[ 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

[meadowphoenix]

visual and written text are different, but I think both ARE textual so.....idk what to tell you OP.

do I think JKR's doubting thomas delivery and Disney's censorship make for incontrovertible textual romantic relationships? No. But I don't think that about many things that are canon tbqf (hell were Harry and Cho bf and gf? apparently. harry and ginny? apparently. is that ever in the text? not incontrovertibly). And I think there is a lot of literary conventions on reading queerness, hell reading ROMANCE, that is being unsaid here.

For instance, you don't really have opposite sex gendered pair hold hands except for romance, and same sex friends will only do it as convention like they always hold hands and the moment is particularly emotional. If holding hands is not a typical physical thing for either character, then.....reading as romantic is a primary reading.

And Dumbledore is a character we barely know has family let alone friends and then Grindlewald looms so large in weird places for that relationship to do so, like when harry's dead and asking him why he was almost a fascist, lmao. Look, "I turned evil for my bf" is a far more primary reading than "I turned evil for my 3 month friend", because people generally accept love as a reason to betray every single value you have, even if they still think you're terrible for doing so, in a way that "getting tired of my siblings/met another genius" isn't. You would be singularly more monstrous for the latter. And while it is not the 1950s, if you care about contemporary context, literary context is always going to include cat on a hot tin roof style gayness. I don't think you can pretend that because it is no longer that long ago with those cultures that that isn't a legitimate method of textual indication. But I think queerness in literature is so much more fraught even now, that I think readers who want that, want so much more in their signposts because we shouldn't be in the 1950s anymore. But that's a larger conversation on what is textual based on cultural context, not an invalidation of previous context.

[(Anonymous)]

In Ghostbusters, McKinnon is packing in as much gay signalling as she could get away with. But that only goes so far and it's open knowledge that Sony prevented the writers and cast from going beyond coding. And that's a huge problem.

There are two big problems with leaning on coding. The first is that a large part of the audience simply won't get it, the second is that a smaller part will grasp onto any bit of plausible deniability to read the character as straight. Straight-by-default is still a pervasive bias outside of fandom circles.

And even so, coding is as frequently pejorative as positive, which is why many of us are not fond of it as a literary technique.

[meadowphoenix]

I mostly agree on coding, so its a good thing I never said anyone should like it, just that the conversation on heurism shouldn't be the same thing as suggesting this context is never legitimate in the text.