[ 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)]

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)

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Formal publication? If so, why?

Because the rigorous process of iteratively editing a work is critically necessary to separate the good ideas from the bad, and to transform good ideas into a form worth reading. We're not obligated to consider undeveloped ideas equivalent to ones that have been fully developed.

[diet_poison]

Meh, I think some canons are pretty underdeveloped, self-contradictory, and just overall not great. But I see your point.

[(Anonymous)]

SA.

What cbrachyrhynchos said, basically. Formal publication means it's set in stone, it's done, it's formally canon. It's an idea that's been deemed good enough, solid enough, and relevant enough to be placed into the published canon. It's not a 'three am wake up from a dream with a thought that so-and-so in the story might so such-and-such a thing' that anyone can spit out on their blog, whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. Some of the things in the canon probably started out that way too, don't get me wrong, but anything that's made it through formal publication has been distilled down to the 'best ideas' for the work.

Which is why I don't consider anything that didn't make it into that to be hard-canon. WoG tends to be an irritating mess of contradictions that's prone to changing as they change their minds. It's great if you like that sort of thing, but I'd rather work with the facts in the formal, published canon.

[diet_poison]

I get that, but some canons are very mushy and not well-developed, and some WoG statements/shared thoughts are very carefully thought-out.

[(Anonymous)]

Then they should have been in the canon.