[ SECRET POST #3830 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3830 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Drake Bell and Josh Peck from Drake & Josh]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Death in Paradise, Ardal O'Hanlon]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Dreamwidth Roleplay]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Final Fantasy X & X-2]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Outlander]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Animal Crossing/Legend of Zelda]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Daredevil TV]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #548.
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

[(Anonymous)]

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/bjx8xm/the-shockingly-convincing-argument-that-severus-snape-is-transgender

Like

I don't think any of the arguments advanced are necessarily unreasonable, in and of themselves, when you're talking in terms of a relationship with the text and an interpretive strategy that goes beyond the text. Like, really, all you're doing in that case is choosing to emphasize specific textual ambiguities and use them for your own purposes. Which is fine. Going beyond the text is a fine way of reading. I have no beef with doing that, and I think the actual Snape fans in the piece mostly frame it that way (feels like ~80% percent).

It's really the Vice article itself that's framing it as HIDDEN SECRETS OF HARRY POTTER REVEALED that bothers me. Especially because it 100% is not a HIDDEN SECRET OF HARRY POTTER in any kind of authorial intent sense, I tell you that much straight off the motherfucking press.

[miss_yuka]

"Shockingly Convincing"
lmao

"if she had written Snape as a cisgender woman, no part of Snape's story would be greatly affected."
Really, for how many characters would changing their gender actually affect the story though?

And are they seriously convinced that this bullying manchild has some sort of motherly feelings for Harry (instead of just guilt that he got Lily killed)? Jesus Christ.

[(Anonymous)]

"Really, for how many characters would changing their gender actually affect the story though?"

This, SO MUCH. I'm always boggled that Eisenhower-era thinking about gender has resurged to such an extent. The idea that certain personality traits are absolutely male, and others female, and all are mutually exclusive, and the only way to embody the 'other gender's traits' is literally to change your gender?

Such such... ugh. *smh*

[(Anonymous)]

"if she had written Snape as a cisgender woman, no part of Snape's story would be greatly affected."

Well, for one thing, unrequited love for Lily would probably be treated differently...

[(Anonymous)]

On Tumblr, a community of Harry Potter scholars

I bust out laughing at this. I'm sorry.

[(Anonymous)]

"When Snape tells the class that she doesn't "expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins," she invokes classically feminine witchcraft symbolism."

Yeah, isn't it weird that a character in a world where witchcraft exists, who practices witchcraft, and actually teaches at a school for witchcraft, would be associated with WITCHCRAFT, of all things? Why else would the author have done that, unless it was to say something about the character's gender?

[(Anonymous)]

geez, that statement is sexist as hell.

Because no one but an ovary-carrier could have aesthetic appreciation of a craft?