[ SECRET POST #4043 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4043 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 37 secrets from Secret Submission Post #579.
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

[fscom]

02. https://i.imgur.com/AH4bFEx.png

[sparrow_lately]

hard same, OP

[(Anonymous)]

Amen.

[(Anonymous)]

The idea that y'all think "het romance" is that different than "gay romance" just boggles me.

If Rowling sucks at romance, she sucks at romance. Period.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this.

[(Anonymous)]

Writing good het romance and good gay romance are two overlapping skill sets, IMO. There's a lot of common ground - more so than otherwise. But especially since people don't write about relationships in a vacuum, there's social context and how that affects the relationship dynamic, for starters. Writing a love story between a man and a woman set in, say, England in the 1800s is going to be slightly different than writing a love story between two men in that time period.

And then there's the mechanics of sex, which might come into play in a romantic fic. Lots of potential for hilarious mistakes, especially for authors who don't do their research.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious what we'll get to see in Fantastic Beasts.

I could totally see myself shipping Law!Dumbledore, but not with Depplewald.

[(Anonymous)]

Dumblawdore falling for Depplewald is good foreshadowing of Albus making poor life choices later, though.

[(Anonymous)]

So true!

[(Anonymous)]

lmao

This inadvertent error was just the beginning...

[(Anonymous)]

Whatevs, we're totally getting that next film, and I CAN'T WAIT.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, but I can see why she kept Dumbledore closeted. The early 90's, when she started writing the books, weren't exactly progressive. She might have kept DD's sexuality under wraps out of habit in later books.

(She does hint to him being gay a few times.)

[(Anonymous)]

Rowling finished writing Deathly Hallows in January 2007 so I'm not sure how much time I really have for that particular excuse

[(Anonymous)]

2007 definitely felt different from 2017, and 2017 wasn't even that great. Not to mention she might have been okay with it, but her editors might not have been. And sure, she can decide one or two additional lines (which is hopefully all it would have been since like the OP of the secret, I really don't want to see her trying more romance) is worth some (more? lol SATANIC WITCHCRAFT) parents actually banning their child from reading the book, but the publishers might have wanted that extra dollar more, so.

DA

[(Anonymous)]

She might have kept DD's sexuality under wraps out of habit in later books.

Also, I agree with AYRT that it's pretty hinted at (to me).

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Whoops, this was meant to reply to the anon above me, sorry orig-anon.

Re: DA

[(Anonymous)]

Orig anon: Thank you. That's my point.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

There were YA novels with LGBT characters in the late 80s. Middle-grade is another thing though.

[(Anonymous)]

"(She does hint to him being gay a few times.)"


...where?

[sabotabby]

Agreed. It's already a bit fucked up that the only queer relationship we see even hinted at in 7 books involves an evil dude and ends so badly that the other guy doesn't have another relationship in 50 years. But it could have been much, much worse.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, there's also Sirius' one-sided crush on James. That doesn't go very well either, though.

Why would she have to write a romance at all?

[(Anonymous)]

Couldn't it just be an unambiguous mention somewhere in the text?

Re: Why would she have to write a romance at all?

[(Anonymous)]

I am unsure why an old man would have felt it appropriate to discuss his sex life with an 11-17-year-old to whom he stood in loco parentis.

Maybe something might have come up at the funeral? Maybe?

But the sex lives of most of the teachers aren't brought up either - the books are from the POV of a child/teenager, in a culture with a lot of Victorian overtones. I suspect most of them simply did not consider it an appropriate area of discussion with the kids.

[(Anonymous)]

To be honest, as unsmooth as the romances in HP were, I don't think they can be used as evidence that she sucks at romance. She was (largely) writing about teens, and teen relationships are always messy. and further than that she was writing, not primarily for an audience of children and teens, but definitely had to write all that in a way that would be okay for them (and there absolutely is a set of widely-accepted guidelines on this in the publishing industry), so she couldn't exactly...~make it real, if ya know what I mean.

I haven't read any of her other work but I understand they were for an adult audience, so I kinda have to try them to see how she can do romance without any blocks.

[(Anonymous)]

I personally get the feeling that it's not that Rowling can't write romance, but by the time romance actually happened in the books, people had had years of shipping under their belts. Theorising, reading fanfics and so on, so there was no way that all expectations were going to be met, whether a person's preferred ships happened or not. Ditto for the ending.