[ SECRET POST #3512 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3512 ⌋

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, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #502.
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

[(Anonymous)]

If it doesn't make the cut, it's not canon.

[mishey22]

If the guy who made the movie said it's the case, it's canon.

[sparrow_lately]

I feel like there's an exception for things that studios cut versus creators chose not to include (like in the case of Dumbledore).

[slashgirl]

This.

[(Anonymous)]

He never says the studio cut it, he says he didn't include it because the studio wouldn't have liked it. So it's closer to Dumbledore.

[diet_poison]

Do people in the HP fandom actually argue that Dumbledore is not gay?

His creator says he is, so he is.

Like you can write fanfic of him however you want, or headcanon whatever you want, but it's the canon's creator that determines what is canon. Otherwise they hold no weight at all.

[(Anonymous)]

Not everyone goes by Word of God canon. Plenty of people only consider things in the canon to be canon.

[diet_poison]

That mindset is weird to me. What makes canon itself the arbiter over anything else the creator has said? That only thing that makes canon distinct from fanon is that the creator is the one who made it.

I can accept that some people separate WoG from canon, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Why?

Not to mention it seems really disrespectful to claim that something a creator said about their own character isn't true.

[(Anonymous)]

That really depends on where you draw the line. I'm pretty firmly in the 'if it's not shown in canon, it's not canon' boat, because I hate trying to keep up with all the extraneous little details and interviews and stuff and also because I feel like, if it was important, it would be in the canon, be it the book, the movie, the tv series, what have you.

Everything else to me is just headcanon, even if it's from the author themselves. I don't care if other people want to take it as canon, but I'm not going to take it as canon. If they wrote a sequel and the relevant facts showed up then, sure, it's canon. But until it's more than just something the author said, I personally don't take it as canon.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS, TIMES A THOUSAND!

[diet_poison]

How can authors have headcanons about their own work? What distinguishes it from canon? Formal publication? If so, why?

I don't go to any trouble to keep up with interviews and I'm ok with missing out on important bits that way. And I usually learn it through fandom osmosis anyway if it's important. If I write a fic that contradicts something the author said, oh well. Sometimes fic contradicts WoG canon, sometimes it contradicts "official" canon. Doesn't change what is and isn't canon though.

(I just don't understand the "WoG doesn't count" approach is all I'm saying)

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but I disagree. I also think only what's in the writing itself is true canon. Obviously I'm the last person to argue that Dumbledore isn't gay, but he's not expressly gay in the canon, period.

Plus, if Word of God automatically becomes canon, then Lestat from Interview with a Vampire series becomes a repentant Christian when the author goes through a religious crisis, despite that being completely out of character. Just one example why to me, what an author says will always be separate from the writing.

[diet_poison]

Hm. Not familiar with that particular canon, so I can't comment on it.

[arcadiaego]

I was *literally* just agreeing with @diet_poison in my head and then thought 'yeah, but Anne Rice'. I suppose I take Word of God as canon depending on how much sense it makes.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

He's not anything other than a bunch of words on the page. If those words fail to clearly communicate after hundreds of hours of development, editing, editing, and more editing, the author/artist has failed.

"Word of god," is bullshit because not all ideas are equal. Authors/artists create entire notebooks and sketchbooks filled with bad ideas, of which only a handful are put into development, and only a minority of those make it through the editing process unchanged. If an author or artist feels the published work didn't express those ideas clearly, they can go through the rigorous process of creating a new edition.

Meanwhile LGBTQ fantasy for all ages has moved forward with openly LGBTQ characters. So it's a bit outrageous to keep giving Rowling cookies for a texts that are even more ambiguous about their gay characters than The Count of Monte Cristo.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Nope, "word of god" is always bullshit, otherwise we're forced to take seriously, "Oh no, that wasn't really racist. You just don't have a sense of humor."

[diet_poison]

I think stating that something happens in canon, or a character has a specific unchangeable trait, is a little different than stating that an action cannot be perceived a certain way.

I do get your point though. That's an angle I hadn't thought of. Mostly because I usually run in canon circles that are more cut-and-dry, I suppose.

[(Anonymous)]

You're arguing apples and lemons here.

Your example was an author insisting through word of god that a work can't be interpreted a certain way.

This is word of god that it was intended to be a certain way.

Like... Ok. I have a shitty shitty TV, I put on a movie and a guy's shirt looks green. I see it as green! But if the prop director gave them a RED shirt and the movie intended for it to be red and the director says it's red then I have to admit they intended it to be red and I just interpreted it differently.

Does that make sense?

So racist dude can say he doesn't intend for the joke to be racist and that can be true, and I can find the joke hella racist, and BOTH CAN BE TRUE.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like Dumbledore was at least heavily implied, since his love for Grindlewald blinded him to the evil the man was doing.

[(Anonymous)]

there's no such thing as canon

[(Anonymous)]

See, I'm gay, and I want this character to be gay, but honestly, I agree. This is a 100% rule for me. Only what is in the narrative itself is canon, and I never consider word of god canon. That being said, the character clearly isn't "straight" either, and a gay interpretation is perfectly legitimate, and if the actress played her gay, that means something.

[(Anonymous)]

She says "come here often?" to another woman when she walks into the lab. (The...professor woman.)

I mean, it's a pick up line.

[otakugal15]

She also was eyeing Kevin a bit as well. If anything she's bisexual with a preference for women, but won't always say no to a guy.

[raspberryrain]

If it's WordOfGod it is, or if it's AllThereInTheManual. She was gay in the script, so that's also AllThereInTheScript.

You know what site I am not linking to.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

You have a very strong case of "Death of the Author" going, haven't you?