"J.K. Rowling at Carnegie Hall Reveals Dumbledore is Gay."

When I first read that headline last Friday, I couldn't believe my eyes. I immediately thought it was another one of Leaky's (www.the-leaky-cauldron.org) infamous April Fool's pranks, but I quickly remembered Oct. 19 is nowhere near April 1. Reading the accompanying article, it became clear to me this was no gag. At an appearance at Carnegie Hall on Friday, a fan asked Rowling if beloved Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore had ever fallen in love. Her answer was a two-part shocker:

"My truthful answer to you ... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent?"

As you may remember, Gellert Grindelwald was Dumbledore's friend in his youth. The German was determined to initiate a revolution that would place wizards in the dominant position in the world (and consequently persecute Muggles and anyone standing in his way). He convinced Dumbledore to join him, but soon fled England after the death of Dumbledore's sister, whom he probably killed. Roughly 46 years later, Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in a legendary duel after the latter had wreaked havoc on Eastern Europe.

So, Dumbledore is not only gay, but he was also in love with the second-most evil wizard of all-time. Hmm.

While I won't claim I knew it all along, certain aspects of his character definitely make more sense now. Dumbledore has always had a bit of, let's say, flair, to him, but I just chalked it up to good old-fashioned wizarding eccentrics. This is not to say that all gay men come with "flair," per se, just that Dumbledore expressed himself with that "certain extra oomph." In turn, I wouldn't say he is "flaming" either, he's not exactly Marc from "Ugly Betty," a character of constant comic relief. Dumbledore can be incredibly serious, even dangerous. But for God's sake, the man admittedly has a fondness for knitting patterns and walked around 1940s Muggle London wearing plum-colored velvet suits!

In addition, the text makes it so obvious that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald that I'm surprised I didn't suspect it all along. The descriptions of their bond, Dumbledore's willingness to sacrifice his own family for their relationship and his distraught at the loss of his little sister (yes, this was sadness and guilt as well, but imagine how would you feel if the person you loved caused the death of your sibling?) all point out to me that our beloved headmaster had more than just friendly feelings towards his former chum.

This turn of events is even funny, in a way. Thinking back on your speculation of who Grindelwald really was (after "Sorcerer's Stone" briefly mentioned him), if someone had told you the truth, that he was Dumbledore's desired gay lover, would you not have burst out laughing or gotten annoyed with the person for being "immature" and not taking the question seriously? Of course, with the background knowledge we have now of their relationship, there is really nothing funny about the circumstances-in fact, it's incredibly tragic.

What I don't understand about this news are the violently negative reactions to it. Granted, Christian groups will have their conniptions (even though Dumbledore's orientation is never actually mentioned in the text itself), but that's to be expected. What shocks me, however, are the many fans I've encountered on different forums and comment boards. Even one of my Facebook friends wrote of her newfound anguish on my Wall and proclaimed that the series is now "ruined" for her. Ruined! I mean, way to be homophobic. The beloved book series you've cherished until this point, a book series whose main goal is to preach tolerance and acceptance of those different from yourself, is now "ruined" for you because one of the beloved characters happens to be gay? How hypocritical.

I think Rowling is courageous for being honest about Dumbledore. LGBTQ issues are so polarizing for people that I think she risked a lot by admitting the truth. At the same time, some fans are calling her a coward for not including Dumbledore's sexuality in the canon. If she had, it would have appeared as though she had an agenda for doing so (whereas by saying it after the fact, it feels more like an afterthought than a political statement.) It would have added nothing to the plot, except maybe a tiny bit more insight on Dumbledore's horror at the death of his sister and why he waited so long before he sought to end Grindelwald's reign of terror. It would have just been inappropriate to the story, an unnecessary distraction and sensationalist move that would have diminished the strength of Harry's narrative. If Rowling chooses to write a story about Dumbledore, I'd say, go into detail about Dumbledore's sexuality. But this is Harry's story, and it just doesn't fit.

All in all, though, what does it matter if Dumbledore is attracted to men or not? (Many slash fan-fiction writers, who are now vindicated for their years of struggle against the mainstream would disagree with me on this statement.) It's really neither here nor there. It doesn't define him as a character. He's not a gay man with brilliant wizarding powers; he's a brilliant wizard who also just so happens to be gay.

I was shocked at first, but it's really no big deal, it just is what it is. Am I going to see Dumbledore in a different light now when I reread the books? Perhaps, but only as a lens through which to better understand his motives regarding Grindelwald. Above all, Dumbledore is the greatest wizard of all time, and in no way should the minutiae of his romantic life ever overshadow this fact.