[ SECRET POST #4330 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4330 ⌋

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 #620.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. https://i.imgur.com/rK3Qawn.png

[(Anonymous)]

Do people not know what the world "explicitly" means?

[(Anonymous)]

I would not consider that wording/screenshot explicit? I mean, explicit to me is, "Grindelwald and I were gay lovers."/"We dated."/etc.

This is hella implicit of their relationship to me, but not explicit because he doesn't come right out and define their relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

Definitely agree! I would say strongly implicit - possibly even incontrovertible - but strong implication is still implication.

[(Anonymous)]

Right, I mean, I'd probably strongly side-eye anyone who insisted that they WEREN'T in some sort of romantic relationship based on the few scenes I've seen from the trailers, but it's still only implicated imo.

[(Anonymous)]

It would appear not. I'm not sure whether it's nice or a little disheartening that people are satisfied with so little.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I'm not dissatisfied in this instance because it doesn't seem incongruent for him to be subtle about their relationship. I think the caginess about it suits Dumbledore's personality, he always seemed to keep EVERYTHING close to the vest. Plus as anon upthread said, at this point in the timeline, everything is still a bit raw, I could see him not wanting to be completely transparent about their past together.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you even read the whole secret, or...

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. I don't know what point you're driving at, though.

[(Anonymous)]

To me it looks like yet again JKR wants the representation cookies without actually making her gay character gay. Especially considering Dumbledore’s relationship with his brother; just about every relationship he has over the course of his life is closer than what he shares with his brother.

[(Anonymous)]

@ everyone who ever said "well Harry wouldn't have known"

you know who would have found the fuck out?

RITA SKEETER

THE WOMAN WHO WROTE A GODDAMN EXPOSÉ AND WOULD HAVE SOLD HER ACTUAL SOUL AND ALSO SOMEONE ELSE'S FOR SOMETHING AS JUICY AS 'EX-BOYFRIEND OF WIZARD HITLER' FOR HER BOOK

it makes the story worse and Rita's character less consistent for the books NOT to have made the reveal explicit. it makes DH's look at themes about love less substantive too

anyway I don't care about the movies at all just venting

[(Anonymous)]

I feel this comment.

[(Anonymous)]

When you put it that way, I can see how Dumbledore would have made an intense effort to keep that old relationship under wraps.

I thought before it was just habitual reticence plus a teacher of a boarding school not wanting to be painted with the "B-but aren't homosexuals only half a step from paedophiles he might be grooming/recruiting our children no offense it's just that parents are *concerned*" brush.

But wariness around Rita Skeeter makes perfect sense.

[(Anonymous)]

*rolls eyes* It wouldn't be as big of a deal if Sony, Disney, and Warner were not banking on getting representation cookies (and dollars) from subtext and "word of god" publicity while creating stuff that's just subtext that could be further buried for international censors. After about a dozen times, it starts to get old.

[(Anonymous)]

FTR: Taking a pass because multiple reviews say it's even more dull and unoriginal than the first movie.

[ninety6tears]

It's not like we know they fucked though, if I'm not mistaken? Grindelwald was probably aware of Dumbledore's feelings but I always imagined he was just a manipulative tease, and while I think it's annoyingly predictable that they're sticking to subtext I don't know that I wanted much more from it.

[(Anonymous)]

tbh, from a narrative standpoint, i totally agree with you, op. the first movie was set in 1926. assuming that the last one will deal with grindelwald's defeat in 1945, that's a total of 19 years to cover, and for dumbledore to go from 'i can't face grindelwald' to 'i have to face grindelwald'. it wouldn't feel like... particularly enjoyable storytelling to cram all the conflict – from dumbledore's past of encouraging and agreeing with grindelwald, to being in love with him, to the ambiguous death of his sister, to dumbledore trying to put the task on newt, to realising he has to do it himself – into one movie, especially not one this early in the series. and i definitely agree that it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing dumbledore would just be casually open about. he's not bellatrix lestrange, he's just not that likely to waltz into a room and announce how he had the hots for a genocidal maniac. things need buildup, and if you have three more movies to go, you might as well build it up.

