[ SECRET POST #5046 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5046 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 13 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)]

They exist in the conventional sense that they're ideas in peoples' heads and words that people use to talk about things.

But we could abandon that particular construct for understanding things, and we'd all be a lot better off if we did.

[(Anonymous)]

nah

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

What are you talking about even though, honestly? If the ideas and words are from the creators own mouth than it's canon, like Bilbo Baggin's is a Hobbit, canon. Bilbo and Thorin make a great ship, (at least according to the above secret) fanon. Media can't exist without a canon basis, fandom doesn't exist without a fanon base.

We need that basic construct to understand and perceive media, a middle ground is what we need not the extremes of an all or nothing.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT: Um, you do know that Bilbo is also, canonically, an unreliable narrator, so his autobiography must be viewed as both subjective and somewhat fictionalized?

[(Anonymous)]

SA: Not only is Bilbo canonically an unreliable narrator, Tolkien is canonically an unreliable fictional translator.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

So what, you're trying to say is that Bilbo is not a hobbit?
I'm talking specific facts, not indulgent opinions. Like for example, sure, it is canon that Bilbo isn't the most reliable narrator. I don't see how pointing out that something is canon to argue that canon isn't a thing proves anything. Of course I might just be completely misreading your comment, who knows.
My point is that you have to take in both these accounts, aka the canon intention and personal interpretation, not just one or another.

[(Anonymous)]

Ayrt: I'm pointing out that you're using tolkien to support a method of literary meaning he explicitly rejected in the text. Which makes the concept of canon as a set of facts from the text that are beyond interpretation unworkable.

[(Anonymous)]

... Do you even know what canon means?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not the one referring to a literary device that's constructed from a specific mode of fantasy including unreliable narration and translation as a "specific fact." Especially when the author in question explicitly argued interpreting that kind of fantasy as having a factual foundation rather than a literary one.

[(Anonymous)]

Correction, Tolkien explicitly disagreed that fantasy should be read as having a connection with facts.

[(Anonymous)]

So you are saying that Bilbo isn't a Hobbit. Okay, sure, you do you. But what does Tolkien have to do with the concept of canon as a whole anyways? He can handwave all he wanted to as 'word of god' but that doesn't have anything to do with anything but his own work, and even then it sounds like he's talking about something very different from what you're trying to say. I really think you should look up the definition of the word canon before you continue to argue that it doesn't/shouldn't exist.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm saying that Bilbo is a literary character, which almost everyone realizes and interprets as such. Pro tip: Hobbits do not actually exist. Debating whether Bilbo really ate potatoes as a matter of canon is a classic case of missing the point. Which the author coyly alludes to in the parts of the book you find inconvenient.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it headcanons you're confused about? Like Bilbo might not like potatoes personally just because his race does? Cause I get that. Headcanon ≠ canon. Fandom as a whole has been completely misinterpreting that lately for sure.

No Hobbits don't exist, but they and in fact all other races in his books are based on once believed mythology. Sure they and the literary characters don't physically exist, but that is completely besides the point.
I only chose Bilbo because there was a secret right there I decided to reference. I read the books, but that was a long time ago, and it still has no leverage on any other canon anywhere.

I'm really just confused what you're going on about as a whole tbh.