[ SECRET POST #4972 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4972 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #712.
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: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, I dislike the whole construct of "canon" and "headcanon" etc. I think it should be thrown out. I think it's only marginally useful if you're working on a shared universe property where brand management and lore are important, and even then, I would personally prefer to ignore it. I think it would be much better and more straightforward, more practical, and more useful to generally talk in terms of textuality and subtext, and readings and interpretations of the text.

So in that light, I think this basically is like any other conversation about whether or not something is present (or at least implied) in the text or whether it's drawn out from the text by the reader's interpretation of the text (albeit it's made somewhat more complicated because the boundaries between romantic relationships, sexual attraction, and non-romantic non-sexual affection can often be ambiguous and blurry in ways we're generally poorly equipped to deal with).

How explicitly is it signaled in the text? How does the relationship align with the rest of what's going on in the text, with the broader thematic ideas? And how easy or plausible is it to read the relationship in different ways? I think there are some relationships - including het relationships - where you can, without explicitly saying it's a romantic relationship, depict it in a way where the most plausible interpretation is that it's romantic, for example. So those are the kinds of things I would take into account.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

Ohh, hard agree on the canon issue, but it's unfortunately a lost cause.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, I dislike the whole construct of "canon" and "headcanon" etc. I think it should be thrown out.
...
I think it would be much better and more straightforward, more practical, and more useful to generally talk in terms of textuality and subtext, and readings and interpretations of the text.

I personally have always seen "canon" and "headcanon" as just another way of saying "text" and "my interpretation of the text" and "is this canon?" to be essentially asking "is this interpretation supported by the text?" but obviously mileage varies.

it's made somewhat more complicated because the boundaries between romantic relationships, sexual attraction, and non-romantic non-sexual affection can often be ambiguous and blurry in ways we're generally poorly equipped to deal with

I think that's definitely a consideration, too. I remember reading a book from a rec here a few years ago about two asexual characters who are specifically said to be in a relationship (and even get engaged at the end), kiss, sleep in the same bed, etc., and there were still people in reviews saying they were disappointed because they expected a romance and these characters were clearly just friends because there weren't any sex scenes. So it's going to be even more difficult to portray things if the relationships themselves don't quite fit into the traditional boxes that most people are familiar with.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

I personally have always seen "canon" and "headcanon" as just another way of saying "text" and "my interpretation of the text" and "is this canon?" to be essentially asking "is this interpretation supported by the text?" but obviously mileage varies.

my feeling is that it leads people to think about it in a very binary way. one place you see this, IME, is in arguments about canon versus headcanon, which I think often operate on the assumption that there can only be 1 "official" "correct" interpretation or reading of the text, and that all other interpretations are just made up. I think that's a bad approach!

So it's going to be even more difficult to portray things if the relationships themselves don't quite fit into the traditional boxes that most people are familiar with.

totally agree!

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

my feeling is that it leads people to think about it in a very binary way. one place you see this, IME, is in arguments about canon versus headcanon, which I think often operate on the assumption that there can only be 1 "official" "correct" interpretation or reading of the text, and that all other interpretations are just made up. I think that's a bad approach!

That's a really good point! I don't know if you're familiar with it or not, but this makes me think of the show Blindspot, which ended recently, and the last episode isn't at all clear-cut about how things actually end. The creator said that he did have a specific interpretation in mind, so I guess you could say that's the "correct" one but he hasn't said what it is, and he's said that he wants people to be able to decide for themselves and that either interpretation is valid and even the actors disagree on which ending was "right". (There are two main ones that have textual evidence both for and against, but I've also read at least one other interpretation that I think could make sense as well...trying to be vague here in case you haven't seen it and want to.) So obviously canon vs. not is not quite an adequate way to describe things in that case, and I've hesitated to describe anything as canon when talking about the finale because it's just not really accurate.

Honestly, I think it just comes down to people wanting the validation of being able to say that their interpretation is the "right" one, and saying "well, my interpretation is one of several that are equally valid" just isn't quite as satisfying.

I do think that in some instances things ARE binary, where the answer to "has this interpretation been confirmed by the text?" is a fairly easy yes/no (and saying "it is/isn't canon" is shorthand for that), but yeah, a lot of the time, it's not quite that simple.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT: Aside from the representation issue, I don't get why people are so uptight about whether their ship is "canon" given that people have been writing slash to queer mainstream fiction since the Edwardian era.

Re: To you, what is necessary for a same-sex relationship to be considered canon?

[(Anonymous)]

OP of thread

I kind of get it to a certain degree. Like, my ships pretty much never become "canon" (except in specifically queer literature) because they're mostly m/m and that's just not really a thing in most mainstream shows (talking about TV here because that's my main medium for entertainment outside of books; I've just never been a big movie person for whatever reason). I'm trying to get past it, but I do still have this mindset of "it's just not the same if it's not canon". I think in my case it's because these days, I tend to get into smaller fandoms and rarepairs where there's not any fic, so it "being canon" seems more important because that's a way to get more content for the ship. I know in the past when I was in large fandoms where I shipped the most popular or second most popular ship and there was a ton of content, I didn't really care so much about whether "it was canon" or not.