[ SECRET POST #5407 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5407 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 32 secrets from Secret Submission Post #774.
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]

this secret reads like a "religion is the OG fandom" in that it's not that I disagree, it's that I think to some extent fandom as it used to be defined had some subcultural quality to it that royalty and religion don't. I don't think that's necessarily true now, but I think it used to be. But that may be just me.

[(Anonymous)]

I think that hardcore celebrity gossip definitely does have a subcultures quality to it, and I think royals stuff is - at least in part - a subset of hardcore celebrity gossip.

[meadowphoenix]

I agree about hardcore celebrity gossip, but I think it's partially limited by it's subject. You could very well know nothing about any stars, even the most famous ones, so there's a specific engagement required there for even non-hardcore gossip. I don't think that's necessarily true (or the same kind of true) about the people with power in a political system, where the personal is quite literally political, and therefore it is of political interest for other people with power to legit make up stories about them.

[(Anonymous)]

I take your point but I think it's kind of unclear how true this is for the British royal family specifically where, to say the least, most if not all of their political power is based on reputation and image anyway

[meadowphoenix]

I do think it's a little weirder in the sort of global state of affiars, where monarchies don't feel like modern institutions, so interest in them has taken a different tone. I certainly don't think the Diana musical or that prince george cartoon could have possibly have been made in an era in which the british monarchy was taken seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

Most religions have subcultural qualities, as long as your religion isn't the state religion too. And even then there's lots of outliers.

[meadowphoenix]

When people talk about religion being the OG fandom, they are usually doing some historical revisionism re: western christianity when there were a LOT of derivative bible work in both art and writing and other creative endeavors, so to speak, because those were some of the only acceptable subjects. So even the subcultural qualities were more like subfandoms in the main, not at all subculture, fandom. I imagine this happens in other religions too, like hinduism and I know it happened in greek and roman culture, but that phrasing is usually referring to western christianity at the time of papal supremacy.

But I agree what I'm talking about is that I think state promoted things don't seem in line with the understanding of fandom that was.

[(Anonymous)]

Nail on the head. This is what bothers me about this.