Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2016-08-09 06:27 pm
[ SECRET POST #3506 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3506 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

__________________________________________________
05.

__________________________________________________
06.

__________________________________________________
07.

[Dollhouse]
__________________________________________________
08.

__________________________________________________
09.

[http://transgirlnextdoor.tumblr.com/]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #501.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - 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.

Re: Transcript by OP
(Anonymous) 2016-08-09 10:59 pm (UTC)(link)I guess what I'm frustrated with in this secret, and in the similar sentiments I've seen on tumblr, is this blind insistence that what we can see in historical documents *is* the same thing that we call queer today. So while I agree that writing Hamilton and Laurens as gay would be a valid, interesting, even awesome interpretation, I'm a little put off by the assumption that it would be not just a valuable interpretation, but an essential part of "historical accuracy;" that to leave it out is somehow an intentional (and, by implication, homophobic) omission rather than just....a failure to make a certain interpretation.
So that's what's at the core of my objection: the problem of historical LGBT-ness is tricky, these concepts are really historically defined, Laurens would likely never have aligned himself with the kind of sexuality-as-identity concepts we hold dear today, and acting as though not writing Jamilton (is that what the kinds call it? Jalexander? Haurens?) is a failure to accurately represent history is disingenuous.
That said, they were wild about each other's cocks!
Re: Transcript by OP
(Anonymous) 2016-08-09 11:22 pm (UTC)(link)I agree, as I said, that you can't just look at some letters and say "well clearly Hamilton is gay" or "clearly they were boning". That doesn't mean it is am impossible assertion, and the possibility can be discussed seriously without throwing it out because a few Tumblrinas want slashfic.
Re: Transcript by OP
(Anonymous) 2016-08-09 11:23 pm (UTC)(link)But I guess it just seems to me that it's important to bear in mind that's a matter of ambiguity. I think there are some people who want to use the complexity of identity to close off the question the other way - as a weapon against queer interpretation - and I don't think that's really doing anyone much good. Which I don't think you were doing! But that's maybe where I was coming from.
Re: Transcript by OP
(Anonymous) 2016-08-10 12:03 am (UTC)(link)LOL, Haurens. I see it called Lams, actually, but I don't know if there's a different match name more common in fans of the musical. Lams predates it and is used among history nerds on Tumblr.