“Please sir, I want some more…”
Tolkien talked about Middle Earth all over the place. In his letters, with his friends and colleagues, and yes, sometimes in lectures and interviews. He edited and ammended the history of his creation up until his death.
So, what’s that say about him? Was he also creepy? An attention whore?
Look, you don’t want to know anything about Harry Potter past what’s contained in the books. So, here’s an idea: don’t listen to anything about Harry Potter past what’s contained in the books! Heck, I love JRR Tolkien, but The Silmarillion bored me to tears, so I don’t bother with it. I don’t need to read it to enjoy Lord of the Rings, and you don’t need to listen to JK Rowling to enjoy Harry Potter. But some folks love getting all those extra details, whatever format it happens to be delivered in. So let those folks enjoy the books the way they want to, and you enjoy the books the way you want to, and everyone’s happy, right?
Right?
…but the gerbils kept clogging up the hose?
So you want all the back-story if it’s in book form, but not if the author is answering questions off the cuff? What makes it OK for this information to be released in encyclopedia form, but not verbally?
OK, fair enough that the last book was all about us thinking of Dumbledore in a new light. Maybe this does speak to making the character more of a person and less of a figure. But then, I’ll have to agree with others that if it means Dumbledore was in love with one of the greatest dark wizards (rather than him just being a close friend and mentor gone awry), she probably should have had the courage to mention it in the book. It makes his character all the more tragic.
Huh? Is this common knowledge? Wow, did I ever pick the wrong history class to fall asleep in!
Well, goodness…haven’t you ever looked at Eleanor’s teeth?!? I mean, the rest of the story just follows logically from that.
Ahhh…what’s that sound I hear over my head???
Kind of a … wooooooo
Followed by a ssssssshhhhhhhh???
Well, no, but fair enough. and I agree with you re The Simalrillion–I can’t read two pages of it without falling asleep…
I’ll drop it and wait for the encyclopedia to come out. But what if she just can’t stop herself,* then*? Will the very encyclopedia need a concordance (can they do that?)
Notice smiley face does not show this Eleanor’s teeth. 
Then she’ll be just like every single other author from the 20th century who created a massively popular fantasy/sci-fi epic.
Chances are pretty good that if Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald it was when they were both young, before Grindy was the second most famous dark wizard.
Well, yeah, that’s what makes it tragic. Dumbledore wouldn’t follow him down the path to evil…
and eventually had to defeat his former love to save the world.
Brilliant!
Not eleanorigby, but I’ll answer for myself.
I like to read books (or a series of books) and be able to gather–from the books–all I need to know in order to interpret and enjoy them. That’s all within reason, of course. I understand that sometimes a book may make reference to mythology or something else that I may need to look up. However, I don’t want to have to go online to read author interviews in order to interpret the books. Reading author interviews isn’t the same experience as reading through a book and seeing the story unfold.
That said, this particular revelation isn’t a big deal to me. IMHO, it doesn’t affect any of the plot points. Whether Dumbledore and Grindlewald were lovers or just good friends doesn’t really change much to my understanding of Dumbledore’s initial belief in Grindlewald and ultimate disillusionment. In the same way, whether or not Harry became an auror or Neville married Hannah doesn’t matter much to me. It doesn’t change anything that’s in the books.
However, if any details come out now that do change how the books should be interpreted, that would bug me big time!
I agree with this. If the revelation had been that Hooch and McGonnagal were lesbians and involved with each other or Dean and Lee Jordan were gay and hooked up when they were both in their thirties, I don’t think half as many people would be as bent about it never showing up in the books because they really are minor characters and there would have been no way to mention their relationships in the main text without shoehorning it in. But the last book had a fair bit about Dumbledore’s past – Dumbledore’s wand, Dumbledore’s family, Dumbledore’s (possible) posthumous brilliance, and Dumbledore’s association with a certain dark wizard and motivations for doing so. So dropping a bombshell like Dumbledore being in love with said wizard at a Q&A and having this info never show up in the final book, despite its focus on Dumbles, really does make it look like Rowling either didn’t have the guts to put it in canon or else just pulled something out of her ass.
Don’t see it that way. When I read the book, I sort of wondered if those two were romantically involved - turns out that the author intended the answer to be “yes”. Why is it necessary for her to have spelled it out explicitly?
i’m with malthus, the way the 2 of them were described by people who knew both of them from that time it did seem like there were deeper than friendship feelings.
of course, i also thought, well, they are british and it was a different time.
i’ve read many letters written in the first half of the 1900’s and they way people wrote and spoke then was quite different and would seem very odd to us now. way mushy and overly flowery. the wizard world esp. the older wizards seem stuck in that time.
it was odd that dumbledore being the bestest wizard of his time, didn’t have a spouse and kids at some point. i just figured he had interest in learning and teaching and not much interest in carnal pursuits.
if indeed he and grindlewald had a romantic relationship; his sister’s death and grindlewald’s later antics, could def. put him off having another one.
Different time? The time frame for the books is the 1980s to 90s.
(of course, the Brits ARE a bit different…) 
yep, the books were written for the 90’s… however, dumbledore and those who knew him from way back were of an older era. so the historian and a.d. buddy (i forget his name) had a more “old fashioned” way of talking about them.
if you get msnbc in , mr olbermann is about to do a segment on jkr. it appears he was at “the announcement”. and will be showing clips.
But Albus Dumbledore’s youth, when this relationship was supposed to have taken place, was long before that. Not quite early 1900’s, but AFAICT definitely pre-WWII.
Were Dumbledore and Grindlewald involved? Or was the love unrequited? J.K. Rowling said that Dumbledore loved Grindlewald, but Grindlewald didn’t feel the same (or something along those lines), and that was Dumbledore’s great tragedy.
Here’s my issue - if the only reason Dumbledore turned away from his previous beliefs on the superiority of wizards…turned to the light, if you will…was because he got spurned in love, I think that **does ** diminish the character…severely. He didn’t do good for the sake of good (which is what I always thought who Dumbledore was), he only did what he did as part of a revenge fantasy against an ex. I had thought that Dumbledore had realized the error of his ways and fought for the muggles because it was right…turns out he may have just had blue balls.
That changes things. And it’s not fair to mention it off-handedly months later. To some degree, I feel robbed of what could be an incredible story, and I hope that someday we might get it (this was Harry Potter’s story, anyway). I’m just saddened that what I do feel is an important, interesting, and perception-changing piece of information wasn’t actually a part of the series.
Shrug. Many people disagree; life goes on.