[Heylel Teomim]

Bottom line is that if she had never made that comment, the flashbacks about Dumbledore and Grindlewald would have been seen another example of wizardly classmates who became enemies. The books are full of competing wizards. James and Snape, Harry and Malfoy, etc. Dumbledore and Grindlewald would have been viewed as two school friends like Harry and Ron, where one eventually became evil. In fact this is probably the parallel that she was going for before she thought up the gay angle.

J.K. Rowling deserves credit for completing a long and reasonably cohesive set of stories that have entertained millions, and nothing more. Instead she's been lauded as some great new master wordsmith, when in fact she's peddling the same derivative fantasy as dozens of other authors. There's nothing wrong with enjoying her work, or even the fanboyism that grows up around any popular fiction, but the reason academics rarely discuss her work is because there's not much there worth discussing.

I think Card is right in saying she wants literary respect. It has to be galling to have made billions off of work that your own peer group likely will never read. Trying to inject some post-modern hipness into the books by making a major character gay was just her way of grabbing at cultural relevance which will never equal greats like Tolkein or Lewis.