I think it's also important to acknowledge that headcanons are, at their core, a phenomenon created in and for the context of fandom spaces. So, for me, I guess the inside/outside separation would be more that I wouldn't call "outside headcanons" headcanons at all -- they'd just be my personal reading of the text, subtext that I picked up on, or coding. Something I could write an essay about. My approach to "inside" headcanon is more along the lines of: "I'm gonna draw this guy with top surgery scars because it makes me happy and post it on Tumblr!". It's something I can share with others but it exists separated from the source work. In my experience, headcanon tends to have more overlap with AUs as a phenomenon than any critical analysis of the text. It's true that the lines blur a lot and I think that that's the root of a lot of this confusion and conflict. It's such a vague term that it basically invites that kind of confusion, only really describing "something someone believes about a character that isn't directly mentioned in the text"!
I totally second this comment : sometimes I like to believe a character is autistic because it's a fun second dimension and not because I believe this is something the writers objectively put in themselves, or a natural consequence of the text. And sharing with other people doesn't mean I believe it to be the definitive reading of the text, but because I think this perspective is fun and they might also get something from viewing the text this way. Something maybe similar is the all disney princesses are autistic theory, which like yeah, not because the writers meant it, it's all to fulfill a larger narrative plot and also most disney characters are insanely one dimensional. But also, it's fun, and deserves to be shared and discussed and so on. We focus so much to ensure our representation and discourse about autism and disability in general is exact and precise and teaches us something, but sometimes it's about imagining silly dudes like us. And that deserves a space in our community just as much as serious academic discussions do. The lines between the two are blurry, anyway.
Yeah i feel that, and like I also think that context matters a lot in this situation. If i see a silly meme about someone headcanoning a character I usually think that they are doing it because they like the character and are projecting but I do not take it as like "confirmation" that this character is what the person is saying they are. However if i see a long post titled "analysis" or "deep dive" or whatever then I treat that information differently, although i would argue that most of the time headcanons are not used into analysis posts. But then again I do agree that sometimes characters are being headcanoned as something simply because they fit into some kind of stereotype, which can be harmful. But then again a lot of the time people headcanon characters as something because they are projecting and seek comfort in the characters and like you said, might use it in a more AU like kind of way which is more akin to me to playing with the characters like dolls (potentially with other people too) than analysis. I also wonder about the effects of only intereacting with fandom and kinda forgetting the original source material, like I feel like a lot of the time people are not analysing the source material but a distant memory of it that has been very affected by the way the fandom views said thing. But also a lot of the time getting different point of views is great, I think that it's a lot more fun to have fandoms exploring different interpratations than having a fandom settling on one interpretation that might be very far off what the original thing was. So yeah overall i feel like headcanons and analysis are like not really the same thing but headcanoning doesn't mean you shouldn't analyse the reason why you are headcanoning a character, or that that reason will be harmfull, cause then again it might be someone (or a group of people) projecting. And it doesn't mean that the same people won't then go on to analyse the source material and point out how their own headcanon is based around stereotypes (or not). (ok that was super rambly i'm sorry)
@@halfmoon2018 Yeah I get your point! The hardest thing for me here is where do you draw the line. Like, I love to deep dive into probably incorrect headcanons. I don't much share anything online because I don't like to but I definitely rant to my friends top 10 reasons why xyz is a silly guy like us. When should something be taken 100% seriously and literally? When is it okay to leave a certain amount of suspension of belief? Even if it is just a silly headcanon, we are perhaps perpetuating biases. I don't know!! More questions raised than answers!!
@@halfmoon2018 i think that being able to at least partially detach your fandom experience from your experience with the work itself is key to having a healthy relationship with fandom but the issues with fandom aren't really what my comment is about. i just wanted to supply some surface-level context on how headcanon exists in fandom spaces because this video doesn't cover that angle (for obvious scope reasons).
@@ponkotsu6562 No, yeah, I definitely got that. I came up with this thought while writing, so I thought I'd share it, but it was mostly me going off on a tangent, not gonna lie.
