins a bit of the experience- if it is not relevant enough to make it into the books, it should be left open for interpretation, which only increases the intrigue and interest.

A good number of people had a certain ideal about Dumbledore. People become attached to who Dumbledore is; announcements like this make everyone throw out their own imaginary world and conform their ideas to the author's instead. In my mind, that defeats the purpose of a book.

You might be interested to know that there is actually a book out about J.R.R. Tolkein and his imaginary world called The Silmarillion. His son Christopher put together a collection of his writings which were never published. It talks about how the world was created, different races and gods, and goes into a great deal of depth. It never sold much.

As for the accusation about Rawlings being desperate for attention, that's not quite the attitude I meant to imply. Authors generally do tours when their books come out, not months later. I think she simply has these worlds in her mind and feels compelled to share them. I just would rather not hear them. I like the imaginary world and history I built around Harry Potter; it only makes things more difficult when it gets mucked up by canon.

Well the percentage of people who do not want to know is likely very small as opposed to those that do. You can just..not read the hundreds of news articles that get spawned whenever she mentions something about one of the characters.

And I own and have read the The Silmarillion and though it was a dry read, I quite liked it. I like knowing the author's view of the world.

My dad has read the Silmarillion so many times, he can quote passages. Before I got him into the Harry Potter books, the Tolkien books were the only ones he read. He'd start with the Silmarillion and then read each of the books in order and when done with the entire Middle Earth saga, he'd pick the Silmarillion up again and start over.

What you said about people having a certain ideal: That's just the point. The discovery that Dumbledore is gay shouldn't detract from any sensible person's experience of the Harry Potter books. If anything, it should add to them, as Noola said. If people go OMGGAYBURNTHEDEMONS, then that's their own irrational problem to deal with, and I'd say it was good that JKR was able to say that without holding it back because people wouldn't like it. We all know fundamentalists have given her enough grief as it is.

Personally, I love little tidbits like this that just give me another piece to the jigsaw that is HP. Even if I can make my own little jigsaw pieces, they never fit quite as perfectly as the original ones. And I know many other HP-fans who feel the same way.

And in relation to what you said about her going on tours three months after the release - Many would consider JKR the most popular (currently living) author of our time. I'd say she's perfectly entitled to go on a tour months after the release.

I disagree. Simply because something should be acceptable does not mean it shouldn't detract from your experience. For example, what if I were to say that Dumbledore was really a woman in drag? Would that change your opinion of things, or detract from your opinion of the book in any way? And of so, would it mean that you are sexist against women, or just that it doesn't fit in with your ideal of who Dumbledore is? I'll agree that the extremists are just making fools of themselves with the gay attacks. I personally don't like it, but it has nothing to do with whatever moral preconceptions anyone might have. It just doesn't fit who Dumbledore 'is' in my mind (or was, at least). Also, JKR has not really been hurt at all by the controversy with the fundies - in fact, it has probably boosted her sales quite a bit.

Does it really change him that much? I certainly never imagined him in a romantic setting, with either gender.

Neither did I, he is simply the asexual type of character... But now that she explicitly said he was gay and was in love with Grindelwald... It's just kind of weird. Poof, thoughts of a horny teenage Dumbledore jerking off to Grindelwald come to mind (at least mine ). On the other hand, this info does improve on the impression of how different young Dumbly was from his mature self...
For half the book I couldn't believe he would ever tamper with things like the Hallows (I refused to believe, actually), but then I realized how foolish that point of view was. People change. A lot.

But anyway, I dunno, the way she said it... It just sounds too oh-didn't-you-know?... Though I never, ever thought I'd say this about J.K - I smell a publicity hog.

I'm sorry (well not really) but I like these little bits of information, especially in light of the movie makers trying to imply he had some relationship with a female.

It kinda reminds me of people creating stuff about Peter X Claire for heroes only to find out that they were related.

As to the christian deal http://www.sigmalogobooks.com/SLB_Bible_Mistranslated.html

That's an interesting article. Not sure what the star-pictures have to do with it...but it's definitely interesting!

I don't know how people can read that monstrosity (LOTR) more than once, the pace is truly unbearable for the first book and the second two marginally faster due to multiple events going on similtaneously. I only managed to read them to try understand the movies when they first came out and Silmarillion sounds like an attempt to create money by Tolkien's son off his late fathers work and probably create interest in a topic that had more or less lost interest. The appendix alone was was impossible to read and seemed like an indulgence on the author's part. Although Frank Herbert's son could be accused of the same thing with Dune.

/end hijack

My thoughts exactly. Dumbledore is just not a romantic character. Maybe when he was young this was a serious part of his personality, but it isn't anymore, and thus wasn't important for the entire length of the series.

Also, if finding out things like a character is gay, is allergic to shellfish, and doesn't like parvalone cheese "ruins the imaginary world you have created in your head in order to conform to the authors," you have a shoddy imagination anyway.

Edited for clarity.

I like that it wasn't in the books but something that was revealed, it means that you read through the series got to know and love the characters then you find out certain details later. Dumbledore being gay shouldn't mean anything to people, however if she had've added that to the book there would have been people that hated the character and mocked him with a full array of stereotypes.

Also Dumbledore for most of the story is just the headmaster of hogwarts, Harry knows little about him so why would we. Outside the books we can learn these details

Some people really need to get a life.

That's what I think. People are starting to not care about Harry Potter, movies and all and J.K Rowling can't handle not being the Author of the Decade or whatever else critics trying to be hip called her.

So the answer: Make a character gay!

I don't really care either way, but I'm slightly irked she would just pop up something like this for no apparent reason.