[ SECRET POST #4462 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4462 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 53 secrets from Secret Submission Post #639.
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 mostly agree. I don't think it's actually bad for her to do. But it just sort of... doesn't matter. And it's a poor substitute for actually putting it in the movie or the text itself, which she could easily do - they're still making the dang things. It's definitely not unique to her, either.

And I know some people are going to argue that there was subtext in the books, and like... no. There were things that were entirely ambiguous that you could choose to read as Dumbledore being gay, and I did read them that way at the time. But that doesn't even rise to the level of subtext or coding, let alone text.

At the end of the day it's her world and she can do what she wants with it but I also understand why fans find it frustrating.

I don't care about Rowling's post canon comments, but.....

[tree_and_leaf]

I know some people are going to argue that there was subtext in the books, and like... no. There were things that were entirely ambiguous

Isn't subtext ambiguous by definition? Otherwise it would be text.

Re: I don't care about Rowling's post canon comments, but.....

[(Anonymous)]

To me, I would say that subtext is implicit in the text. So there's a specific pattern of codes or signs that underlines the thing in a way that's not explicitly mentioned but is undeniably present.

Whereas with Dumbledore and all, there's nothing that's really implicit. There's things that can be read a certain way, but it's equally plausible to read them as being nothing at all. Subtext is still part of the text, to me.

That's the line that I draw / where I'm kinda coming from.

Re: I don't care about Rowling's post canon comments, but.....

[(Anonymous)]

it's equally plausible to read them as being nothing at all.

If Dumbledore's relationship with a woman was described the same way it was described with Grindelwald, nobody would be questioning it.

Re: I don't care about Rowling's post canon comments, but.....

[(Anonymous)]

If you honestly think there was nothing implicit in the text, you're either very young or very sheltered.

Re: I don't care about Rowling's post canon comments, but.....

[(Anonymous)]

I understand what was in the text, and I understood at it the time. I don't think that "implicit" is the right word to describe it.