Tumgik
#canon vs headcanon
cryoverkiltmilk · 1 year
Text
Canon is nothing but the sandbox I strike with lightning to forge the glass that is my world.
1K notes · View notes
grape-souffle · 23 days
Text
Tumblr media
203 notes · View notes
artbybai · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
Canon VS. Fanon Super Broly ✨🥦💪
(Template by @/TAGASAING on Twitter!)
300 notes · View notes
artichow · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
he's so normal
190 notes · View notes
Text
The marauders fandom’s obsession with shipping the allegorical nazi characters with the very people they detest and see as lesser is so wild to me. And like, I’m not talking about random Slytherin characters we don’t know or situations like Andromeda & Ted where she rebukes her family after some deprogramming. I’m talking the well-known death eaters, the ones thought to be favored by Voldemort, with muggle-borns or Remus Lupin or James. Like, you know they hate them and want them dead, right?
And I’m all for ship what you want, like I’ve silenced the tags I don’t want to see so it’s no skin off my bones, but when they get rude or insist people just “don’t understand the character” I’m like…have you read canon? “Moonwater” or “Moonprince” or Snape/Lily (IDK if they have a ship name) did not nor would not ever exist *in canon*. Cool beans if you you want to ship it, but don’t tell people they’re wrong or don’t get the characters when they point that out.
82 notes · View notes
skrimbloz · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
Did one of these thingys to practice drawing Lloyd :p
I was having the longest fight with myself wether I should give him dark roots or not then decided not to in the end to go along with my headcanon that his hair is blonde due to dragon heritage, designs where he has the dark roots look so cool tho 💔💔
I tried to use soft shading with the on model drawing to match the lighting in the show but GOD THATS SO DIFFICULT. IM TEAM HARD SHADING FOR LIFE.
Also I showed some of my freinds this drawing and they said my design looks like Yoongi, now I CANNOT unsee it
Anyways this was fun!! idk if i’ll do other characters using this template, depends on time and what other drawing ideas I have to get round to heh
77 notes · View notes
daydreambonsai · 11 months
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
thought i’d join this little trend hehe!! love my girl <3
279 notes · View notes
ramghosterr · 11 months
Text
in my head there are two versions of traffic!grian. if you ask me what i think the correct, canon interpretation is, that answer will be Way Different then my fanon version of him, which aligns more with how i write him in fanfics.
canon traffic grian moves from person to person quickly, and doesn't tend to make alliances with the same person twice. his relationships with others are fast and bright like a fire, until the fire goes out. he's fiercly loyal to those he cares about, but that disappears if they betray him (or what he views as a betrayal). he doesn't take kindly to being forced into something he's not willing to do. he's a survivor- he's careful and maybe even paranoid, and he often makes it pretty late in the game because of this. he enjoys the game a little too much, and takes delight in a successful trap (even if he's not on red). he's a force of chaos, who can't be forced into a box but will stay by your side until he outlives you.
fanon traffic grian is different. he's still loyal, but he forms attachments quickly and never really forgets about them, even if the people in those relationships hurt him. he holds his friends close to his heart, even after a new game has begun. he feels trapped, and scared- this is his punishment from the watchers, and he blames himself for what everyone else is going through. because of this, he pushes the people he cares about away. he's a tragic hero, a pyrrhic victor, a falling icarus. yet he still loses himself in the chaos, thriving in the danger and high emotions of the game (perfect for a watcher). he's scared but trying to be brave, guilty but trying to be strong, and traumatized but trying to push forward because he has no choice.
those are two different people. and that's okay. it's why it's called fanon.
152 notes · View notes
grizzabella-02 · 5 months
Text
Canon Childe and Fanon Childe are two very different people but I love them both with my whole being
53 notes · View notes
rei-is-hiding · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
111 notes · View notes
thatcasualgamergirl · 1 month
Text
I remembered this template exists and decided to take a crack at it
Tumblr media
If anyone wants to join in, feel free.
I might do this again with another one of my faves (not pertaining to DB)
23 notes · View notes
rottencandyapp1es · 10 months
Text
Tumblr media
I wanted to give the canon vs. artstyle challenge a try!!
