[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

+1

[(Anonymous)]

exactly this. Rita Skeeter couldn't even get this information out of anyone who ever knew him using memory charms and Veritaserum, why would he just. tell someone casually in the 1940s.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

I think the difference between you and me is that I don't think of that as good, in-character writing that Dumbledore's sexuality was never addressed. Rather, I mostly think of it as a failure on Rowling's part.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

So you think all characters' sexualities should always be explicit in every story? Even if there is no narrative reason for it?

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

No. That is not what I think at all.

I do think that there should be more stories including LGBT people in general, told in a wide variety of ways. I'm never really sure what "narrative reason" actually means. The idea that there's some universal narrative reason that consistently makes it impossible to have LGBT characters seems like such a strange think to invoke. There's such a wide variety of ways that narratives can work and individual stories that can be told. I'm not interested in dictating any specific way it has to be done, but I think we should see more of it in general.

And then also, in this specific instance, I don't think that the choice that was made was a particularly good one in terms of the narrative, and I think it was also a missed opportunity that they didn't have an LGBT story in the books themselves. That doesn't mean that there's any one specific way that it needed to be done. But, no, I don't think that the choice not to say anything about it in the book itself was a good choice.

And I don't think the new movie should feel tied down by something that I think was a mistake in the first place.

Re: +1

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Well, in this case the intense emotional relationship between the two is the elephant in the room of the advertised conflict around the title character of the film.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

You really don’t believe they’re going for a slow build, huh? You’re just willing to write all 4 coming movies off based on the 2nd?

Re: +1

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Don't know. Don't care that much. I'm willing to write off the franchise based on the dullness of the first movie. I'm just responding to the claim that we need a "narrative reason" when that's never been the case for characters established as straight, and there is one in the story arc described by the movie anyway.

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you

Re: +1

[(Anonymous)]

Have they done literally anything that would give us reason to believe that it's a slow build and that we should trust them?