CANONICALLY IMPLIED PSUEDO INCEST CODING WHERE (<- person who is suddenly very interested and intruiged to get behind this and would like to know more)
First Iâll do a quick breakdown of the term.
CANONICALLY: this refers to what is given to us by the source material, or âcanon
IMPLIED: this means it is not directly stated, and one must read between the lines to identify it. This elusive property makes claims of implications difficult to prove definitively without robust evidence.
CANONICALLY-IMPLIED: this means that what we are talking about has been, at most, implied in canon. This is different from being explicitly canon, and borders on headcanon territory as it largely relies on interpretation.
PSEUDO: this means ânot realâ or âa sham,â by definition: something that is Fake
INCEST: sexual relations between people who are closely related, usually immediate family and some narrower definitions specify being blood related
PSEUDO-INCEST: defined as incest specifically where the individuals in question are not blood related (e.g. step-family, adoption, in-laws, etc.)
CODED: this refers to symbolic âcodingâ in media whereby information is communicated by the ascription of traits and actions which are associated with ideas that are not explicitly stated. These are wink-wink nudge-nudge references that are deliberately included by creators for the audience to âcatchâ and decode. Familiar examples include âqueer-codingâ, whereby a character (who may or may not be canonically queer themselves) exhibits a number of traits which are associated with a queer identity, and âautistic-codingâ which functions similarly, but with common autistic traits.
CANONICALLY-IMPLIED PSEUDO-INCEST -CODED: this term refers to characters who, in the âcanonâ of their source material, which been implied to have had sexual relations or designs on the other non-blood related party that are nonetheless (implied to be) incestuous in nature, and that this implied information is communicated to the audience through âcodingâ
Q: Why would anyone feel the need to come up with this term in the first place? Isnât it needlessly convoluted and completely useless?
A: You are absolutely right. Thatâs the entire point. I have heard every possible combination of these words leveled at one specific pairing with no regard whatsoever for the definition of any component. These nonsense-words are presented as the only fact-based interpretation of the canon dynamic (hence the âcanonically.) I combined them all together out of annoyance to point out how dumb it sounds.
Things Iâm *not* doing:
- delving nto the morality of shipping fictional Canonically-Implied Pseudo-Incest -Coded characters.
Iâll briefly go over the relevant information of the pairing in question. (Some may know what pairing I am referring to, others may recognize the pairing from the information I give in the rest of the post. I will confirm who they are at the end.)
I encourage those reading this to think for themselves based on the presented evidence, and consider what criteria for a âcanonically-implied pseudo-incest -coded relationshipâ would or would not be met when shipping these fictional characters.
Background/Relevant Context: Three years before the events of the source material, Character Aâs six-year-old son was fatally injured in a car accident and died during surgery. The child would be nine years old if alive during canon.
Age: approximately 3 months
Background/Relevant Context: Character B is not human, and has the appearance and abilities of an adult human. Character B was portrayed by a 26-year-old actor. Character B has the ability to die and come back multiple times.
Relationship Status: (canon, explicit):
Character A and Character B are coworkers, and explicitly referred to as âPartners.â They do not have a mentor-mentee relationship.
Throughout the source material, the relationship between Character A and Character B is explicitly stated as it develops. The possible words that may classify their relationship (as described by the opinion Character A displays towards Character B) are as follows: âHostileâ âTenseâ âNeutralâ âWarmâ âFriendâ (note that familial terms such as âpaternalâ and âfatherlyâ do not appear here.)
Alleged Evidence of Said Canonical Implications of Pseudo-Incest -Coding:
Character A calls Character B âsonâ exactly one time. The full quote, spoken very quickly: âHold on son, hold on, hold on! Weâre gonna save you, hold on!â (This is taken directly from the subtitles of the source material. Note that there is no comma before âson.â)
Character A once, while actively contemplating suicide, confides to Character B, âYâknow every time you died and came back⊠It made me think of [sonâs name]. Iâd give anything to hold him again.â
Claim: âthe in-game photo used for Character Aâs son is actually Character Bâs actor as a child!â
Debunking: Wrong! It is a stock photo.
