fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

+1

This is a no win situation. People who have already decided JKR is a hack and a shitty ally will never change their minds no matter what. Never. Nothing will ever be good enough.

I'm still on the fence. If you have a character you declare, post-end, was ~gay the whole time~ and now you have a chance in a prequel to actually show it, I'm gonna side-eye it if you don't take that chance. Like... even if we're going down this meta road of homosexuality being a taboo, people were still gay back then, they didn't just disappear. There's history in gay decorum while under intense scrutiny. Research it.

There's history in gay decorum while under intense scrutiny. Research it.

Excuse you? That's pretty condescending. Why don't you chill?

Anyway, this bears repeating: there is no pleasing everyone. Someone is going to be critical. Someone is going to bitch. Someone is going to make a mountain out of a mole hill. It always happens. Large fandoms are shit like that. No matter what move is made, someone is going to be pissed. Someone is going to accuse JKR of something crude, or unsavory. Whatever move she chooses to make, it might as well be whatever move fits the narrative best. I don't know what that move is, because I lost interest in HP after Deathly Hallows.

It'd be awesome if we get even a hint of Dumbledore's sexual orientation. Absolutely! But wouldn't it be jarring and awkward if it just got shoehorned in for the sake of being PC? If it's meant to be, let it happen naturally. Also, as other people have pointed out, JKR may only have so much control over this. There are still soccer mom types that pitch fits over LGBTQ+ representation in popular media. And that's just in countries where LGBTQ+ tolerance is relatively high. Let's not forget the plethora of countries where LGBTQ+ content is just straight up illegal. No, it isn't right. Yes, it does suck. Sure, they could do more to combat intolerance. And OK, maybe JKR tweets about her own damn books too much. But I suspect the problem here is more mutli-faceted than simply refusing to make a character explicitly gay. What's wrong with suspecting that?

Why would depicting/mentioning on-screen a character's canon sexual orientation by jarring, awkward, or shoehorned? I think it's awkward to /avoid/ showing a gay Dumbledore in a prequel--with the man he was in a relationship with, no less!

Would it be avoiding it to just not mention it, though? Like it's never been mentioned in the books? Keep in mind, I've only got HP 1-7 to reference, because I quit caring after that. I'm not familiar with Fantastic Beasts, but like, just thinking about Dumbledore from the original HP books, for example, aside from learning about his past with Gillert, his sexual orientation was never, ever relevant, or called into question in those books. So I do agree with with the point some HP fans make that it's poor, if not non-existent LGBTQ+ representation, because if we're looking at 1-7, it is.

So, to avoid it being awkward and shoehorned for the sake of being PC, or adhering to the word of God out of nowhere, the writers would have to take care to have him in a situation where an indication, or mention of his sexual orientation would be appropriate. I don't think it would be in, say, battle, or professional settings, which is where I tend to envision Dumbledore the most.

I'm not saying it can't, or shouldn't be done, but like...?

OK. Let's try this. How would you do it? Not trying to be an asshole. Genuinely curious. How would you do it?

If it's meant to be, let it happen naturally.

This implies that the reason it's not happening is because it wouldn't be natural, like it wouldn't be creatively appropriate or something (I assume). I strongly suspect that's not the reason it's not happening. I am dubious.

But I suspect the problem here is more mutli-faceted than simply refusing to make a character explicitly gay. What's wrong with suspecting that?

I think people are pretty familiar with the general idea that there are financial reasons behind it. They just don't find that an especially compelling excuse. Particularly for a billionaire who is in charge of one of the most valuable intellectual properties in the world.

This implies that the reason it's not happening is because it wouldn't be natural

In some situations, it wouldn't be natural to just bring it up one's sexual orientation out of the blue (i.e. in battle, as a head master overlooking a school of children under constant treat of an attack by Voldemort, etc.) I'm not saying they shouldn't do it at all, but I am drawing a blank on how they can do it without it seeming out of place, because then it's like they're only putting it there to please people, and that's a hair trigger for some folks demanding better LGBTQ+ representation in media.

I think people are pretty familiar with the general idea that there are financial reasons behind it.

It's not just about finances, otherwise it would be a poor excuse. People pitch exhausting hissy fits. It's illegal in some countries. Who knows the full scope of what they're actually grappling with there? I doubt it's as simple as money. I'm allowed to doubt that. It might be lazy writing, though. That I wouldn't doubt.

re 1: I think it could have been done in the books - after all, a huge part of Book 6 is devoted to Harry and Dumbledore having private, personal, lessons which include a great deal of conversation not necessarily limited to Harry's formal education, and Book 7 has a ton of stuff with various characters talking about Dumbledore's personal life and early years in various ways. Also, Harry and his cohorts are 17 by book 7.

