[ 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

[cbrachyrhynchos]

He's not anything other than a bunch of words on the page. If those words fail to clearly communicate after hundreds of hours of development, editing, editing, and more editing, the author/artist has failed.

"Word of god," is bullshit because not all ideas are equal. Authors/artists create entire notebooks and sketchbooks filled with bad ideas, of which only a handful are put into development, and only a minority of those make it through the editing process unchanged. If an author or artist feels the published work didn't express those ideas clearly, they can go through the rigorous process of creating a new edition.

Meanwhile LGBTQ fantasy for all ages has moved forward with openly LGBTQ characters. So it's a bit outrageous to keep giving Rowling cookies for a texts that are even more ambiguous about their gay characters than The Count of Monte Cristo.

[(Anonymous)]

"Word of god," is bullshit because not all ideas are equal.

This x1000. I think it's also important to note that there's a big difference between a creator making a statement ex post facto about something like a character's favorite ice cream flavor or something else trivial that might never have had a reason to come up in canon versus something that is a significant part of a character's, well, character. The latter is something that there is absolutely no excuse for not including in the canon itself.

[diet_poison]

That is true, but does Dumbles being gay count as a significant part of his character? I think his storyline with Grindelwald makes sense either way. I mean I think the gay bit makes it more interesting, for sure, but the overall gist of his character isn't that significantly altered, especially considering that some platonic relationships are very intimate and powerful.

[(Anonymous)]

It does make sense either way, but the knowledge of his sexuality adds another dimension to the entire storyline that isn't there if you're viewing it from a purely platonic angle, and I think that makes a difference.

[diet_poison]

To the entire storyline? Do you mean the entire Grindelwald storyline or like, the entire series? Most of the series isn't about Grindelwald. Much of Dumbles' characterization has nothing to do with that storyline. It's an important element, but not the only one.

[diet_poison]

...I am not "giving Rowling cookies" and I don't know what I said to imply such. I think you're reading more into what I said than what is there. I'm talking about WoG, not representation