Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2020-05-14 06:14 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2020-05-14 06:14 pm
[ SECRET POST #4878 ]
⌈ Secret Post #4878 ⌋
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: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #698.
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 12:39 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 01:14 am (UTC)(link)Maybe not, but as long as it's not hinted at otherwise then there is no reason to dispute it now, I think.
Like I'm not sure exactly what OP is trying to say, but there is no proof of Dumbledore's sexuality either way in the original books, no assumption that homophobia is treated the same in the wizarding world as it is in the Muggle, and no reason the books really needed to dictate that Dumbledore was gay since it has less than nothing to do with what's going on in the plot.
Like people accept the laws around which potion is legal/illegal to brew despite it not being specifically mentioned in the books, so why not Dumbledore's sexuality?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 01:35 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 01:53 am (UTC)(link)Sorry, but I wasn't entirely sure what OP meant with their secret, if that's what you're referencing. I said as much in my original comment.
Technically JK gave representation a decent amount of credit, by naming Dumbledore as gay, and continuing to make books that confirmed that fact. She could have easily named Romilda Vane as being a lesbian only, but she chose the head of Hogwarts and a highly ranked individual that isn't apparently completely evil the mention instead.
She's not getting undeserved credit, because everyone hates her for saying so anyways. Moreso, I honestly believe she would get the same treatment if she had made it canon in the original books. If McGonagall's eyecolour isn't specifically mentioned in the books, then why would Dumbledore's sexuality be? She built her world by action rather than reference, which is perfectly fine in my books.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 02:05 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 02:17 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 02:36 am (UTC)(link)Next we'll be hearing about how his brother nicknamed Dumbledore 'Kid' and there's a whole new count of inclusion points headed JK's way by the way of incest. -wink-
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 02:24 am (UTC)(link)So no, the practice of using subtext to create plausible deniability and saying it's what you really meant doesn't get you any cookies. Especially now that everyone is doing it as a way to make excuses for refusing to invest real dollars and labor into LGBTQ media.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 03:39 am (UTC)(link)It's really not though? imo, at least.
Basically what you're saying is incredibly hypocritical to me. If only in the sense that, as I read it, someone MUST declare their sexuality on arrival, otherwise the author is just writing their characters as gay just for brownie points.
That is, I must say, the complete opposite of what I consider good writing. Writing a character as gay and then elaborating on that as part of their character later on is perfectly fine in my books, perhaps because I don't award points on how inclusive a writer states themselves to be, and I simply judge my interest on the content given. Maybe it isn't what most people prefer, but I find the implied method much better than the 'in your face', 'there is no other option', 'you must read what I'm writing only as I intend it!' method by far.
That being said, the 'code' was law. It continued to be law for an incredible amount of time. Only in the 70-80's did cult hit's make a wave in modern entertainment. (via north americas, and by way of the holdups people regained after the roaring twenties and over the course of world war two) I would very much love for you to name some great hero's of the 40's and 50's who committed to LGBT rights, if you don't mind, most of what Ib know were based off an earlier script/time and reevaluated to become more 'decent' per the ignorant decision.
I mean, Star Trek came out in late 1960's (66-69) the code was so prevalent that the show runners were scandalized when Kirk kissed Uhura in the first 'scripted' inter-racial kiss broadcasted on US television. ('Plato's Stepchildren', 1968) Shatner did it due to the natural flow of the scene, he didn't think twice about it, but it was never in the script, only because the 'code' was still such a threat to screenwriters, it was only until Roddenberry stepped in that they allowed it to be included. Being blacklisted was no joke, and even today publishers are aware of the repercussions that exist by mentioned 'inclusion' even by the wayside.
So yeah, the heros you're talking about were shamed and re-closeted, they were never allowed in broadcasted media even in Europe, LBGT only became prevalent again in the 70-80's, and just as quickly shut down due to any reason the publishers could find. In the 90's w/w was the only queer relationship broadly accepted, generally due to the male opinion that is was 'hot' or that women could switch and it wouldn't mean anything. Early 2000's had fad's where homosexuality was fun to idealize but not to publicly commit to, and the rest is how you put it I guess. People being inclusive to get 'points' just for the sake of inclusion, and how none of them should be regarded with nothing but distain by their horrible narcissism to name characters as being anything but straight... Okay, sure.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 04:53 am (UTC)(link)Beyond that, most of your post is just regurgitating a tired set of stereotypes and myths about LGBTQ-inclusive lit. The standard is to treat same-gender relationships with the same honesty and frankness as mixed-gender relationships. Interestingly, when same-gender relationships are treated honestly, writers are no longer forced to nohomo platonic relationships (as is the case with ST:TOS).
I judge a work by the work, not by what the writer said at a book signing, or by what the screenwriter said in an interview. And sorry, 10 years of thinking and argument has failed to convince me that Deathly Hallows belongs on an LGBTQ reading list.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 08:06 am (UTC)(link)No worry's at all, the mistake is all mine. I got so caught up with all the talk about the 40's and 50's I went off on it without even realizing. Sorry! <3
You're right with the fact that there were dozens of other works around that included a vast amount of LGBT works during the time Deathly Hallows (2007) came out, but not one of those works were close to the same level that JK was regarded as, by a longshot. 20/20 vision is great after the fact, but it only make a difference when you look in all possible directions.
I hypothesize that because she was so prevalent and so world renowned at this point, her editors/publishers were the ones who cut the various implications her work might have had so that it could remain 'world worthy', more than any conscious choice by JK herself.
Using my last post as a reference, she was making movies at this time, which forces a straight narrative by default, which is why in the movies only, we see Dumbledore dance with McGonagall.
I'm not sure what you mean with this part of your post, I'm afraid. Especially with that last line mentioning TOS, I think it was my turn to misspeak this time;;
I got so caught up in my ramblings about the 40's-50's that I continued through with my reply essentially off topic. Most of what I mentioned there was a roundabout way to say that a 'great' publicist often won't publicize a work if there might be any sort of scandal attached to it, especially if that scandal is a gay 'Headmaster'. Their reasoning go back to the old way of doing things, even when those time seem so far away.
Anyway! By no means would Deathly Hallows be on any LGBTQ reading list of mine either! Unless there is any legit substantial LGBTQ content, then it wouldn't go on the list, Dumbledore being gay is certainly not enough to be list worthy the same way that Grantaire alone wouldn't be enough to label Les Mis as being LGBTQ content.
If anything I've said before were myths then I would be very appreciative you pointing them out to me, I often go on my own memory, which is generally very good, but if anything I said was inaccurate, I'd be very grateful if you would point it out for me! <3
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 05:38 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 01:38 am (UTC)(link)Which I think is largely a foolish argument, but, nevertheless
no subject
(Anonymous) 2020-05-15 01:59 am (UTC)(link)I was never a big fan of HP when it came out so I was never part of the whole upheaval I suppose which might colour my argument, but the only thing of note that I understood of OP's secret was them calling Dumbledore being gay not canon, which is why I commented only on that, and the major point I definitely disagree upon.
You're right though no question, irrevocably, considering the responses I've gotten. Personally, I don't really get it either, but it was all I had to say at the time...