[ SECRET POST #4878 ]

[case]

⌈ 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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

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.

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'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

[(Anonymous)]

I don't judge the quality of a work by how famous the author is either.