The thing about not looking at authorial intent is that then you erase the line between actual UST/subtext
See, to my mind, the whole point of subtext is that it's not nessecarily what the author intended to write, or that there are more ways to look at something than the one way the author does.
Hawkeye/Mustang is a good example (and oh, Roy, calling her your queen, *wibbles*) but then you get into, what exactly qualifies as evidence outside of the UST/subtext, which just circles back to that damned fanon/canon debate that I hate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
See, to my mind, the whole point of subtext is that it's not nessecarily what the author intended to write, or that there are more ways to look at something than the one way the author does.
Hawkeye/Mustang is a good example (and oh, Roy, calling her your queen, *wibbles*) but then you get into, what exactly qualifies as evidence outside of the UST/subtext, which just circles back to that damned fanon/canon debate that I hate.