[ SECRET POST #3873 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3873 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


















03. [SPOILERS for Okja]



__________________________________________________



04. [WARNING for possible discussion of child abuse]

(Top of the Lake)

__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of rape]
http://i.imgur.com/is8E7se.jpg
[Twin Peaks 2017, linked for TV-sex]

__________________________________________________



06. [WARNING for possible discussion of abuse]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of abuse]

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #554.
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

Re: I agree with part of that.

[(Anonymous)]

So the problem I have with just saying something's not canon is that it's too restrictive.

If I come up with an argument for interpreting a text that is founded in the text, I think that's different than if I just make something up out of whole cloth. But from the point of view of canon, those two things are just equally uncanonical.

In other words, there's a meaningful difference between talking about subtext, and just making stuff up, and talking about things in terms of canon is really bad at talking about that.