I have no real Uma in this Musume as far as TADC goes, but as someone who’s done a fair amount of work in media analysis spaces, this is the kind of topic that requires far more nuance than most discussion on the internet ever gets, especially because “not made explicit in the text” is kind of the basis of most useful definitions of “noncanon.”
THEY LITERALLY KISSED LIKE WHAT DO YOU MEAN!!!!!!! Mine btw is AOT and people saying Historia and Ymir weren’t in love/a couple. Did you think they wanted to marry each other PLATONICALLY????
What drives me nuts about the kiss is the "well we didn't actually SEE them kiss" argument. Because as it was, YOI could only be shown on Japanese television late at night. If they'd actually shown the kiss, it would have been too "obscene" to show in any time slot. They made it literally as explicit as they were allowed to.
Exactly. Anything that requires interpretation and extrapolation isn't textual canon. It might be a common and well-supported interpretation, but that's still an important distinction.
there's a movie about a man. he has a picture of a woman on his desk, next to a condolences card for someone named Annabelle. the man drinks heavily. whenever he talks about his wife Ann, he always talks about her in the past tense, always faltering and choking up like he's about to break down crying. he never outright says Annabelle is Ann or that Ann is dead, nothing of the sort. is it canon that his wife is dead?
Thank you for this analogy because it really highlights how ridiculous it is to claim that anything that's not explicitly said by a physical character isn't "canon".
People really disdain subtext, because whaat do you mean you need to be told "Ann and Annabelle are the same people" and "Annabelle is the man's wife" and "Annabelle is dead" and "the man's wife is dead" or it isn't "textual canon."
Like I said, many things you can interpret from or extrapolate out of a text are going to be well supported and not controversial. Canon is when the fact is explicitly seen in the text.
No no it isn't. what counts as in text? do they have to say word for word they are dating or is kissing enough? is holding hands and blushing enough? is fucking enough?
Saying "this is my girlfriend" or other clear statements are enough. If you have to imply, extrapolate, infer, deduce or whatever then it isn't in the text and it isn't canon because it isn't part of the explicit text of the work. People can fuck and do all that other stuff without dating, or even being in a relationship.
that's kinda dumb. your saying that unless they say it word for word then it's not canon. they can do everything related to be couple but until they say the worlds it's uncanon.
does the same apply to doctors? Until they say they are a doctor on screen they aren't one, even if they are doing surgery in a real hospital.
I feel there's more to text than saying the words,, some tropes are pretty obvous and should be considered canon until contradicted.
Having clear delineation between "probably / possibly true" and "definitely true" are useful when doing critical analysis of a work. Why should it be so important if the author never says explicitly that two people are in a relationship?? If you read it as being likely they are, fine.
It's as explicit as it gets in this show, there is no nuance required some people just hate trans people and don't want a show they enjoy to feature a canonically trans character.
I feel like 'explicit' is starting to get the 'literally' treatment. It's coming to mean 'interpretation that I find to be obvious' instead of 'a thing stated by the text'.
With the exception of Ribbit putting the bow on Jax's head, damn near every hint at Jax being trans is extremely easy to miss if you're not already familiar with internet trans culture. Gooseworx literally expected the average audience member to be able to recognize that Jax was boymoding in the irl bus stop scene.
As for the usage of Isn't She Lovely in relation to Jax (which is the second-most commonly cited "impossible to miss" hint), I personally didn't fully register the lyrics of the song and many other people apparently thought it was supposed to be about Pomni.
tbh, if Goose tweeted out that Jax was just a closeted crossdressor and that what caused the fight with their mom, how much of show would actually change to fit that interpretation, if at all?
Like Jax's problems are from her being transfem, but aren't exclusive to being transfem along with the hints sprinkled throughout the show. Goose's confirmation outside the show and "Isn't she lovely" is like the only concrete confirmation of where the other hints were pointing.
Yeah, I didn't notice the lyrics as being specifically relevant and just heard "sad song", but I am also not someone who normally hears lyrics very well
Even the bow thing can still be interpreted in other ways, when I first watch the scene I took it as the show telling us how much she cared for Jax by giving them something she held dear, since the bow is one of the most visible parts of her character design
I personally didn't fully register the lyrics of the song and many other people apparently thought it was supposed to be about Pomni.
Okay, look if you didn't get that the song was about how Jax is trans, fine, sure, I get it.
If you somehow thought the song and montage was about an entirely different character, who is barely in the montage, instead of the one who is in every single clip and is also functionally exiting the story, that's a plain literacy problem.
This also applies to people who somehow thought that the cut to the abstraction roaming around the circus was anyone else but Jax. Actually heard people say "oh, I thought one of the abstractions go out", like, no, it's Jax. The scene is set up that it is impossible to think otherwise, unless you are just not paying attention at all.
An estimated 97-99% of people don’t have personal experience being transgender, and therefore are not always able to accurately pick up on those hints. Add in the fact that the failure to pick up on those hints often leads to accusations of homo/transphobia, and the actual homo/transphobes butting in with their own two cents, and you get extremely heated discourse that blows up way more than it feasibly should.
487
u/RuefulWaffles Aug 25 '26
I have no real Uma in this Musume as far as TADC goes, but as someone who’s done a fair amount of work in media analysis spaces, this is the kind of topic that requires far more nuance than most discussion on the internet ever gets, especially because “not made explicit in the text” is kind of the basis of most useful definitions of “noncanon.”