case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-07-03 06:31 pm

[ SECRET POST #3834 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3834 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #549.
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.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-04 07:47 am (UTC)(link)
I don't see what would be so bad about treating all narrators as unreliable.

More broadly, I guess I'd say that I think, in a lot of cases, that there's not really one correct answer about whether a narrator is reliable or not. If you can come up with a plausible, useful interpretation where the narrator is unreliable, I don't see why you shouldn't, regardless of whether that's signaled in the text or not.
bio_obscura: (Default)

[personal profile] bio_obscura 2017-07-04 11:52 pm (UTC)(link)
I tend to agree with you, I just don't think "Dean is lying about being straight" is a plausible or useful interpretation in this case. Not that everyone isn't entitled to whatever fanon they want, but thinking Dean/Castiel is hot isn't enough reason to interpret Dean as closeted. There may be some differing definitions here about "interpretation" here, though. Head canon/fanon and interpretation are two different things, to me.

(Anonymous) 2017-07-05 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
Head canon/fanon and interpretation are two different things, to me

Dead thread is dead now and everything, but holy shit, THIS.