[ SECRET POST #4304 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4304 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #616.
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)]

I agree. I generally only consider canon what's actually in the narrative itself. Anyway, actors often have no idea what they are talking about. Just because they are involved with the production for work doesn't mean they are a fan or put much thought into it.

[(Anonymous)]

This seems like a really good example of the limitations of 'canon' as a way to understand fiction, construct fanworks, etc.

On the one hand, absolutely, nothing that actors or creators say externally can ever be canon, or textual. The text is the text. Nor should statements like that necessarily be taken at face value. But those statements can still shed light on what they were doing when they made the thing, and help guide our interpretation, or better understand the thing. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[(Anonymous)]

Usually my response to stuff like "deleted scenes" is "thank god that was cut". And retroactively saying that a character was performed as a demisexual biromantic tomboy who secretly loves her mother does't magically change the text.