[ SECRET POST #2926 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2926 ⌋

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, 036 secrets from Secret Submission Post #418.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[kaijinscendre]

It only bothers me when people try to say their headcanon is more canon than actual canon. I got plenty of headcanons, but at the end of the day I don't think they are true.

[mekkio]

Same. Or it really bothers me when certain fans try shout down the actual show/movie/comic/book writers, themselves, in a "I know the characters better than you do" way. That just smacks of arrogance on a level that any one who wears it, should be ashamed of themselves. But they never are.

[kaijinscendre]

Oh yes. Even if you think a character is doing something out of character. At the end of the day, characters are not real. All of their thoughts/actions come from their creator. You can not like it, but the creator is who knows them best.

[(Anonymous)]

da

I don't necessarily think criticisms of OOC are arguing with the fact that the writer knows the character best, though.

It's entirely possible for a creator to write their own characters as behaving in an OOC way, if said behavior goes against everything the creator has already shown. Just because they control the character, it doesn't mean their behavior doesn't need to be developed in a way that makes sense.

"They're mine and I can write them any way I choose!" while being factually true, doesn't exempt any creator from making their characters' actions logical to the audience who isn't them and can't see what they know best. The audience relies on the creator to display that to them via the character's actions, and if those actions make no sense based on what has gone before, then that character is behaving in an OOC way, regardless of who's responsible for it.

[(Anonymous)]

This. Or when fanon should be canon, especially when the fanon is so far from the authorial intent.

I did that once, I'll admit; when the fifth Harry Potter book came out, I said "JK Rowling got the Marauders wrong" on one of the forums. One of the site mods was like "uh... they're her characters?"

Yeah, that's now my philosophy on the matter.

[philstar22]

True. Although, I do think there are instances of authors getting the character wrong (nothing is ever going to convince me that anyone in the How I Met Your Mother final was in-character). But canon is still canon, and headcanons are great but aren't canon.

Well, maybe in-character at some point in the series.

[(Anonymous)]

I want to say, like, for seasons 1-3, it would have been plausible. But I think the problem was that they planned the finale early in the show and then, even though the characters had grown and changed, they really wanted to stick to their original plan (though I cannot for the life of me figure out why - I mean, it's got to be something other than sheer stubbornness, right?).

Re: Well, maybe in-character at some point in the series.

[philstar22]

Oh, totally. The basics were written back when it was in character, only the character developed past that. I think most authors understand that sometimes you need to change plans.

Re: Well, maybe in-character at some point in the series.

[(Anonymous)]

From what I've heard (I've never watched the show, but I've picked up some gossip about it), they filmed the future-time shots back during season 1, so that the kids in them wouldn't look years older when they actually got around to the final season. Which locked them in to the ending those scenes implied, even though the story grew and changed in the telling.

Maybe they could have dumped those scenes, or tried to recontextualize them, but it would have ended up kind of clunky, changing the whole framing story like that.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I think there's definitely exceptions, and in some cases you can point to how precisely a character's behavior made no sense. I mean, I had a lit professor once admit a character in something we were reading was acting out of character. Sometimes writers forget what they're doing. But I think there's a difference between saying "in season one, she was a vegetarian who went to protests, in season six she's hunting for sport and making fun of poor people with no acknowledgement of her previous beliefs*" and "fanfic writes Dracoinleatherpants better."

*Completely random example, though I sort of had Phoebe from Friends in mind. Sort of.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah occasionally I'll feel a writer is sacrificing a character for the sake of making them fit the plot.

Like if the character starts making choices or decisions that are in conflict of what they were show to do in the past with no explanation for it. And I'll consider that as veering out of character even though technically the character is doing it so it isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, and the worst part is it's so frustrating. For fuck's sake, how hard is it to write a character arc that shows how a character got from point a to point b? Or more usually point a to point s or z, because the evolution of characterization is less important than "plot" and they skip the middle. It's like a eating an ice cream sandwich that's missing the ice cream.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Or my headcanon should become canon, because social justice!

[kaijinscendre]

The pushiest of that type I have seen are the Dean/Steve Rogers is bisexual. No, neither of them canonically are. Hell, the subtext they pull to prove their points is ridiculous. But god forbid you tell them it isn't canon.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

I've mostly seen Steve Rogers as all in good fun like Kirk/Spock. But Supernatural, Teen Wolf, and Sherlock tend to be a bit obnoxious.

[kaijinscendre]

Some of the people I follow are realllllyyyyy gung ho about Steve Rogers being bi. Definitely more for Dean though.

[(Anonymous)]

Na

there is a kirk/spock fan often posting in this community - and dominating every trek-secret with wanky shipperwars stuff - who just reminds me that their fandom can be so obnoxious about this.
Many of them are even opposed to the headcanon that Spock is bi especially in the reboot where he's in love with Uhura. 'Canon' doesn't prove enough that the characters like women and have relations with them, but look at my headcanons about them being gay for this character the subtext I see is proof and you must consider my interpretation as canon otherwise ~u blind~