146 notes · View notes
dumbassv32 · 9 months
Text
Tumblr media
i haven't used this many papyrus references in Forever
54 notes · View notes
jazryde · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
🤎 I love drawing her ❤️
63 notes · View notes
semisweeteas · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
i often forget i have a tumblr, but i did this thing
56 notes · View notes
Text
Subtext
So I know that there is a lot of discourse on and around subtext and whether or not it is, or should be, considered part of canon, here are my thoughts on the subject.
Subtext is part of canon, but not in the way that most people seem to think. Subtextual elements exist in a work and, as such, are a part of the work's canon. But here's the kicker... what those elements mean is not part of canon. Subtextual elements exist, they are part of a story, but the meaning of those elements, left unspoken and unclarified, is a matter of interpretation. Any meaning that is gleaned through interpretation is subjective. Things that are subjective are different for different people, they cannot be agreed upon, and often are widely and wildly disagreed upon, so they fall into head canon or fanon territory. Now, I've seen folks who claim that calling something fanon/hc is insulting and belittling, that's not what I mean here. Head canons are valid, in that what you are seeing and interpreting, rings true to you. I may not agree with your head canon, but I will never say that you are wrong to head canon it the way you do. But at the same time, a head canon is not canon.
Example... In a literature class I took in college there was this one day when we were analyzing a short story. I don't remember what story it was, it was rather boring and didn't stick with me. But the professor was asking us what the author meant by having it be raining in this particular scene. No one was speaking up so she randomly called on me. This was a mistake, but whatever. I, irritated without realizing at the time why, answered, "because the story exists in a world with climate and localized weather and the author was setting the scene." Or something to that effect. And the teachers tsked at me and called on someone else who then said that it was to convey a sense of sadness. This was the answer the teacher was looking for. Now, at the time, I didn't have the words to explain why this entire thing annoyed me so much, but I do now. The issue that I had was that she'd asked what the author meant by the inclusion of this potential piece of subtext. I know that rain and other gloomy weather is often used to denote negative emotion, it's a pretty common thing to do. But what I don't know is what the author meant by it when they chose to have it raining in that scene, because it could have been put in purposefully to convey the emotional subtext of the character, but it also could have simply been a detail the author added to help flesh out the little world they were building in their story, to ground it and give it more of a sense of realism (a thing that authors 100% do). We don't actually know which they meant by it. If she'd asked, "what do you think the rain signifies about the character in this scene?" Well, that would have gotten a different answer out of me. And, truth be told, I did know what she was looking for, the answer that she wanted, it was fucking obvious, but I also knew that she asked the question poorly and in bad faith and that rubbed me the wrong way because the answer I gave was just as valid as the one she was looking for.
The existence of the rain in the story was part of the canon. It was raining. What that rain actually meant in the story was a matter of interpretation though. It's potential meaning(s) = subtext. Because there were more than one interpretation of what it meant, no one interpretation could be part of the canon. However, each interpretation is an equally valid head canon. The story didn't lose anything by head canonning that the weather was just weather, it was still obvious, from the rest of the text, that the character was fucking sad, so the soggy subtext provided an optional extra layer of texture, but no additional meaning. (Honestly it was just a stupid example from the getgo and, obviously, still rubs me wrong 30 years later.)
This is how subtext works. It is used to add levels of unspoken depth to a story that are not actually needed to understand the story on a base/fundamental level. Any reading of meaning from subtext is subjective. Readings that are agreed upon by a group of people are fanon, while more individualized readings may just be head canon.
Again, because I know that there will be someone out there that is just chomping at the bit to accuse me of being insulting towards their read of subtext...
YOUR HEAD CANON IS JUST AS VALID AS MINE and that is precisely why our head canons are not, in fact, canon.
We have these three different terms to use for reasons, each one means something different from the others, they are not strict synonyms. Just because you've only ever seen people use the term fanon in a pejorative way, doesn't mean that it only means something pejorative or that you can just chose to use the term canon (when you actually mean fanon) instead to sidestep what you see as a negative connotation. Utilizing all three terms allows us to have a better and more nuanced discussion of a work. But if we refuse to use two of the terms, we are limiting and confusing our discussion in ways that lead to unproductive arguments.
17 notes · View notes