How much do creators of fiction own their work once they've set it loose on the world?

Author J.K. Rowling, who has rewritten the standards for fiction authors, is in the midst of trying to define and close the borders.

The most spectacular of Rowling's revelations since the publication of the final book in the "Harry Potter" series, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," came last month at Carnegie Hall in New York.

The author revealed Dumbledore, the wizard who was the head of Hogwarts, the school where most of the series is set, was gay.

Amidst applause, Rowling told the crowd she noticed a reference in the film script for the sixth film in the "Potter" series to a woman Dumbledore loved, and wrote in the script's margins, "Dumbledore's gay!"

"If I'd known it would make you so happy," she added, "I would have announced it years ago."

Honestly, my expectation was that this revelation would set off a flood of fresh anti-"Potter" rhetoric from those who think the book "advocates" witchcraft. (Curious, isn't it, how those opinions seem to come only from those who haven't bothered to pick up any copies of the books or watch any of the films?)

To my surprise, though, it's been pretty quiet.

My first thought about the revelation was "Who cares?" My second was, "It would be a shame if this ends up spoiling the books for somebody."

If Dumbledore's sexuality was so important, it should have been addressed in Rowling's books. If the revelation is merely incidental to the series, why bring it up at all? Does the sexuality of Perry Mason or Sherlock Holmes have any effect at all on their stories?

The point of some works of fiction IS sexuality. In others, the sexual world doesn't even exist in its borders. Why force it in?

A friend suggests the story is told from Harry Potter's point of view, and for those Harry's age, sexuality doesn't (or shouldn't) exist for those Dumbledore's age. Which again brings us to the question, why bring it up at all?

All of that said, Rowling's audience's rapturous reaction to the Dumbledore news is oddly uplifting, for reasons that aren't fully clear to me. Maybe it's joy that at least some of Rowling's audience is open-minded to the point of celebration and that some of them ultimately got what Rowling says is the point of the books: "The Potter books in general are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a prolonged plea for an end to bigotry."

Which brings us to the second recent Rowling news issue. Rowling filed suit against an individual who's planning to release a book that includes information about the Potter world.

Rowling had previously cooperated and endorsed a Web site the individual had run. But now she's expressed concern that the lexicon book Steve Vander Ark has compiled (scheduled to come out Nov. 28) will compete with official companion books Rowling intends to write.

"¦and donate proceeds of such books to charity," Rowling's suit continues.

In other words, if the court doesn't stop publication of the "Lexicon" book, the children will suffer. Won't someone please think of the children?

The only problem is, at least a dozen Potter companion books already exist. You don't need to do any more than type "Harry Potter Lexicon" at amazon.com. You won't find a listing for Vander Ark's book (yet), but you WILL find books like "Fact, Fiction and Folklore in Harry Potter's World: An Unoffical Guide"; "Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader"; Mapping the World of the Sorcerer's Apprentice (Harry Potter)"; "Looking for God in Harry Potter"; and "Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands: A Christian Dialogue with Harry Potter, Star Wars, and the Lord of the Rings."

Now, there's a danger in using amazon.com's charts as a true gauge of anything, so just view this as an exercise. Rowling has in excess of a dozen books in Amazon's chart of top 1,000 sellers. The books mentioned above rank between 14,967th and 290,463rd on Amazon's list.

Do you think any of those books are a threat to anything Potterverse with Rowling's name on it? In theory, that's what she's going to have to prove in court. And my guess is the court will say, "You think any book with your name on it is threatened by any book without your name on it? It is to laugh."

Or words to that effect.

Rowling has given us the first great fictional creation of the Internet Age. Like Gene Roddenberry ("Star Trek") and George Lucas ("Star Wars"), to name just a couple of those who created great fictional characters before her, she's learning that once that rabid fan base gets hold of something, sometimes they'll do things out of the creator's control.

Like it or not.

Tim Cain can be reached at timcain@herald-review.com or 421-6908.