[ SECRET POST #4293 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4293 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________














05. [SPOILERS for Castle Rock]



__________________________________________________



06. [SPOILERS for Deadpool 2]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of rape/assault]

[Buffy the Vampire Slayer]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 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)]

What even? Tokenistic? Why? Because they weren't the three leads? Bull. Their racial diversity may not be huge, but it's pretty much on par with most Western young adult fiction even today, and frankly, it's not demographically unusual for the setting (private English boarding school). There is absolutely nothing wrong with Rowling's cast as they are. She's allowed to have white leads.

Dumbledore not being explicitly confirmed as gay in the narrative doesn't mean Dumbledore wasn't gay in the books. She wrote him as gay, therefore, he's gay.

[(Anonymous)]

the token asian was named cho chang

[(Anonymous)]

Tokenistic? Why? Because they weren't the three leads?

Well, the South Asian characters were named Padma and Parvati Patil, the East Asian character was named Cho Chang, and neither them nor the inner-city Londoner black kid had much agency or role in the plot beyond comic relief and/or short term romantic interest. They were tokenistic in much the same way that Seamus Finnegan - the comedic Irishman named Seamus who talked with a wide brogue - was tokenistic.

And, again, that's not a problem in and of itself, it's just not correct to call it "diverse".

Dumbledore not being explicitly confirmed as gay in the narrative doesn't mean Dumbledore wasn't gay in the books

If he's not gay in the books, he's not gay in the books, regardless of what was in JKR's mind. That's pretty much what "in the books" means. His gayness is extrinsic to the books (confirmed through things that JKR has said) not intrinsic to the books (confirmed or reliably indicated through the text of the books).