as a gay person, i'm also a bit annoyed at some of the debate? i'm all for explicit rep, i'm all for out and proud characters. but gdi if this wasn't two men, but a man and a woman, there would be none of this argument, because bob staring broodingly at alice's image in the desire mirror (tm) would be explicit enough. i hate that some people act like gay only counts if it runs into the room yelling HAVE YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GAYBLET OF FIYA. or that a character only counts as canon gay if they're canonically making out with a person of the same sex right this moment, as if real life gay people get less gay if they're single and not looking to mingle right this second.

....... that being said, i do understand the frustration, and i can relate to the impatience, and i see why people are hesitant to put much faith in a big name hollywood franchise when it comes to the subject matter of, y'know, on screen queerness. i get wanting them to get real explicit real quick, and i do understand why it's important to actually put undeniable evidence on screen – as opposed to the wishy washy maybe things.

[(Anonymous)]

HAVE YOU PUT YOUR NAME IN THE GAYBLET OF FIYA?

Sure, right before we did the dirty. *makes suggestive hand gestures* But then I said NO HOMO! HAHAHA! GOT YOU! HAHAHA!

/s

[(Anonymous)]

This is a good and reasonable post you've made.

i'm all for explicit rep, i'm all for out and proud characters. but gdi if this wasn't two men, but a man and a woman, there would be none of this argument, because bob staring broodingly at alice's image in the desire mirror (tm) would be explicit enough.

Yeah but at the same time, with an M/F couple, that could be a legitimate thematic choice to make. With a gay couple, that could be a legitimate thematic choice but in reality is nearly always a concession to people who don't visible gayness. So it's tough.

or that a character only counts as canon gay if they're canonically making out with a person of the same sex right this moment, as if real life gay people get less gay if they're single and not looking to mingle right this second.

from my point of view (as someone who agrees with the idea that the representation of Dumbledore was some weak shit) - I don't think the argument is whether Dumbledore is a gay character. He certainly is a gay character. The question is how that's represented in the text and narratives, and especially in the books, whether it's really present at all, and then how does that affect what it means for him to be a gay character.

[(Anonymous)]

This probably wouldn't be such a debate if people would quit stanning for Dumbledore as a great example of LGBTQ people in middle-grade/ya fantasy rather than just moving on to better books.

[(Anonymous)]

“because bob staring broodingly at alice's image in the desire mirror (tm) would be explicit enough”

because we live in a heteronormative culture. You can have a boy and a girl bicker nonstop in media and everyone will go LOOK they love each other!! But you can have two guys or two girls say I love you/you are my most important person/I would die for you/etc... and the reaction is “look what great friends they are :) what a deep brother/sister bond!!! No homo lol” which is what always inevitably happens unless you get them to leave no room for interpretation because society is heteronormative by default and even then you get dumb homophobes.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank God fandom exists for the people who look at the same sex relationships and DO say that the characters are fucking

[ayebydan]

well said. ♥

[(Anonymous)]

Having a straight couple gaze longingly at each other works as a narrative subtext because outside the work are THOUSANDS of examples of straight couples getting together in stories. We understand that this is a thing that happens with little to no blatant confirmation of affection because of all of the other work confirming it for us.

With a gay couple doing the same, the vast network of other works in which a gay couple are openly together doesn't exist. The subtext fails to work because it is not supported by outside context.

Or to use an analogy: a side salad is nice to have when you also are served a full steak dinner, but when all you're going to get is the side salad, it's not really enough.

[(Anonymous)]

Yet JKR and her ilk are gonna clamor for representation/diversity points with doing the barest of minimal. Hurray, gays rejoice here is your crumbs be happy we gave you something now continue to kiss saint woke JKR’s ass.