Something similar happened to me while I was reading The Count of Monte Cristo--it was obvious the subtext was intentional, but I didn't think it would go as far as it did.
Eugénie Danglars is strong and independent and musical and she doesn't want to marry the man her father has engaged her to, and she'd rather spend time with her pretty tutor Louise--and at this point, I'm thinking, "yeah, I get it, nineteenth-century lesbian subtext" But then Eugénie disguises herself as a boy, and she and Louise run away together. And then, the next morning, they are discovered in an inn, sleeping in the same bed. And it's like, "... huh. That is not really subtext anymore." (The last we see of them, they're departing again, together--they get a happy ending!)
It was obvious that Eugénie was supposed to be kind of gay, but I had no idea that in 1844 it was even done to have actual gay romance. It didn't occur to me that Eugénie/Louise could be the canon pairing.
no subject
Eugénie Danglars is strong and independent and musical and she doesn't want to marry the man her father has engaged her to, and she'd rather spend time with her pretty tutor Louise--and at this point, I'm thinking, "yeah, I get it, nineteenth-century lesbian subtext" But then Eugénie disguises herself as a boy, and she and Louise run away together. And then, the next morning, they are discovered in an inn, sleeping in the same bed. And it's like, "... huh. That is not really subtext anymore." (The last we see of them, they're departing again, together--they get a happy ending!)
It was obvious that Eugénie was supposed to be kind of gay, but I had no idea that in 1844 it was even done to have actual gay romance. It didn't occur to me that Eugénie/Louise could be the canon pairing.