[ SECRET POST #5044 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5044 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #722.
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'm sorry, but I don't agree. Representation is representation, it's different from interpretation, and that's what I think we're talking about here. Characters whose body type is indeterminate are open to interpretation, and can be conceived of as having a range of body types - it's equally reasonable to say that they're skinny as it is to say they're fat, or anywhere in between. Interpreting characters as fat not the same as having textual fat characters. But the need for textual fat characters is not a good reason to think that we should headcanon characters as thin instead, either.

I don't really agree that an author's headcanon should be something that we have to agree with. But I think that's especially true in the case where we're just assuming what their headcanon is based on prevalent cultural perceptions, not on anything that they've seen or written. And even more so when those prevalent cultural perceptions are bad, harmful ideas that we should reject anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

If any theoretical headcanon is valid to you, and author intent doesn't matter to you at all when trying to portray the character accurately to a third party, then I repeat that there is no point to this conversation because that is all I am talking about.

See you later.

[(Anonymous)]

Setting aside those points, I still disagree that conventional societal norms are a good enough reason to think that we know an author's headcanon about their characters

But OK

[(Anonymous)]

DA... and I think it's a perfectly reasonable assumption, given we can't know for certain