Some thoughts and questions...
Friday, 3 June 2016 21:35![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aletheiafelinea...about headcanon as general idea.
I've come recently across this post:
The exasperated tone notwithstanding (not like I find it unwarranted, anyway), it brings up a real issue, worth of thinking and discussing. Actually, one that needs thinking and discussing.
While I agree with the OP's frustration, I disagree with the assumption that the meaning of headcanon as a term is and should be set in stone. What OP describes, is actually its evolution that has occurred in recent years and, admittedly, mostly on Tumblr, as it seems. What we need, I think, is not some resetting the term to its 'proper' meaning, but rather cool-headed recognizing of new meanings and being able to tell them apart. I do agree that canon-compliant headcanons are different things than AU headcanons; we need some new terms for this.
I think the real problem and the source of annoyance is not the existence of this difference itself, but fans who act like they deny it, especially in the aggressive way. So, in OP's words, people swearing up and down that their personal AUs are the true canon. The tin-hat sort of fans. Again, even this term itself happens to be used in the auto-ironic, humorous way, but thing is, a fan who is able to talk about oneself in this tongue-in-cheek way, isn't really tin-hat, so it all boils down to self-awareness anyway. Same with headcanons. They are called headcanons for a reason after all, which means the first person who came up with the term had to be aware of it.
Granted, even if we agree about this, two things always will remain disputable in practice:
A. What is and what isn't canon in every given case.
That's the very life of every fandom after all, discussing and interpreting details to death. Still, every universe has some 100% sure elements the discussion can be based on in the first place. One can offer ways to go around them, but one needs to make it plausible and cannot dismiss those elements outright.
B. Whether having headcanons is okay or not.
That's actually a form of questioning whether the transformative part of the fan-culture is okay or not. I know that for most of you, probably all, it's not a question at all and the answer is obvious, but even in the inner land of fandom territory we keep arguing about the details: to what degree can we push it? where exactly the fannish artistic license applies and where does not? Even most hardcore and fan-culture savvy fans vary in their opinions on this and constantly judge other fans. Nothing wrong in this, I think, since it builds some more or less commonly agreed ethics, as long as it doesn't degenerate into the pathologic call-out culture of harassment Tumblr is infamous for, and as long as it remains open to negotiation. Also, it's good to make one's opinions and personal approach clear, to add to the pool of which the common ethics emerges.
So, my personal approach is that all ways of headcanoning and transforming are okay, as long as one is aware of their nature and makes it clear for others. Maybe I don't show it often (if ever), but I'm quite close to the extreme end of the how-much-is-acceptable scale. My own frame of judgment is not “how much one can mess with”, but “how much one is honest about it”. In a more detailed way:
# You want to write/draw an AU? Why not, as long as you don't insist it's canon. After all, a big part of the point of fanworks is experimenting – with ideas, with characters, with plots, with worldbuilding...
# You want to change a character's gender, sexual orientation, race, personality traits, social & cultural background, biography, details of look, basically anything this character is build of? Frankly, I see it all as a form of AU-ing, and I have already told I'm okay with this, regardless of the starting point and the direction of the change. Just don't insist you have revealed this character's true nature or whatever. No, you have changed it, period. If you turn out a talented re-designer of toys, I'll enjoy it, maybe more than the canon version, but let's call a spade a spade, okay?
# You want to write/draw graphic gore, rape, whatever sort of heavy stuff? Slap on the proper rating and clear description, don't call it tender love and we're okay. If you turn out a talented etc., because I don't come seeking just kittens and rainbows, and kicking and clawing into the raw feels is actually the very core and sense of fan-experience and fan-catharsis.
# You want to write/draw RPF? Not my cup of tea in 999 cases of 1000, but have your fun, as long as you make sure no one can mistake the result for some celebrity gossip or eyewitness’ testimony, and for mercy's sake, do not send it to your toy victim, and yes, bringing it to a convention counts as such, too.
# You want to combine all above and on the top of that make your fun weird, icky, ridiculous, outright crazy, edging on illegal, happily plowing across social norms and spitting on sacred taboos, even those sacred among other hardcore fans? Whatever floats your boat, pal. As far as I'm concerned, entertainment has the right to be crazy and art has the right to be provoking, even if you're a lousy artist who couldn't afford quality if it was on promotion. Just don't overstep the line between sharing and rubbing in others' faces, and accept that not everyone is obligated to feel the same way as you do. One person's meat is another person's poison, while one person's trash is another person's treasury and all that.
# And you want to hold a headcanon against the canon actual? I'm still okay, I do it occasionally myself. Just let's agree on calling it AU headcanon, or whatever new term will catch on, and never insist it's true canon when it clearly is not. Also, nothing wrong in claiming your headcanon would be better and expressing regret when the canon actual goes different way, as long as you're not a drama queen about it (as in “author is literally Hitler and I cut myself, here are photos btw, because everyone in his books/movies is stubbornly cis / there's too many gay characters / X married Y instead Z” drama queen) and don't act hateful (as in “Dear Author, I hope you will die and your cat will eat you and die of poisoning” hateful). Yes, even if you claim your drama and hate is for common benefit, because no one asked you to represent anyone but you and yourself only. Actually, accept that other fans have the right to be happy with what they get, to not find your headcanon appealing and to make their own headcanons that you may find unappealing. And other fans aside, canon actual is just the headcanon of the actual creators, and they have right to it at least as much as the fans, if not more. How can we demand respect for our playground, if we stop respecting the rightful authorship? That's exactly what we have transformative fanworks for after all: to make our own versions happen, when they aren't happening in the official version.
Your opinions and your approach? :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can comment also in Disqus, here.
It's okay to comment in whatever language fits you best, as long as I get it. Don't mind the entry's language.
Można komentować w języku, który najbardziej ci odpowiada, o ile go zrozumiem. Nie przejmuj się językiem notki.
I've come recently across this post:
Before tumblr, I used to think that headcannons were small theories based on evidence and subtle things found in the cannon. Making it plausible for them to coexist with the cannon.
What tumblr has taught me, however, is that headcannons are just wild and unevidenced claims based in absolutely nothing and sometimes outright ignoring the cannon to make it pluasible. Which seems more like it would be an AU than anything.
What tumblr has also taught me is that people will fight you to the fucking death on their headcannons, swearing up and down that they’re not only plaisible, BUT THE REAL CANNON.
Which is weird to me. like, chill they are a fictional character.
aeonwyvern/Tumblr; spelling original
The exasperated tone notwithstanding (not like I find it unwarranted, anyway), it brings up a real issue, worth of thinking and discussing. Actually, one that needs thinking and discussing.
While I agree with the OP's frustration, I disagree with the assumption that the meaning of headcanon as a term is and should be set in stone. What OP describes, is actually its evolution that has occurred in recent years and, admittedly, mostly on Tumblr, as it seems. What we need, I think, is not some resetting the term to its 'proper' meaning, but rather cool-headed recognizing of new meanings and being able to tell them apart. I do agree that canon-compliant headcanons are different things than AU headcanons; we need some new terms for this.
I think the real problem and the source of annoyance is not the existence of this difference itself, but fans who act like they deny it, especially in the aggressive way. So, in OP's words, people swearing up and down that their personal AUs are the true canon. The tin-hat sort of fans. Again, even this term itself happens to be used in the auto-ironic, humorous way, but thing is, a fan who is able to talk about oneself in this tongue-in-cheek way, isn't really tin-hat, so it all boils down to self-awareness anyway. Same with headcanons. They are called headcanons for a reason after all, which means the first person who came up with the term had to be aware of it.
Granted, even if we agree about this, two things always will remain disputable in practice:
A. What is and what isn't canon in every given case.
That's the very life of every fandom after all, discussing and interpreting details to death. Still, every universe has some 100% sure elements the discussion can be based on in the first place. One can offer ways to go around them, but one needs to make it plausible and cannot dismiss those elements outright.
B. Whether having headcanons is okay or not.
That's actually a form of questioning whether the transformative part of the fan-culture is okay or not. I know that for most of you, probably all, it's not a question at all and the answer is obvious, but even in the inner land of fandom territory we keep arguing about the details: to what degree can we push it? where exactly the fannish artistic license applies and where does not? Even most hardcore and fan-culture savvy fans vary in their opinions on this and constantly judge other fans. Nothing wrong in this, I think, since it builds some more or less commonly agreed ethics, as long as it doesn't degenerate into the pathologic call-out culture of harassment Tumblr is infamous for, and as long as it remains open to negotiation. Also, it's good to make one's opinions and personal approach clear, to add to the pool of which the common ethics emerges.
So, my personal approach is that all ways of headcanoning and transforming are okay, as long as one is aware of their nature and makes it clear for others. Maybe I don't show it often (if ever), but I'm quite close to the extreme end of the how-much-is-acceptable scale. My own frame of judgment is not “how much one can mess with”, but “how much one is honest about it”. In a more detailed way:
# You want to write/draw an AU? Why not, as long as you don't insist it's canon. After all, a big part of the point of fanworks is experimenting – with ideas, with characters, with plots, with worldbuilding...
# You want to change a character's gender, sexual orientation, race, personality traits, social & cultural background, biography, details of look, basically anything this character is build of? Frankly, I see it all as a form of AU-ing, and I have already told I'm okay with this, regardless of the starting point and the direction of the change. Just don't insist you have revealed this character's true nature or whatever. No, you have changed it, period. If you turn out a talented re-designer of toys, I'll enjoy it, maybe more than the canon version, but let's call a spade a spade, okay?
# You want to write/draw graphic gore, rape, whatever sort of heavy stuff? Slap on the proper rating and clear description, don't call it tender love and we're okay. If you turn out a talented etc., because I don't come seeking just kittens and rainbows, and kicking and clawing into the raw feels is actually the very core and sense of fan-experience and fan-catharsis.
# You want to write/draw RPF? Not my cup of tea in 999 cases of 1000, but have your fun, as long as you make sure no one can mistake the result for some celebrity gossip or eyewitness’ testimony, and for mercy's sake, do not send it to your toy victim, and yes, bringing it to a convention counts as such, too.
# You want to combine all above and on the top of that make your fun weird, icky, ridiculous, outright crazy, edging on illegal, happily plowing across social norms and spitting on sacred taboos, even those sacred among other hardcore fans? Whatever floats your boat, pal. As far as I'm concerned, entertainment has the right to be crazy and art has the right to be provoking, even if you're a lousy artist who couldn't afford quality if it was on promotion. Just don't overstep the line between sharing and rubbing in others' faces, and accept that not everyone is obligated to feel the same way as you do. One person's meat is another person's poison, while one person's trash is another person's treasury and all that.
# And you want to hold a headcanon against the canon actual? I'm still okay, I do it occasionally myself. Just let's agree on calling it AU headcanon, or whatever new term will catch on, and never insist it's true canon when it clearly is not. Also, nothing wrong in claiming your headcanon would be better and expressing regret when the canon actual goes different way, as long as you're not a drama queen about it (as in “author is literally Hitler and I cut myself, here are photos btw, because everyone in his books/movies is stubbornly cis / there's too many gay characters / X married Y instead Z” drama queen) and don't act hateful (as in “Dear Author, I hope you will die and your cat will eat you and die of poisoning” hateful). Yes, even if you claim your drama and hate is for common benefit, because no one asked you to represent anyone but you and yourself only. Actually, accept that other fans have the right to be happy with what they get, to not find your headcanon appealing and to make their own headcanons that you may find unappealing. And other fans aside, canon actual is just the headcanon of the actual creators, and they have right to it at least as much as the fans, if not more. How can we demand respect for our playground, if we stop respecting the rightful authorship? That's exactly what we have transformative fanworks for after all: to make our own versions happen, when they aren't happening in the official version.
Your opinions and your approach? :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can comment also in Disqus, here.
It's okay to comment in whatever language fits you best, as long as I get it. Don't mind the entry's language.
Można komentować w języku, który najbardziej ci odpowiada, o ile go zrozumiem. Nie przejmuj się językiem notki.