Testimonials (Anonymous):
"just because [Character A] doesn't look into the camera and state '[Character B] I see you as my son' doesn't mean it's not canon"
Remember, in order for something to be canonically-implied pseudo-incest -coded, the characters must be
- coded to have the implication that they are not blood related
- coded to have the implication that they have a familial relationship that is otherwise defined, such as through step-family, adoption, or being in-laws
- coded to have the implication that this coded-to-be-implied familial relationship is immediate enough that a sexual/romantic relationship between them would be coded to be implied to be pseudo-incestuous
Q: Wow, thatâs a lot of canonically-implied -coded evidence! How could anyone ship them without âglorifying canonically-implied pseudo-incest coded shipsâ???
A: As impossible as it may sound, there are moments which may be interpreted as romantic or flirtatious.
Evidence of Possible Romantic Chemistry (up to interpretation):
Character B says to Character A about their working relationship: "I think working with an officer with personal issues is an added challenge, but adapting to human unpredictability is one of my features,â and winks at him.
In response to the question from Character A of what Character B really is, Character B may respond: "I'm whatever you want me to be lieutenant. Your partner, your buddy to drink with, or just a machine designed to accomplish a task."
Character A excuses himself from an interaction with a prostitute by saying âIâm with him,â (Character B) and then becomes flustered afterwards and stutters to correct himself.
The characters in question are Hank Anderson (âCharacter Aâ), a human, and Connor (âCharacter Bâ), an android, from the 2013 game Detroit: Become Human.
Would shipping Hank and Connor qualify as âcanonically-implied pseudo-incest codedâ?
The familial relation claimed to âimpliedâ and âcoded,â without a direct confirmation from the creators of the game, rely by the nature of the claim to be solely justified by subjective interpretations of canon evidence. This would require a great deal of finesse and subtlety on the part of the creators. Any reasonable person who has any degree of familiarity with Detroit: Become Human can tell you it is not a subtle game.
This is not the way the story of a father-son relationship between a human father-figure and an android âsonâ would be portrayed. We know this because the game already has one between the characters Carl Manfred, the human father-figure of the android Markus.
Hank and Connor are also not an example of what is intended to be canonical found-family. In any other context, this might be more up to debate. But remember those relationship tags I mentioned? Thereâs one of those for platonic found family. We see it between Kara, Alice, and Luther if their relationships progress to that point.
There is no possible path in the game which will earn Hank and Connor the âfound familyâ qualifier. Canonically, âfriendsâ is the most intimate label they achieve. (Not to mention the fact that found family can absolutely be romantic in nature.) (This simply refutes the claim made by some that Connor and Hank are intended to have a canonical father-son relationship.)
Q. Why does it matter if these characters are canonically-implied to be pseudo-incest coded or not???? Isnât this stupid????
No!!!! I assure you this matter is of the UTMOST import, and it is an incredibly valuable use of my time to unpack it.
- I do not myself believe hank and connor to be canonically-implied to be pseudo-incest -coded.
- The claim that they *are* canonically-implied to be pseudo-incest coded means almost nothing
- Claims that I ship hank and connor *because* I believe them to be canonically-implied to be pseudo-incest -coded are untrue
- I COULD NOT care less what other people choose to ship, canonically-implied pseudo-incest coded or otherwise. It just flat-out doesnât apply to me, my interpretation, or even the canonical state of the relationship.
- Please do not mistake the length of this post or my wording for anger or distress I am exactly where I want to be I am writing for fun.
- Though I am being playful, these are my real opinions, and to my knowledge my evidence is correct.
- I have no âbeefâ whatsoever with people who interpret or headcanon Hank and Connorâs relationship as father/son. This is a valid take, just not mine.
- I interpret the in-game dynamic of Hank and Connor as coworkers/partners which grows into a friendship, and I choose to ship them.
- I do not believe I âoweâ an âexplanationâ. Again, this is for fun!
Anyway thatâs just about all I can think of off the top of my head, but Iâm happy to discuss further or clarify any points of confusion.
origamiaround
andulkaphoto
pixelskylines
snowghoul
blakekathryn
