fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4878 ]

[ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There is actually a lot of debate over whether "Word of God" is canon and if it is, if it is the same level of canon as what is in the actual books (or whatever media the particular fandom is).

Yeah, I'm really not comfortable with the idea that writers, directors, and showrunners can spend hundreds or thousands of labor-hours creating a work, and then cover up their failings with 1-minute tweet. Rowling isn't even the worst offender here compared to Disney/Lucasfilm/Marvel. If you're going to do LGBTQ diversity, spend the cash to pay the people to put it on film. Don't chicken out and then take credit for it anyway on your twitter account.

Yuppppp

OP thread, but not the secret.

"Word Of God":
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

Strictly speaking 'word of god' is defined as:
A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director, or producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone making a mistake.

A half second tweet means next to nothing for me as well, but JK announced Dumbledore's sexuality not via tweet, but in Carnegie Hall, during a question/answer visit with fans. Asked "whether Dumbledore had ever found love?" JK responded that she "always thought of Dumbledore as gay," and went on to explain that she saw the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald — who became close as teenagers before Grindelwald chose to pursue dark magic — as a romantic one... all the way back in 2007, only a weeks after Deathly Hallows was published.

Another quote from the same interview shows her to say, literally:

“Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was,” Rowling told the audience. She also said that she asked the Harry Potter filmmakers to delete a line in the Half-Blood Prince movie where Dumbledore reminisces about a girl he once knew: “I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter: ‘Dumbledore’s gay!’”

You're probably the wrong anon to reply with this too, since you seem to be on a similar page, so sorry about that! I can't quite help but follow my tangents;;

ayrt

That is very true, but I find that only being negligible in the case where different authors/screenwriters propose a certain thing about a fiction they may not have the sole rights to.
Of course I might be wrong with this thought, but in the way of comics vs. animation, there is a distinct separation of canon, if only because only so many people have seen one and not the other. So essentially, (though having no knowledge of the media OP is talking about in the original point) I would agree that if something is only canon in one instance, that doesn't make it true in the other. But in regards to Dumbledore, since JK is the head writer and the original author of the series, her word shouldn't be taken as less simply because it wasn't stated in the books, and moreso due to the fact there is nothing contradicting in her statement of Dumbledore's sexuality.
I do understand that JK says A LOT about her world and it's borderline impossible to credit everything she says as being factual, but Dumbledore is a central figure in the books and she commits and has created content to support her saying so via the Grindelwald storylines, so while it isn't mentioned in the original books, her alone being the creator and publishing works that confirm this regardless of them being pre-series, there isn't much to argue, imo.

NAYRT: her word shouldn't be taken as less simply because it wasn't stated in the books,

Of course it should because the books reflect hundreds of hours of editing. The point of that is to get rid of bad ideas (which is most of them) and clarify the good ideas. Ephemera which hasn't gone through this process is, well, ephemera and inherently less worthy of consideration.

And that's particularly important given the widespread practice of social-media queerbaiting where creatives say "of course that character is LGBTQ" through channels that cost them next to nothing. If a creative wants credit for LGBTQ representation, they need to put in the labor and pay the money to produce it in the finished work.

You don't get credit if you don't actually put in the work. And you can't use virtue signaling on social media to cover up for an anti-LGBTQ bias in your production process.

ayrt

JK mentioned Dumbledore's sexuality long before it was common to throw out a character and label them queer, she did so early in the process of writing her series, which does include the works post Harry Potter given they exist in the same world. She did put herself on the line to confirm Dumbledore's sexuality in the prequel she later published, she put herself on the line when she first announced Dumbledore was gay, which I believe was in an interview not long after the final book came out.

She is not asking for credit, not with her initial post, and certainly not as some sort of attempt to coverup the backlash of her transphobia in the last year.
The same way people first interpreted Lockhart as gay due to his flamboyance, ignored the similarity in Dumbledore's character if only because of his age and prevalence in the series. There technically is evidence of Dumbledore's sexuality in the first books, but it's largely ignored due to the whimsical aspect of the wizardly world, moreso when people try to make excuses why their formerly favourite author couldn't possibly represent a gay character. (at least this is seeming to be the case the more I hear about it)

Regardless, you've forgotten the last point I made in the comment you responded to. JK did not worldbuild by statement, she did it by affluence. It's why her books were so worldly popular, by the Hello Kitty effect. (aka Hello Kitty does not have a mouth to allow her fans to see themselves and speak through her) McGonagall does not have an eyecolour, let alone a sexuality. JK was no doubt in the process of writing her Grindelwald books when she came out that Dumbledore was gay, in my mind, I'm guessing she did it to gauge the reaction of her fans and as a statement so she wouldn't have to change it later on via her publishers editing.
Do either of us know for sure? Of course not, but I'm not arguing the quality of Dumbledore being announced as being gay, I'm only stating that it is a canon fact.

