[ SECRET POST #2804 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2804 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - unrelated .gifs ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, still don't really see what you're driving at. I can understand that the context changes things, but I don't really see what you mean specifically.

[(Anonymous)]

Simply put: it's not fair to call what Gene Roddenberry did queerbaiting. Today's authors actually COULD make some of these pairings canon. Instead, they just play with homoerotic tension and then go "NO HOMO." But subtext with plausible deniability was the best Roddenberry could do. And thus bothers me when people equate 1979 to 2014.

[(Anonymous)]

Ah, thank you for the clarification!

[(Anonymous)]

gay characters already existed in the 1979 and 80s, though.
You seem to not take into account that maybe they didn't make it canon because they didn't want to. Either way you can't know but if that was the case, the novelization can be perceived as queer baiting or ship baiting, regardless that being written years ago.