All the numerous romantic and sexual relationships, all the flirting and snogging, all the married couples (regardless of whether or not they kiss in the books) in the HP universe are straight.

To get back to Neil Gaiman, and to play devil's advocate, I noticed that people noticed his protagonists were black because the only mention of people's race was to point out who was white.

Do you think that can be achieved similarly with sexual orientation?

readings and relevance and responsibility

This is definitely the crux. These differ according to the individual, naturally. So, my experience of the book (and surrounding information) as a gay female reader isn't necessarily going to be the same as a straight male reading of the book, as an example. I don't even know how to summarize as it is early and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee but I do have a point in there somewhere that I'll try to tease out at some point.

After discussing this with GF last night, she brought up that she was really annoyed with the Epilogue of the last book, which she mentioned to me at the time she finished it (prior to Gay!Dumbledore). It was explicitly stated that all of the characters were (Gud font) married or in hetero relationships, most with kids. I hadn't even thought about it, but there's another example of reading the book through an individual lens that is not incorrect or wrong.

ETA: I'm only continuing the discussion because I do find it an interesting topic, not because I'm feeling ornery and fractious. Though I could still use more caffeine. And possibly some chocolate.

It was explicitly stated that all of the characters were

Yeah, I agree. I think it's pretty clear that the Potterverse is very heteronormative. The question comes in (for me, at least) when you wonder what kind of obligation a writer of children's books has to defy those kinds of expectations.

Which is really just me repeating what's been said.

Do you think that can be achieved similarly with sexual orientation?

Sure, but I think you'd have to have actual gay characters in order to achieve that. *g*

In Anansi Boys, as you said, we come to understand that most of the main characters are black when the white characters are explicitly referred to as white. But that doesn't mean that the black characters' ethnicity/skin color/what have you is obscured or only mentioned obliquely. It's not hidden, just not pointed out as the first thing you know about them. That tactic also works for Anansi Boys partly because *most* of the main characters are black.

I think it's certainly possible to write a story with a lot of queer characters in which only the straight characters' sexuality is explicitly identified, thus defining the other characters as queer in comparison. But I'd also expect that some of those queer characters would, at some point, say or do things that would also mark them as, you know, queer: maybe talk about a date they went on or a celebrity they have a crush on, a movie they went to see, *something*. The story would also have to take place in a setting where, to some extent, queer was the default.

what kind of obligation a writer of children's books has to defy those kinds of expectations.

I would say none. But to do it "off-screen" raises these issues.

Do they actually say the character's races in Anansi Boys?

The story would also have to take place in a setting where, to some extent, queer was the default.

Anansi Boys didn't take place in a black setting as far as I could tell.

Me, I had just reread Sandman where Neil had a black Jamaican character with the surname Bustamonte, and there are major Jamaican historical figures surnamed Bustmante, so I figured he was talking about us again--but our Bustamante wasn't really that black, so I didn't make assumption as to the races in the story.

Which is the long way round of saying--I didn't notice what race they were, but I also didn't care. I was more interested with them being Jamaican, and in the end disappointed because it was nominal.

I would say none. But to do it "off-screen" raises these issues.

Agreeing with GC once more. And I hate to leave off this conversation now, because I'm finding it really interesting, but I have to go to work.

GC, As the person who said "I don't think your statement is fair", I apologize if you felt that I was dismissing your feelings on the matter. I wasn't. In fact, I can see both sides of the big argument equally well. I was responding to a very specific statement you made, that "it appears to be worth it to [JKR] now that the series is safely wrapped." It's the "worth it" part that I had a problem with.

Let me try again: Rowling made a conscious decision to not explicitly discuss Dumbledore's sexuality in the book. We can agree or disagree with that decision, but it's the decision she made. Now, later on, for the first time (I assume) someone specifically asked her about Dumbledore's love life. What are her options? She can lie (not likely), dodge the question (which would probably have been worse), or she could do what she did.

Again, if she had been previously asked the question, and either lied or dodged it, then I agree with you 100%.

Don't have time to take part in this conversation. But my takes is essentially GCs.