Compare Tolkien; how much of the stuff in the appendices to The Return of the King is needed to understand the story?

Good point. I've had to explain lots of that stuff to my son who really liked the movies, but is still a bit young for the books.

Boyd,

That notwithstanding, I still fail to see how I understand more about Dumbledore and his attitudes and actions by knowing this little tidbit than I did before Ms. Rowling revealed it.

You don't; that is the point. Such information wasn't necessary, which is why it wasn't in the book. However, a fan asked her a related question and this information came out.

That is why we didn't learn Dumbledore's sexual identity. Though it would've been a great subplot, if Dumbledore's homosexuality had been one reason why people mistrusted his confidence in Snape, Harry, etc.

That notwithstanding, I still fail to see how I understand more about Dumbledore and his attitudes and actions by knowing this little tidbit than I did before Ms. Rowling revealed it.

And rather than assuming heterosexuality on the part of anyone else, I'll stand by my position that it doesn't matter which team they play for. These characters don't interact with each other in a romantic way, much less a sexual one, so whether or not they're homosexual matters no more to me than whether they prefer the color blue to orange.

This statement by the author strikes me as pointless, that's all.

Addendum: The only known sexual orientation of the Professors I mentioned (that I can recall) is Snape, and it's pertinent to the story; Dumbledore's strikes me as irrelevant, especially in comparison to Snape.

They *do*; it's just that heterosexuality is assumed.

If it doesn't have any bearing, why is she bringing it up now?

Rowling has said that she knows a great deal more about the characters than she would have any occasion to put into the books. Now that the series is over, she's naturally inclined to share some of her stuff. (A selection of her notes seems like a surefire bestseller.)

Compare Tolkien; how much of the stuff in the appendices to The Return of the King is needed to understand the story?

If it has any bearing on the understanding of the storyline, it baffles me why it wasn't mentioned in any of the books. If it doesn't have any bearing, why is she bringing it up now?

Color me confused.

In case it wasn't obvious, I was responding to your "propaganda for an agenda" remark. My ignorance and bigotry flag just automatically gets raised anytime I see or hear someone refer to a "homosexual agenda."

My apologies if that was not your intent. Sometimes one sentence remarks are difficult to interpret.

Of course, making this revelation after the series has concluded and the surge of sales has past seems an odd way to make an “argument for tolerance” and “question authority.”

But an excellent way to make the point that his sexual orientation is irrelevant & is none of anyone's business anyway. The stories by themselves make the argumemt of tolerance by not pointing out the political arguments. Keeping Dumbledore's orientation out of the storyline & not commenting about it during the marketing reinforces that irrelevance in everyday life. By talking matter of factly after the need for hype passed & in response to a normally curious question from a young reader, she reinforces the lesson of tolerance & acceptance.

Questioning authority? Homosexualty & the regulation of the practice of it is a major political issue here & in the UK. Rowling's position obviously is that it should not be. By keeping Bumbledore's sexuality ambiguous in the series, she is telling by example that it is none of the damn politician's business, or our's either. If that is not questioning authority, than what is? Is it not reasonable to believe that minorities should not have to keep fighting for rights the rest of us don't question are ours?