[ SECRET POST #4758 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4758 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Witcher]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[Mass Effect Trilogy]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Emma (2020)]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Saiyuki]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #681.
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

[fscom]

04. https://66.media.tumblr.com/0e92f8fb9f283de60d3fa3811617bcc4/cef31adec0f2c667-7c/s1280x1920/2d31a6ffca84a78bed97fefa1112d35a9dc7a26d.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

I would also like to institute a rule of "you cannot adapt a work of classic literature if your name is Stephen Moffat"

[(Anonymous)]

Sounds good to me

[calystarose]

COSIGNED

[(Anonymous)]

I am in favor of this rule!

[bur]

Please. Please please please.

[(Anonymous)]

Hahahaha yes.

[(Anonymous)]

YES PLEASE.

[catdetective]

aldkfjlds yeah, I'll cosign that.

But also I'm with you, OP. Stoker was SO queer, and Dracula reflects that! What the hell is 'bi-homocidal' even supposed to mean, how is that different from just being ordinarily homocidal?

[(Anonymous)]

Here here.

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely.

[(Anonymous)]

That should always be the first and most important rule.

[philstar22]

Okay, so, Dracula doesn't have sex with anyone. Dracula kills and drinks the blood of people of all genders and sexes. So bi-homicidal seems an actually accurate term? I haven't watched the adaption yet, but if it is keeping sex out of it altogether and not sexualizing Dracula, I'm all for that. If he's still flirting and coming on to just women, that's not cool. But it doesn't sound like that's what Moffat is doing?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's possible to have a good version of Dracula that doesn't treat Dracula as erotic on some level. It definitely wouldn't be a faithful adaptation of the source text.

[(Anonymous)]

Seconding this.

[silverr]

The term "bi-homicidal" is a ridiculous neologism; "homicidal" is perfectly adequate.

Moffatt should stop trying to be clever.

[(Anonymous)]

Geez, really? I was interested in watching this show, and was definitely hoping for a bisexual Dracula. Is that a hard no?

I don't get how you could have anything other than a bi Dracula. That first arc in the book with whatshisname, the young male traveler who he basically kidnaps, feels about as sexual as you can get without outright saying it. Academia has long and almost unanimously brought up the connection between vampirism and sexual/erotic freedom. Tied with rumors that Bram Stoker may have been interested in men... it's just frustrating to not get a proper bi/gay Dracula in virtually any of the retellings of the story.

[(Anonymous)]

Technically the guy who wrote Dracula was extremely closeted, and he did things like making Dracula bite necks because he thought it was less sexual. Otherwise yes, I completely agree.
Also... what the hell does that title even mean?

[(Anonymous)]

Dracula the novel is hella queer, absolutely, but the queerness does not come from Dracula himself. It comes from the way all the heroes pull together in the face of him. And a little bit before that, too, since Lucy honestly wished she could marry all three of her suitors, and given how clingy and close the three men very rapidly get once shit starts hitting the fan, they might not have made a bad go of it had Victorian England allowed any such thing. The whole four-way transfusion to try and save her is a significantly more romantic sharing of blood than anything Dracula himself is remotely involved in (if also extremely medically unsafe in hindsight). Add in that everyone loves Lucy, and everyone loves Mina, and Mina and Lucy write really lovely letters to each other as well, and it all gets very polyamorous very quickly. And then stays that way for the entire novel.

Dracula is the threat. The heroes are polyamorous and queer as hell.

[(Anonymous)]

No it also very much comes from Dracula

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, people have been reading Dracula telling his brides not to touch Jonathan because Jonathan is His as queer since forever.

The queerness is coming from Bram Stoker, and it's ALL over the place.

[(Anonymous)]

Queer can mean anything anymore. There are so many vanilla hetros who call themselves Queer just because being in a stereotypical heterosexual relationship isn't cool anymore. Dracula isn't Queer.


Dracula the character is asexual but the story is one of repression and bisexuality. The character isn't driven by sexual desire. He wants to feed and uses any means necessary. Sexuality is one of his tools. He is more of a lioness taking down a gazelle then a man looking to fuck. The whole tone of the book is one of bisexuality and how on the surifice the Victorians were sexually oppressed but there were raging sex beasts under that veneer of respectability. They could have made Caligula blush with what when on behind closed doors.

[(Anonymous)]

The second and first paragraphs here respectively are proof that you can be very intelligent about books and very stupid about real life and common sense.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like it doesn't really matter in the end because the show is bland as fuck.

[(Anonymous)]

Dracula kissing men, Dracula biting men...I don't care which it is as long as there's either one of those options.