But I was mostly talking about not doing it in the forthcoming movie when I said that I didn't think it was for creative reasons.

It's not just about finances, otherwise it would be a poor excuse. People pitch exhausting hissy fits. It's illegal in some countries. Who knows the full scope of what they're actually grappling with there? I doubt it's as simple as money.

I guess I just don't see how any of those things are obstacles except insofar as they cause the film to make less money. All of those things I would consider mostly financial.

I think it could have been done in the books

You know what? I agree with this. My previous brain-picky arguments were mostly fueled by the fact that this wasn't done in the books, and I'm a stickler for adhering to established canon. I wasn't thinking about what should have been done at all, but now that you mention it, if he was truly meant to be gay, I think Book 6 would have been the ideal chance to reveal that, because you're right. Dumbledore and Harry really bonded in that book. It sucks that it didn't happen. What a waste.

I guess I just don't see how any of those things are obstacles except insofar as they cause the film to make less money.

There are reputations to consider, harassment, abuse, etc. It's still not a great choice overall, though. I just hate to see JKR get thrown under the bus for something that might not even be fully her choice. LGBTQ+ deserves more/better representation, though. Maybe next time. Hopefully.

Dumbledore is in the same movie as Grindelwald, in conflict with Grindelwald, with a broken heart because of Grindelwald. How is that "out of the blue?" How do those plot beats not influence scriptwriting and performance? It's the same problem I had with Thor: Ragnarok, one line that makes it clear that Hela killed Valkyrie's lover, and that character's actions make a lot more sense.

I mean, some people are going to still think she's a hack, probably. People are always going to have different opinions. If what you're demanding is that there's something JK Rowling can do and then 100% of people on earth are going to think she's awesome, then no, that's obviously never going to happen.

but I do think that many people, maybe even most people, would actually just, you know, be happy about it and think it was cool.

I'd be happy about it, too, and it would be cool. Maybe there's still room for it to happen. I don't know, because I don't keep up with the HP world anymore. Stopped caring a long time ago.

But even if it happens, some self-righteous asshole will mount their high horse and piss all over it no matter how it's done. Classic large fandom attention whoring. Which is where I'm struggling to see the point in even trying to please people anymore. Way I see it, people don't even deserve to be pleased.

The only point I ever agreed on in this whole years long diatribe is that Dumbledore, having no unmistakable indication one way or another with his sexual orientation, doesn't really count as gay representation. It's more like random trivia that does fuck all for the world of Harry Potter as a whole. Even so, iirc, I thought JKR revealed his sexuality only because they were trying to arbitrarily give him a female love interest in the movies, not because she was fishing for PC brownie points? I could be wrong, though. Again, stopped keeping track long ago.

But even if it happens, some self-righteous asshole will mount their high horse and piss all over it no matter how it's done.

Ergo, they shouldn't do it?

Which is where I'm struggling to see the point in even trying to please people anymore. Way I see it, people don't even deserve to be pleased.

Well, first of all, I don't see why it even needs to be about pleasing people. It's also about doing the right thing. Second, even setting that aside, this still seems kind of over-the-top. Some people won't be pleased, therefore fuck everybody?

Like, yeah, some people will disagree, like they do about literally everything that's ever happened in the entire history of the world. Why would you expect something to be universally beloved? Nothing, ever, in the history of the world, has been universally beloved. There has been some equivalent of a person in the fandom willing to piss all over it for literally everything in history. I don't think that's a reasonable expectation.

Ergo, they shouldn't do it?

Didn't say that. Didn't even imply it. Don't put words in my mouth.

It's also about doing the right thing.

This is true. But here's the thing: how would they do it? How does one simply be gay to the satisfaction of an audience looking to a gay character to be gay? I think that's a legitimate question. What is "good" representation of a gay character? What is a "good" portrayal? And how is it relevant to the story?

You're the one choosing to believe that I think they shouldn't even try, which I never said. I did ask why should they bother trying to please people, though, and I stand by that.

DA

What is the meaningful difference between not trying to explicitly represent a gay character, and not trying to please people who want to see a gay character represented?

People have standards about how gay people are represented. And I'm struggling to see how they can bring it up while staying true to Dumbledore's character and the narrative. I'm not saying they shouldn't try, though. I just need a hand seeing how.

I'm struggling to see how they can work his sexual orientation into the narrative, because I, as well as many other folks, saw zero indication one way or the other in Books 1-7, and the revelation of Dumbledore's sexual orientation was purely a "word of God" moment for some of us. That's the source material I'm working with, not any supplementary material. Does that make sense?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject