case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2020-10-29 04:59 pm

[ SECRET POST #5046 ]


⌈ 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.

(Anonymous) 2020-10-30 05:39 pm (UTC)(link)
One of the things that's funny is that the fandom concept of "canon" was an inside joke in pre-internet Sherlock Holmes that reconciling all of the contradictions in Doyle's stories involved the same kinds interpretive somersaults as biblical literalism.

But the secret criticizes the view that "a canon has a specific correct interpretations of events and/or relationships." And no, we don't need that as demonstrated by the historic flexibility of canon which can easily accommodate multiple versions and variations.