@cocoa This is exactly what I use "reading" for! The amount of evidence required is on the order of "enough that I think if I wrote meta about it then other fans would probably agree that it's a plausible/justified interpretation, even if they don't personally draw the same conclusion".
Readings and headcanons overlap for me but neither is a subset of the other: headcanons are stuff I personally believe or want to believe or want to explore (with any amount of evidence, from "I made it up out of thin air" to "it's aaaaalmost canon"), and readings are stuff I think is a textually supported interpretation (independent of how I feel about it).
@cocoa But generally I think of a reading as something which is implied weakly enough that it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with it "just because". There's a third type of thing which is "not shown on-page/on-screen or literally stated outright, but implied heavily enough that if you're going to claim it isn't true/didn't happen, you need to explain how to prevent other aspects of the story from falling apart in its absence", and I have noooo clue what the word is for that. (I would love to find one!)
@stickpenalties@aethy.com oh, that's a good choice of word for it! I will remember that for the future.
@stickpenalties I agree a thousand percent with this
@cocoa ... step-canon? (Somewhere in my head a small voice just went "oh my step-canon what are you doing" so as you can see I am still trash. 💀😆)
I think that falls under a headcanon anymore? I may be wrong tho.
@inoru_no_hoshi@blorbo.social haha, the reason I'm asking other people's opinions is because of a discussion on Discord about what 'headcanon' covered.
Fandom friends! What would you call a take about a series or character that is strongly supported by evidence in the text, but not directly stated by the text? Does the amount of evidence make a difference?