About “speculative” theories (which are not made explicit by in-game text)

Why do so many people deny the validity of “speculative” theories which are based on personal interpretations of visual/thematic evidence, rather than in-game text such as item descriptions or character dialogue?

To explain what I’m trying to say, first I’ll give an example: Melina = GEQ. This is one of the most popular “unproven” theories out there, so it’s discussed quite frequently. There are many, many details in game which hint towards this being the case, or at least hint towards some kind of deep connection. It is not, however, explicitly stated that Melina was the GEQ, or had anything to do with the Godskins. Because of this, I’ve seen people vehemently deny the validity of this theory.

There are lots of reasons. They’ll say the timeline doesn’t add up (which we can’t know for sure), they’ll say her closed eye isn’t actually a gloam color (subjective), they’ll say it doesn’t make sense as Melina is more life-oriented (death and birth are closely related in this game). I’ve even seen some people say flat out that she can’t be the GEQ, because the game doesn’t outright confirm that she is. Then there are those who claim that the theory is baseless, just a bunch of speculation and jumping to conclusions.

This way of thinking is so confusing to me. The devs themselves have stated that they like making their narratives ambiguous, and leaving gaps in what is shown or explained to the player to inspire speculation and theory crafting within the community. They quite literally give us half the picture, so we can use our own experiences and interpretations to fill in the other half. But then when people do that, their theories are ridiculed and called “headcanon” and speculation as if those are bad or invalidating…?

In a game where information is intentionally left out to inspire speculation, basing your theories solely on what is made explicit or obvious in-game (through dialogue and/or item descriptions) is actually further removing yourself from the truth. Sticking to what the game tells you outright, you’ll never get the full picture, because they never tell us full picture outright. The only way to really dig deep and discover connections, thematic links, and core story beats, is to dabble in the realm of the unproven, the realm of visual, musical, thematic, and narrative evidence.

Radagon is not confirmed by in game text to be Messmer’s father, but this can reasonably be implied to be the case thanks to Messmer’s red hair and his theme being a warped variation of Radagon’s theme. Ordina is not confirmed to have been built by or associated with the Eternal Cities, but it can reasonably be implied thanks to its architecture being identical to Sellia (which was built by the Nox), and the presence of Black Knife Assassins. The Uhl/Uld Dynasty is not confirmed by in game text to be associated with the Stone Coffins, but it can reasonably be implied thanks to the architecture within those stone coffins being identical to that of the Dynastic ruins.

There are so many things that are shown to us, rather than told, and I think it’s extremely reductive and ignorant to ignore any theory which doesn’t have an item description it can point to as proof of its validity.

I believe headcanon is the intended way to interpret souls lore. Why do so many people disagree?