Rowling's gutless decision to "out" Dumbledore months after the release of the last book in the Harry Potter series smacks of manipulation. Next she'll be telling us that Harry was actually an anti-war protester, Voldemort was a stockholder in Halliburton, and Hermione explored her sexuality during her college days before settling down with Ron. Rowling will clearly say anything for a buck -- anything to keep herself relevant.
Rowling, like so many artists, can't simply use her talents in ways that would please her readers. She can't stick with children's books -- that would "minimize" her, the same way singing non-political country would "minimize" the Dixie Chicks. She has something "important" to say, and we had all better listen.
Unfortunately for Rowling, her limited talents -- the Harry Potter books pale in quality when compared with Edward Eager -- are unsuited to the task of taking on large social issues. Rowling isn't Twain; she isn't even Stephen King. Rowling commenting on "love," "great tragedy" and resistance to authority is like Keanu Reeves teaching master classes on acting. All Rowling has accomplished by "outing" Dumbledore is undercutting her own broader appeal and demonstrating her own insecurity and intellectual shallowness.
I Was A Woman In The Marine Corps In the Mid-70s. Hillary Clinton’s Story Doesn’t Add Up | Susan Hutchison