[ SECRET POST #2811 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2811 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.

__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.

__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #402.
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

[silverr]

Exactly.

I feel it's perfectly legit, to examine claims that something is canonical -- to discuss/debate/challenge the truth or falsity of the claim ... but telling someone their headcanon / fanon is wrong? Nope, nope, nuh-uh.

[(Anonymous)]

Believe what you want. That's fine. But the ptb of your favourite show do not live inside your head and probably do not agree with your interpretation of their characters.

[silverr]

Yes.

You can state things like, "Character A and Character B appeared in such and such an episode, had a conversation, and then fought with swords," but once you start inventing motivations and interior monologue to explain their actions you're going off-road.

[intrigueing]

I don't mind people inventing motivations and interior monologue to explain their actions at all. I love doing it and I love reading other people's takes, even (especially!) when no canon motivation or explanation is suggested. Just as long as it's clear that the person writing it *knows* it's speculation.

I think this is why my favorite meta is rarely "here is my argument and I will defend it" and I vastly prefer the "let me list a whole bunch of different factors at play and possible interpretations" style of meta. The former style works way better in fanfic than in meta.

[silverr]

Oh, I do the inventing thing too -- the more contradictory / retconned / inconsistent the canon the more challenging/fun it is to try to weave something that makes sense of it. ~

I also agree with you regarding meta: being able to mull over multiple takes is usually very enlightening.

[(Anonymous)]

Except headcanon is objectively wrong if it's opposite of canon. If a character is said, like, to have a favorite color or have a backstory where X is an important factor, unless you're AUing, your headcanon does not trump canon.

(I will make note: this doesn't mean trans headcanon are wrong, as you can spin it as post-op and whatnot! I'm just saying that painting a broad brush of "headcanon can never be wrong" is kind of wrong in itself--some are okay, some are objectively wrong)

[silverr]

I see your point but for me it's more of a grey area, (or perhaps I'm more splitting hairs) because by that definition fix-it fix (especially the sort that "fixes" canonical character death) and a lot of AUs are then "objectively wrong" ... which I suppose they are, in the sense that they are counter to canon! Still, I want a better label than "wrong" for them: variations on a theme is one of the general joys of making fanworks, after all. ~ I guess my point is more that to me, attacking people for their headcanons begins to edge into "you're interrogating the text from the wrong perspective" territory. If someone's having fun and isn't attacking anyone else, leave them be unless they've specifically asked for a fact-checker.

(Not that that you can't ask someone what "facts" (i.e., canon evidence) they're basing a particular headcanon on -- but even then, unless they're open to learning that they based their headcanon on faulty information, it generally does little good to point out errors. A small example that I can think is that for years in a certain naimanga fandom, one character's name was thought to be "Afeika" ... but as it turned out that this was due to mis-hearing (mis-translating?) a sentence that went something like "I am a thief, a robber" as "I am Afeika, robber." People who had adopted Afeika for the character got very defensive when it was pointed out that The Thief King's name wasn't defined in canon, I think because those who pointed out the error often had such a "OMG U R such an idiot!" attitude. Ultimately, did it matter?)

I guess this is why I tend to believe that while facts can be labelled as right or wrong; interpretations, opinions, and headcanons? Not so much ... as long as it's clear what the distinction is.

[iggy]

Eh, if a headcanon directly contradicts canon fact, then yes it's wrong and I think you can point that out.

If it bugs them that much that it's incorrect, they can write an AU or something.