[ SECRET POST #2713 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2713 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 084 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

What constitutes "obviously not the case" to you? Everyone has their own perceptions, and what may seem obvious to you might not be so obvious to someone else or vice versa.

OP:

[(Anonymous)]

When the writers/actors/etc. have explicitly stated that the characters are not gay/bi/etc.
Example: Supernatural, Sherlock, etc.

Re: OP:

[(Anonymous)]

da, but what are your thoughts on the inverse? I know a character from a film where the actor has said several times he intended him to be and played him as gay, but there has recently been a trend of writing this character with a woman (who is not from the original film) romantically. Should the actor's assertion that the character is queer mean that fic writing him with women is erasure even if the sexuality is never explicit in the film?

Re: OP:

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious,what film?

Re: OP:

[(Anonymous)]

If it's not in the movie, it's not canon. Carlyle was a little too subtle for his own good with this one. (I assume you're talking about Begbie; if not, I apologize.)

Re: OP:

[(Anonymous)]

haha winner winner~

It just makes me mad because I've had my headcanon(?) of Begbie for years now and it feels like a slap in my queer face...

Re: OP:

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that someone else has a different head canon for him doesn't make yours less valid. Just don't read those stories. The movie and character are unchanged even if you ship him with Renton (which you may or may not) and I ship him with Belle (which I don't, but I know people who do). The diversity is what makes fandom fun.