[ 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

[nyxelestia]

Came here to say pretty much this.

And that JKR is not an activist. She isn't some saint of gay rights, but she isn't some kind of failure of a gay rights activist, either. Making Dumbledore gay wasn't an attempt at gay visibility or perpetuate gay rights. It was a part of his character, and one that she likely recognized early on as being problematic in terms of things like sales and parents letting their kids read the books.

I think people forget most of the books were written and planned in the 90's and early 00's. Gay visibility and gay characters in books primarily intended for young children were a very different thing back then. Quite frankly even just half a decade ago, when the last book was coming out, it would've been a very different thing than how people view a gay character in a children's book today.

[cloudsinvenice]

This. And that social landscape is also the reason she couldn't just, as some have suggested, slip in casual references to character A or B and their boyfriend/girlfriend. Because sadly, at most UK schools in the period when the books were written/set, an out teenage gay couple would NOT be a minor detail. It would be a huge topic of unkind gossip. When I was at school we had blackmail over sexuality in our year. A kid whose parents would've thrown him out if they knew he was bi. And even now, I keep seeing articles about the problem of homophobic bullying in schools.

So it wasn't a time when she could just casually mention, say, Lavender dating Parvati. It would've left questions in the minds of readers and required more expansive and responsible exploration.