[ SECRET POST #5543 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5543 ⌋

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, 11 secrets from Secret Submission Post #793.
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 hate that too, OP. I have no problem with headcanons, especially for those looking for representation. When people start denying others the right to have a different opinion though, yeah that winds me up.

[(Anonymous)]

I know what you mean. Yes, fanfic is about play, and no, I don't want to harsh anyone's squee. But there are limits.

[feotakahari]

If they’re already harshing your squee by saying your interpretation is OOC, some pushback is to be expected.

[(Anonymous)]

As long as everyone is chill about everyone else using their headcanons, it's all fine.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but, like, it's not even opinion though if it's seeing the character as they are in canon. I get letting people have their fun, but canon characterization isn't opinion it's just textual fact and deviating from that is an explicit and purposeful choice, not an interpretation. Which again, is fine to do but you can't be upset when people don't do the same.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, total agreement. I'm all for experimenting with unknowns and coming up with headcanons for stuff that's not in the text, and I'm even fine with people occasionally experimenting with complete deviations from the text if they want to. But when the vast majority of the fandom has, as a whole, decided that the character's canon personality doesn't jive with their self-projection therapy writing or their wank fantasies, and decides universally to portray them by default as the complete opposite to their canon personality, it can be really jarring and alienating for people who are coming into the fandom genuinely loving the character as they were in the source media.

Like, if you fell in love with a masc-leaning character who's broody, cynical, prickly, intelligent, and kind of a control freak, and you want to squee with other people about how awesome the character is only to find that 90% of fanfics and fanart in all fandom spaces portray that character as a softe, exaggeratedly-femme, incompetent, wide-eyed floppy ragdoll woobie of a character who's incapable of doing anything without their love interest... you can't talk to anyone about the canon character from the source media. Everyone you talk to denies that that character you saw on the screen/page was ever there. They only see/care about their perfect stereotypical-bottom fanon version and they will bully anyone who prefers to stay true to the source material.

And while "gaslighting" is a highly overused and incorrectly-used term these days, you do end up feeling gaslit by the fandom, because you're left questioning your own ability to perceive what's in front of your face.

And even those who are willing to admit that fanon isn't source-accurate usually just end up shrugging and going "But whatever, nerd, we hate the canon anyway, actually, lol", which is a whole other frustration for me. Let those of us who actually like the thing enjoy our fandom without treating us like killjoys or thought criminals just because we want to talk about the thing we love, exactly as it was given to us.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you have a spectific example in mind? I don't mind different takes on character that are complex and thus could both, for instance be seen as cynical in some aspects but very soft in other (or anything where "opposite" traits coexist in one character), but the issue, like you said, is when fans deny that those aspects of the character are there in the first place and berates fans who prefer to concentrate on those aspects of the character. My personal example would be Castiel from Supernatural, especially because his physics change a lot from his early seasons to the latter ones (so yes, both his description as someone who's on the slender side, pale and with almost black hair and his description as someone who's muscular, tanned and brown-haired, are valid and happened in canon). A lot is up for interpretation, but not all id. The thing is to be careful about what is and isn't. Saying that I'm also peeved by some fans who aren't able to admit that something is indeed a matter of interpretation and insist their takes are "the correct ones". Anyway, sorry you haven't yet met fans to discuss the character you like instead of fans who only love a twisted version of this character.

[(Anonymous)]

Nayrt, but the Les Mis fandom is INFAMOUS for doing this to most of its preferred characters, especially Grantaire, who is canonically a loud, brash, alcoholic, u-mad-trollface type dudebro who dropped out of art school because he was too much of all the above to actually bother doing the work. But he also canonically has what can very easily be interpreted as an (unreciprocated) romantic fixation on Enjolras (don't get me started on what they do with his canonical character), so the fandom loves to pretend that the G man is actually a soft smol uwu bean with deep artistique feelings and hoo boy do they get MAD if anyone says anything to the contrary

[(Anonymous)]

Don't forget he's canonically described as "frightfully ugly." Because the fandom sure does! (Though to be fair so does every stage and movie adaptation so I guess that's not entirely on the fandom.)

same anon

[(Anonymous)]

Probably worth mentioning that Les Mis is the only fandom I've ever been in where I've seen people openly state that they don't like the actual canon and think it's stupid and old-fashioned and wrong

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT: Some big ones for me are Aziraphale and Crowley from Good Omens. Absolutely undeniable that they are complex characters and there's room for interpretation with both of them, but I find they get distorted, flattened, and flanderized to a ridiculous extent by a very large swathe of the fandom.

I've written and rewritten several detailed comparisons between popular fanon and canon for these characters, but it keeps ending up turning into a massive essay. I can still post that if you really care to see my thoughts on it, but I suspect a lot of people would just think of it as a lot of tl;dr. The very briefest thesis statement I can come up with is: making Aziraphale a sword-happy, traditionally-masculine, perfect killing machine goes directly counter to the entire point of his character, and if Crowley really was the delicate, waify woobie incapable of functioning without Aziraphale that everyone wants him to be, he wouldn't have survived to the 21st century.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, it depends on the character. Some are well defined by canon but some characters are written in a way where their actions and motives are up to interpretation. The author will intentionally not show their inner thoughts or reveal their motivations so it's up to readers to theorize.