[ SECRET POST #4451 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4451 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 18 secrets from Secret Submission Post #637.
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)]

I think it's a pretty unreasonable question to ask when neither writer involved has shied away from writing gay characters in their other works. If the two of them had intended for A/C to be a canon ship in the book, it would have been.

[(Anonymous)]

To be clear: I don't think "Will this relationship be canonically gay in the TV show" is an unreasonable question to ask (in the context of Gaiman being a guy who's generally OK with people asking him stuff and has an open channel for people to do so).

Framing it around queerbaiting when that's not at all what's going on - instead of just asking if it's going to happen - is where it goes wrong. But there's nothing wrong with wanting an unambiguous relationship.

[(Anonymous)]

But it wasn't canonically gay in the books, so why would someone think it would be in the TV show? The TV show is based on the books, and it was not canonically gay in the books. You can headcanon whatever you want, but that doesn't make it canon and it's pretty damn presumptuous to think that your headcanon somehow supersedes the canon that the original creators put in their work.

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes things change in adaptations

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

That doesn't excuse approaching a creator and implying that they need to make your headcanon into canon along with a thinly veiled accusation of queerbaiting.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that the queerbaiting angle was bad! Queerbaiting is not the same as ambiguity.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, and not always for the better. I'm not really certain how openly addressed sexuality would improve on something close to perfection here. And "yes, angels do bone" would open a number of worldbuilding issues that an avowed atheist and a raised-scientologist whose other work was experimenting with Jungian neopaganism might not have wanted to open up.

[(Anonymous)]

"close to perfection" is very strong

[(Anonymous)]

+1