JK mentioned Dumbledore's sexuality long before it was common to throw out a character and label them queer, she did so early in the process of writing her series, which does include the works post Harry Potter given they exist in the same world.

This is revisionism on two fronts. First, Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't explicitly clarified until after the release of DHpt2. Not that it matters because that interview is ephemera along with all of the notes published after the fact.

The second is that the practice of creating ambiguous texts that are clarified through back channels goes back well before Rowling. For prior art there, I'd cite Bewitched, a lot of 70s disco, and 80s X-Men (among dozens of other examples, entire volumes have been written on this subject). There, we run into a problem because Lynde, Claremont, and LGBTQ musicians of the 70s were forced to be ambiguous by active censorship, Rowling didn't face that pressure in 2006 when her less-influential peers were publishing explicitly LGBTQ-inclusive teen works.

She is not asking for credit, not with her initial post, and certainly not as some sort of attempt to coverup the backlash of her transphobia in the last year.

I don't understand where the connection to transphobia comes from. The point here is that in this discussion, you are giving Rowling undeserved credit for writing Dumbledore as a gay man, when that portrayal is not qualitatively different from the use of camp and gay coding to squeak past TV censors over 50 years ago.

This is all aside from your big problem, the elevation of ephemera to the level of completed works. I mean, I love Mark Hammil for believing Luke Skywalker can be bisexual, but Disney has invested $0.00 into that interpretation.

ayrt

But they're not. In Grindlewald we get the context of Dumbledore's sexuality, it was never made to be some sort of tidbit never to be seen again.

I know all about media/individuals being censored in order not to present as being queer due to it being borderline illegal (even by the way of blacklisting), and having to cover up/being edited for those reasons. Most of the Glam/Alternative Rock stars actually openly admitted to being bi, they were just ignored when they said so. Like, for instance, David Bowie said multiple times that he liked both men and women, and in a notable interview, when asked to finally settle the score, he replied entirely exasperated that he'd never said otherwise, and essentially that the only reason it didn't stick was because certain people didn't want it to. This era, unlike the roaring 20's, allowed only a certain sect of people to come out, and only when they were prestigious enough, and with enough of a following, though most of this dates back to the influence that the code reigned in with.
The 70/80's were ripe with that anarchy and the all around acceptance vigil, but the acceptance was put on 'hold' even in the UK, because people started blaming gay men, in particular, for the AIDS crisis. Laws were put in place to yet again, depending on where you live, to stop people from being who they are, for instance you are not allowed to give blood if you've had relations with someone who's could have had sex with someone of their own same sex even today in Canada, even after revising their guidelines from the seventies.
The early 2000's were peak at playing at people being queer, mostly w/w but rarely if ever m/m unless it's a comedy or a joke. (via Three's Company, I imagine.) but never making true to that point.

This is when JK made her statement, as a very well achieved established author making it known that a high ranking character in her series is in fact gay. At this point she only had something to lose, there were not brownie points of this kind to be had for this type of media. It's not fair to compare her to a couple dozen (as you put it even) less-influential peers creating LGBTQ-friendly works years before because she didn't have to, and by all means /shouldn't/ have too.

Like are you saying that Dumbledore should have been a raging queer instead?
By all means, he actually does show traits hinting at those exact traits in the original books. He's always one with the glint in his eye, his eccentric clothing, and perfectly fond for a little rascal type behaviour. People assumed these traits were due to his age, and the whimsy of his character, but could they not be any sort of implication to his sexuality on top of that?
Subtlety is the best gift a writer could have, not everything needs to be smack front and centre, especially when it comes to the nuance of sexuality/interest.
At that point you might as well be writing a novel for toddlers. Every page can be a another simple statement you want to push with absolutely no real plot of intention other than to make a point.

I want to read something that's real, where the characters and their sexuality is only noted if it fits within the course of the plot/the characters storyline. I really don't care for inclusion when it happens right when you're introduced to them, because if anything, that's done for Brownie points much more than mentioning something after the fact, and also because it's just bad writing to me. I complete lost the chance to discover who this character might be because people are afraid of being mislabeled, I suppose.

You don't get credit if you don't actually put in the work. And you can't use virtue signaling on social media to cover up for an anti-LGBTQ bias in your production process.

I was responding to this when I mentioned that it wouldn't make sense for her to try to cover up her recent transphobia by using Dumbledore's sexuality as he was outed long before that happened. It's clear to me now that the airt wasn't making such a statement, so I am sorry for the confusion over that!
Though I must say I am not giving any credit to JK for creating Dumbledore to be gay, simply because that is not how I gauge my enjoyment with reading and consuming works. I'm completely neutral with JK and he 'representation' Dumbledore may or may have not had, I'm only responding with quandaries that ask if the severity of hate she gets is actually warranted. Like I can see Dumbledore as being gay within the books, why not? I don't need nor want an anvil dropped on my head every time someone writes about something 'inclusive'.

