[ SECRET POST #2764 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2764 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Teen Wolf]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Game Grumps]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Spring Awakening]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Free! Eternal Summer]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Penny Dreadful/Sherlock Holmes]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Mobile Fighter G Gundam]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Tucker & Dale vs. Evil]


__________________________________________________



10.
[he Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug - Benedict Cumberbatch/Andy Serkis]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #394.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

"It bugs me when people interpret lose relationships between people of the same gender as deliberate subtext"

Uhh. But it very well might be deliberate subtext? You're not saying "I don't like it when people claim it is 100% canon" you're saying you don't like it when people interpret it a certain way, and suggest that it might be deliberate subtext?

Deliberate gay subtext has existed long before the Victorian era, sonny.

[(Anonymous)]

And just to add, "misinterpret historical details" seems like a pretty weird claim. Like saying it was normal for two men to call one another "my dear" and not necessarily indicative of romantic feelings is fine, but just as with modern works, that doesn't mean the characters can't have romantic feelings or that the author didn't even intend for potential homosexual subtext.

Again, despite claiming you are a history nerd, you seem to think intentional gay subtext is a modern thing? Which is... misguided to say the least.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's likely there was more intentional gay subtext per se then than there is now. Nowadays, a person who wants to write about same-sex romantic/sexual relationships has a lot fewer barriers, to put it mildly. There is no need to disguise it or veil it if one doesn't want to. In the Victorian era, you damn well better. Yet some authors managed to convey their true meaning anyway, to readers who knew what to look for. (Meaning, LGBT readers who knew the codes and wanted to see themselves.)

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't be surprised. And, it should be said, plenty of scholars would also suggest possible homoeroticism in those works, it isn't just delusional fangirls. Bram Stoker's Dracula comes to mind first. Furthermore, it's not like it was always that disguised - especially in art. In an era that still admired Greek myth, plenty of art of Ganymedes and other "gay" icons and themes, not to mention art of St. Sebastian has long been considered homoerotic... it's not like intentional homoeroticism was just too shocking for dainty Victorian minds to even consider.

[arcadiaego]

Eva Green's character in Penny Dreadful is canonically messed up because of Victorian attitudes to sex (and admittedly the fact that she's possessed by the devil, but that's because of the sex too) and the whole show is at least partially about criticisng the social norms of that society. Add to that the fact that it's a contemporary show and it's an odd example to use which suggests to me that the OP's concerns aren't just historical accuracy.