Three Cauldrons was Re: Rowling says Dumbledore is gay

[pippin_999]

Carol:
> Her position now is that DD's relationship with GG was an
> "infatuation," whether reciprocal or one-sided, she didn't say. Not
> quite the same as being "in love." is it? Or should we even worry
> about what she says outside the books.
> 

Pippin:
Why wouldn't it be the same as being in love? Many people consider
infatuation as an initial stage of love. I took it to mean that he fell
thoroughly in love with GG, and went through a stage in which he was 
consumed with his feelings and unwilling or unable to find any
fault in his beloved. 

Being infatuated doesn't mean it wasn't a real love, IOW, just that
it started off very strong.

Anyway why "worry" about what she says outside the books? We
have no more control over what she thinks than she has over what 
we think. It seems to me she has just as much right to talk about 
the subtext and meaning of her books as anyone else. If she wants
to tell us things about the Potterverse that didn't fit within the
scope of the books, so be it. I think it's an interesting sidelight
into the creative process, even if the ideas aren't thoroughly 
worked out. 

The process of world and character generation will inevitably
produce a lot of information which turns out to be extraneous
to the story and isn't used. For this reason it may never reach
final form. But there's no reason, IMO, that readers
have to be sheltered from this information, as if it would 
somehow damage the books to find out that the author has
conflicting ideas about what Ron did with the rest of his life.  

She isn't saying that the rest of us can't have our own interpretations. 
She even expects that children and adults will view the DD/GG 
relationship, not to mention Aberforth's attraction to his goats, 
in different lights.

It seems to me all she's done is say that she knowingly created a character
with a gay subtext, and she's hardly the first artist to admit doing 
that, although she might be the most famous. 

Pippin