[ SECRET POST #4290 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4290 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 21 secrets from Secret Submission Post #614.
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)]

A better tactic JK could have taken was one taken by Maggie Steifvater when she belated realized and regretted that she'd written a book featuring solely white people: "I'm sorry, that was not good on my part and I should have done better. Racebend them if you wish (as long as it's not just the angry violent one) even though I wrote them white, and I will try to do better in my future books."

JK trying to pretend it was her master plan all along is what rubs people the wrong way. Just own up to it and try to do better in the future.

[(Anonymous)]

What the fuck though. JK Rowling did nothing wrong. She did have non-white presence in her original books, even if they weren't the leads. But that's 1000% okay. She has literally nothing to apologize for because it's okay that her leads were white.

It's also 1000% okay that her new stuff is featuring more non-white people.

[(Anonymous)]

But this character isn't new. Adding a new POC character is great! Pretending like she planned for the actual literal evil pet snake to be an Asian woman all along and get diversity points that way, though, is not great.

[(Anonymous)]

Both of those things are true.

I think we're talking more about the times when she retroactively canonicizes diversity, like with Dumbledore and now Nagini.

[tree_and_leaf]

I still think that, even though Dumbledore's sexuality isn't explicit in the novels, we're meant to read Rita's comments about his relationships with Grindelwald and with Doge as insinuating that Dumbledore is gay, because that is exactly how tabloid journalists used to talk about closeted gay men in the 80s and 90s when they weren't one hundred per cent sure they would win a libel suit. And, of course, we discover that virtually everything Rita says in her biography is based on truth, albeit spun to look as bad as possible.

So Dumbledore is an odd one for me. It's not quite strong enough to count as full canonical representation, but on the other hand it seems to emerge quite organically from canon and didn't feel pasted on or like it came out of left field (which the Nagini thing does).

[(Anonymous)]

Nobody should ever take tactics from Maggie Steifvater. For anything. It's like suggesting taking a tactic from Cassie Clare.

[(Anonymous)]

Nor should they take tactics from Rowling.

[osidiano]

Wait, what? What's wrong with Maggie Steifvater? All her posts seem pretty reasonable and down to Earth, and I didn't think she was plagiarizing anyone's fic the way Cassie Clare did. Did I miss something?