"Laws were put in place to yet again, depending on where you live, to stop people from being who they are, for instance you are not allowed to give blood if you've had relations with someone who's could have had sex with someone of their own same sex even today in Canada, even after revising their guidelines from the seventies."

That rule is about actuarial risk, not stopping people being who they are. It is a fact that it elevates risk, so unless you want to do a whole "when did you last have sex" thing, patient safety trumps. As it should. People who have ever had certain illnesses can't give either.

ayrt

Honestly, I'm glad this is the thing you pointed this out to me!
Growing up in Canada, I always wanted to give blood when I was younger, and I was fine to do so until I heard of their 'new' questionnaire that the made sometime in the 2000's, the original was made in the 70's at some point but the 'new and improved' version includes questions like:

The following questions are lifestyle related questions
In the last 3 months have you had a tattoo?
In the last 3 months have you had skin or ear piercing?
In the last 3 months have you had sex with a man who, in the last 12 months, had sex with another man? (Female)
In the last 3 months, have you had sex with a man? (Male)
In the last 6 months have you had acupuncture?
In the last 6 months have you had electrolysis?
In the last 6 months have you had an injury from a needle or come in contact with someone else's blood?
In the last 12 months have you taken illegal steroids with a needle?
In the last 12 months have you had or been treated for syphilis or gonorrhea?
In the last 12 months have you been in jail or prison?
In the last 12 months have you used cocaine?
In the last 12 months have you had sex with a sex trade worker or anyone else who has taken money or drugs for sex?
In the last 12 months have you had sex with anyone who has ever taken illegal drugs with a needle?
In the last 12 months, have you had sex with anyone who has HIV/AIDS or has tested positive for HIV/AIDS virus?
At any time since 1977 have you taken money or drugs for sex?
Have you ever taken illegal drugs with a needle even one time?
Have you, in your past or present job, taken care of or handled monkeys or their body fluids?
Did you make your last donation or last attempted donation at Héma-Québec?

These two questions should not be there:
In the last 3 months have you had sex with a man who, in the last 12 months, had sex with another man? (Female)
In the last 3 months, have you had sex with a man? (Male)

Because HIV/AIDS is as common with heterosexual couples as it is with homosexual couples, there is no question about heterosexual sex, only ones about if you or your partner have had intercourse with someone who could have been gay/lesbian.

https://blood.ca/en/blood/donating-blood/donor-questionnaire

But you are right, this doesn't prevent people from being who they are, but it rests in the 'problematic' category, while heterosexual acts aren't even questioned. No question about it, safety is the most important thing, but the underlining homophobia really just rubs me the wrong way I guess...

Thank you for responding btw! I'm always so nervous that I might be referencing something wrong;; <3

DA I think it's odd that you keep talking about inclusion as if the only way to do it clearly is to have the character introduce themselves as "Hi I'm Jerry and I'm gay!" and not as though there are a THOUSAND ways to just simply state it organically within the story, even as small as the use of a single pronoun. Hell, even the bullshit mention in Marvel's Endgame movie is an example.

Ways to show a character is gay without having the character state it out loud for no reason and without having to tell people about it on Twitter:

- have them mention a past partner
- have them express attraction/flirt with another character of the same sex
- put them in a situation where it's obvious they aren't attracted to the opposite sex (where perhaps someone who was would've expressed attracted/flirted/whatever)
- have a childhood same sex crush brought up (they meet them again, reminiscing, etc.)
- have them be in a committed relationship to someone of the same sex throughout the story

It's not rocket science.

Right? And it's almost like a conversation about a past partner, and the character's feelings and relationship with that part partner, is the perfect place to drop in a mention, either in the book itself or in the movie released over a decade later.

Like are you saying that Dumbledore should have been a raging queer instead?

You seem to love jumping to the same old scaremongering and double-standards about LGBTQ-inclusive lit that dudebros post to reddit. Again, the minimal standard is to treat same-gender relationships with the same honesty as mixed-gender relationships. And Harry Potter falls short when it's very clear that Snape and Hagrid both have unrequited loves, but one of the more important historical relationships in the piece is left intentionally ambiguous.

The anti-LGBTQ bias is that Deathly Hallows shipped to boksellers intentionally vague and ambiguous about a relationship that's so important, we're getting a spin-off series. Creating plausible deniability around same-gender relationships isn't a progressive way to handle LGBTQ representation, and wasn't so in 2007 either. And it's the same bias I criticize WRT to other works.

And arguments that we need an anvil dropped when the character is introduced are in spectacular bad faith given that we're talking abut the last volume in a multi-part series where the backstory of a supporting character is explored in depth.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4878 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject