Only a small amount of fan theories actually are about using evidence or even analysis of narrative themes to create plausible interpretations and expansions of the lore, most are simply alternate-universe micro fan-fictions framed as "what if THIS was what was actually happening?"
I think it's perfectly fine if some people find the latter interesting, but it would be nice if there was a better way to distinguish between the two.
And most of the latter also relies on unfalsifiable evidence, which explains why pretty much everything has a "fan theory" that everyone is dead and in purgatory, since you can't prove that's not the case... but such theories don't usually make the story more interesting to think about. A lot of it could come from young people who are beginning to grapple with concepts such as death, so they use such fan theories as a way to relate with the issue through their favorite media. I would be a little sympathetic to it in that case, even if I don't think the theory itself is worthwhile.
I think it's perfectly fine if some people find the latter interesting, but it would be nice if there was a better way to distinguish between the two.
And most of the latter also relies on unfalsifiable evidence, which explains why pretty much everything has a "fan theory" that everyone is dead and in purgatory, since you can't prove that's not the case... but such theories don't usually make the story more interesting to think about. A lot of it could come from young people who are beginning to grapple with concepts such as death, so they use such fan theories as a way to relate with the issue through their favorite media. I would be a little sympathetic to it in that case, even if I don't think the theory itself is worthwhile.



