[ SECRET POST #2216 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2216 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 120 secrets from Secret Submission Post #317.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 2 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - personal attack ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Who said it needed to be discussed at length? I'm just saying that when there are no normalized gay characters in the text (even just by a simple, "his boyfriend/her girlfriend"), but there is a long, self-indulgent epilogue about everybody's heterosexual marriage, it's a little iffy.

But again, I'm not saying she's wrong for mentioning it, I'm just saying that it doesn't make her an activist.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't like the epilogue because it's ridiculous wish-fulfillment, but because it's wish-fulfillment, I am less inclined to find it "iffy" in the sense that you mean. A heterosexual author is going to identify more with heterosexual relationships than with homosexual ones, and as such, self-indulgence, as you say, is going to involve heterosexuality. Does this mean that heterosexual authors shouldn't strive to include people of other sexualities in their works? No -- they absolutely should. It means only that, in cases where the author is clearly writing for him/herself self, it's understandable that s/he would depict the sexuality with which s/he identifies and/or is most familiar.

I don't think it makes her an activist, either. I just think it makes her someone who conceived of a particular character as gay and didn't think that it was a big deal.

[(Anonymous)]

Everyone's homosexual marriage at the end of the books when Dumbledore was already dead?

oh. yeah, she should have totally done that.