[ SECRET POST #5476 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5476 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 30 secrets from Secret Submission Post #784.
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)]

That is exactly how it works.

[(Anonymous)]

What about inference, suggestion, implication?

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Listen if you're reading a book and some people in it are married, you cannot assume they have had sex because it's not written into the text. That's how things work! Not canon! Also if you have never seen a certain character try a food or an activity, there is zero canon basis to say they have done or tried the thing. A character who never drinks tea on screen has never tried tea. It is not canon! No assuming allowed!

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. This. There is no canon evidence to say they do not have a celibate marriage, those happen; and there is no evidence to say they have had tea, many people don't.

[(Anonymous)]

Yup! I was actually wholeheartedly agreeing with you. If you are a strict canon nerd that is true! Canon is canon and text is text.

Now, "is being a strict canon nerd a reasonable and realistic thing to do when interpreting works or creating fanworks? is such strict canon nerdism what the author intended? and can any work, based strictly on text with zero assumptions made, create any sort of realistic human character?" are all other questions with different answers.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes.
and
Yes.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm then going to assume that, by your narrow definition of canon, then absolutely no one in Lord of the Rings ever shits, as we never get informed of the fact. There are also no bathrooms in Star Wars, and everyone in the galaxy is constipated.

[(Anonymous)]

da

Don't be silly. Darth Vader just goes in his pants, the tech takes care of it.

[(Anonymous)]

All SW characters just crap wherever they're standing and the Force takes care of it later.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually there bathrooms in Star Wars, they are called refreshers, and they have been shown in canon multiples times, most recently in Season 1, Episode 1 of The Mandalorian. And AP-5 once walked in on Wedge Antilles using one in Star Wars: Rebels episode Double Agent Droid.

[(Anonymous)]

I think there is a point where it's reasonable say something is canon because there's so much evidence for it, even without the characters saying it outright. Does the married couple have children? Do the children look relatively like their parents? I think at that point it's safe to say it's canon that the couple has had sex. Is there still a possibility that they adopted those kids and all the kids just happened to grow up resembling their adoptive parents, by sheer coincidence? Sure, I guess, but that's veering hard into the "zebras" explanation (look up "saying about horses and zebras" if you don't get it).

[(Anonymous)]

what an absolutely joyless way to interact with fiction.

[(Anonymous)]

Assuming (heh) you're not trolling, this is kind of a ridiculous take, honestly. No assuming ever? Of course it's going to be assumed that a married couple has had sex. Yes, there's a chance the marriage wasn't consummated for some reason. But unless their consummation has some bearing on the plot, I'm not sure why it would be questioned. Or why it would be relevant about outside of fanfiction.

Besides, the problem with "you didn't see/read it, therefore you can't assume it happened" is that "you didn't see/read it, therefore you can't assume it didn't happen" is equally true. And it won't take long to see how ridiculous that can also get.

[(Anonymous)]

Those are all excellent starting points for your personal headcanon.

[(Anonymous)]

This is a perfect example of why "canon" and "headcanon" is a ridiculous standpoint for people to use for understanding and interpreting stories. It is an incredibly limited and impoverished and, frankly, silly thing to say that you're only allowed to take account of things that are explicitly and coldly stated in the story, and everything else is only "headcanon". There's a whole plethora of works that rely on people being able to figure out things that are not quite explicitly said as the whole basis for how they function as stories. You are closing yourself off from the way that reasonable adults have read and interpreted fiction since forever for the sake of some piddly arguments in fandom.

[(Anonymous)]

It's so cute when someone with your limited reading comprehension skills comes in to lecture the rest of the class.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh?