[ SECRET POST #3512 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3512 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
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

[diet_poison]

That mindset is weird to me. What makes canon itself the arbiter over anything else the creator has said? That only thing that makes canon distinct from fanon is that the creator is the one who made it.

I can accept that some people separate WoG from canon, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Why?

Not to mention it seems really disrespectful to claim that something a creator said about their own character isn't true.

[(Anonymous)]

Because sometimes creators will say things in interviews or whatever that contradict what is in the actual canon. They don't always remember every single detail of the canon off the top of their head; they're human and can make mistakes just like anyone else.

[diet_poison]

Some canons contradict themselves though.

[(Anonymous)]

Which is enough of a mess to deal with on its own without adding things that the creator says outside of the canon itself into the mix.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems more disrespectful to me for a creator to insist something they didn't include should be treated as if it was. This is particularly true of Dumbledore because Rowling did try to insist that she included. I don't know if she still does. But it's not limited to that: the canon is the canon, adaptations are adaptations, headcanons are headcanons, and what a creator says about their work after the fact is irrelevant.

[tree_and_leaf]

Does the narrator explicitly say Dumbledore is gay? No. Does the text of "Deathly Hallows" strongly hint in that direction, yes it does. In particular, the way Rita writes about him is exactly the way British tabloids used to dogwhistle a celebrity's sexuality. Between that and the tone of his letter to Grindlewald, I inferred that we were meant to read him as gay.