Thank you for making this video, and I'm sorry if some of those "brain-exploding" submissions were mine. Sometimes I do get a little too excited about a headcanon, but I'll try not to submit my "inside headcanons" to you anymore.
wow. amazing. i love your mind. i love your machine-gun verbal pacing. i love your skepticism about identitarian cultural criticism and "activism." so very interesting.
I had an argument about a character being autistic-coded when watching "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" a couple days ago. For me it was a particularly important read, because the character of Penelope is in a relationship with the main character's aggresive ex, which, her reading as autistic to me, played into my danger sense and fear of being abused. Talking about it later, my friend said that she's just a naive, innocent character, and treating it like autism is applying a diagnostic viewpoint. We came to the conclusion that I view that character as autistic despite insufficient data, but I am keeping my viewpoint because I like the story with an autie Penelope in it better, and it makes it more impactful for me.
I remember talking to some people a little older than me and kinda joking about them being autistic only to be told they’re just from a different culture and a bit traumatized 😅😅
Uh I never heard of either and as I am new to all of this being diagnosed a couple years ago in my 70's(ADHD I knew I had big time thanks to my kids diagnosis....ASD was a surprise but really answered a lot of questions about why my life was so fucked...this makes me wonder do we still follow the Hays code in films...I realize it ended but lack of censorship still sees the old time morality acted out in film after film. Horror movies still have the sex penalty that makes victims of girls that 'do it' and no one ever profits from crime.....
"Moss" (from "The IT Crowd") "a painfully shy, highly intelligent IT technician with few social skills" "April Ludgate" (Parks and recs) can be (?) she has a blunt speech, flat mood/face, and a kind of special interest in things related to Halloween, death, scary/outlandish things in gral
![Unpacking Personality Tests [CC]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JxrCsEIcbm8/mqdefault.jpg)
![Unpacking Personality Tests [CC]](/img/tr.png)
![Reality TV v. IRB Human Research Guidelines [CC]](/img/n.gif)
I think it's also important to acknowledge that headcanons are, at their core, a phenomenon created in and for the context of fandom spaces. So, for me, I guess the inside/outside separation would be more that I wouldn't call "outside headcanons" headcanons at all -- they'd just be my personal reading of the text, subtext that I picked up on, or coding. Something I could write an essay about. My approach to "inside" headcanon is more along the lines of: "I'm gonna draw this guy with top surgery scars because it makes me happy and post it on Tumblr!". It's something I can share with others but it exists separated from the source work. In my experience, headcanon tends to have more overlap with AUs as a phenomenon than any critical analysis of the text. It's true that the lines blur a lot and I think that that's the root of a lot of this confusion and conflict. It's such a vague term that it basically invites that kind of confusion, only really describing "something someone believes about a character that isn't directly mentioned in the text"!
I totally second this comment : sometimes I like to believe a character is autistic because it's a fun second dimension and not because I believe this is something the writers objectively put in themselves, or a natural consequence of the text. And sharing with other people doesn't mean I believe it to be the definitive reading of the text, but because I think this perspective is fun and they might also get something from viewing the text this way.
Something maybe similar is the all disney princesses are autistic theory, which like yeah, not because the writers meant it, it's all to fulfill a larger narrative plot and also most disney characters are insanely one dimensional. But also, it's fun, and deserves to be shared and discussed and so on. We focus so much to ensure our representation and discourse about autism and disability in general is exact and precise and teaches us something, but sometimes it's about imagining silly dudes like us. And that deserves a space in our community just as much as serious academic discussions do. The lines between the two are blurry, anyway.
Yeah i feel that, and like I also think that context matters a lot in this situation. If i see a silly meme about someone headcanoning a character I usually think that they are doing it because they like the character and are projecting but I do not take it as like "confirmation" that this character is what the person is saying they are.
However if i see a long post titled "analysis" or "deep dive" or whatever then I treat that information differently, although i would argue that most of the time headcanons are not used into analysis posts.
But then again I do agree that sometimes characters are being headcanoned as something simply because they fit into some kind of stereotype, which can be harmful. But then again a lot of the time people headcanon characters as something because they are projecting and seek comfort in the characters and like you said, might use it in a more AU like kind of way which is more akin to me to playing with the characters like dolls (potentially with other people too) than analysis.
I also wonder about the effects of only intereacting with fandom and kinda forgetting the original source material, like I feel like a lot of the time people are not analysing the source material but a distant memory of it that has been very affected by the way the fandom views said thing. But also a lot of the time getting different point of views is great, I think that it's a lot more fun to have fandoms exploring different interpratations than having a fandom settling on one interpretation that might be very far off what the original thing was.
So yeah overall i feel like headcanons and analysis are like not really the same thing but headcanoning doesn't mean you shouldn't analyse the reason why you are headcanoning a character, or that that reason will be harmfull, cause then again it might be someone (or a group of people) projecting. And it doesn't mean that the same people won't then go on to analyse the source material and point out how their own headcanon is based around stereotypes (or not).
(ok that was super rambly i'm sorry)
@@halfmoon2018 Yeah I get your point! The hardest thing for me here is where do you draw the line. Like, I love to deep dive into probably incorrect headcanons. I don't much share anything online because I don't like to but I definitely rant to my friends top 10 reasons why xyz is a silly guy like us.
When should something be taken 100% seriously and literally? When is it okay to leave a certain amount of suspension of belief? Even if it is just a silly headcanon, we are perhaps perpetuating biases.
I don't know!! More questions raised than answers!!
@@halfmoon2018 i think that being able to at least partially detach your fandom experience from your experience with the work itself is key to having a healthy relationship with fandom but the issues with fandom aren't really what my comment is about. i just wanted to supply some surface-level context on how headcanon exists in fandom spaces because this video doesn't cover that angle (for obvious scope reasons).
@@ponkotsu6562 No, yeah, I definitely got that. I came up with this thought while writing, so I thought I'd share it, but it was mostly me going off on a tangent, not gonna lie.
Thank you for making this video, and I'm sorry if some of those "brain-exploding" submissions were mine. Sometimes I do get a little too excited about a headcanon, but I'll try not to submit my "inside headcanons" to you anymore.
wow. amazing. i love your mind. i love your machine-gun verbal pacing. i love your skepticism about identitarian cultural criticism and "activism." so very interesting.
I had an argument about a character being autistic-coded when watching "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" a couple days ago. For me it was a particularly important read, because the character of Penelope is in a relationship with the main character's aggresive ex, which, her reading as autistic to me, played into my danger sense and fear of being abused. Talking about it later, my friend said that she's just a naive, innocent character, and treating it like autism is applying a diagnostic viewpoint. We came to the conclusion that I view that character as autistic despite insufficient data, but I am keeping my viewpoint because I like the story with an autie Penelope in it better, and it makes it more impactful for me.
Re. Robin Hood-Prince John, who is a lion.
THAT'S THE ONE thank you !!
Great video production 👏🏿
I remember talking to some people a little older than me and kinda joking about them being autistic only to be told they’re just from a different culture and a bit traumatized 😅😅
Uh I never heard of either and as I am new to all of this being diagnosed a couple years ago in my 70's(ADHD I knew I had big time thanks to my kids diagnosis....ASD was a surprise but really answered a lot of questions about why my life was so fucked...this makes me wonder do we still follow the Hays code in films...I realize it ended but lack of censorship still sees the old time morality acted out in film after film. Horror movies still have the sex penalty that makes victims of girls that 'do it' and no one ever profits from crime.....
Great!
"Moss" (from "The IT Crowd") "a painfully shy, highly intelligent IT technician with few social skills"
"April Ludgate" (Parks and recs) can be (?) she has a blunt speech, flat mood/face, and a kind of special interest in things related to Halloween, death, scary/outlandish things in gral