Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Aug 27, 2010 18:19:17 GMT -5
Thought I'd resurrect this thread since the move to Dark Horse has dredged up the topic once again. Also, I've recently been working on the "Canon" article at the Buffyverse Wiki. Since this is one of the most controversial topics in the Buffyverse, I thought it was important to have a decent article to explain it. Was wondering if anybody fancied taking a look and giving any feedback? I still have a few sections I want to expand (namely the "Non-canon" section) but all the controversial stuff is mostly covered to my liking. buffy.wikia.com/wiki/CanonI pretty much agree exactly with this article's listing of canon. I consider all of the stuff listed as "ambiguous canon" to be non-canon, since I think it's an either/or situation... just like things are either real or imaginary in real life, so they are either real or imaginary in a fictional world. Cool, thanks. I'm trying to cover the topic in a neutral way, so that people in either camp can read the article and feel like their opinion is being represented. Best way to do that seems to be just listing quotes from the writers/producers and letting them speak for themselves.
|
|
Hellbound Hyperion
Bad Ass Wicca
$20 per soul, no refunds[/B]
Dude, you just rescued a puppy![Mo0:18]
Posts: 2,268
|
Post by Hellbound Hyperion on Aug 27, 2010 21:48:28 GMT -5
I pretty much agree exactly with this article's listing of canon. I consider all of the stuff listed as "ambiguous canon" to be non-canon, since I think it's an either/or situation... just like things are either real or imaginary in real life, so they are either real or imaginary in a fictional world. Cool, thanks. I'm trying to cover the topic in a neutral way, so that people in either camp can read the article and feel like their opinion is being represented. Best way to do that seems to be just listing quotes from the writers/producers and letting them speak for themselves. I'd say that's an excellent way to stay "fair and balanced". (*death glare at FOX News*) Personally, I grease my cannons. Get more mileage out of the C-balls. Just my opinion. Captain Jack Sparrow endorses me.
|
|
Shane
Potential Slayer
I saw a baby today.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 135
|
Post by Shane on Aug 29, 2010 21:25:50 GMT -5
Cheers, Paul. Bookmarked. I like the way you've presented the information. It doesn't promote a puritanical point of view (which, sadly, I have) and lists all consequential texts (except, of course, the historical ones) a new reader will be able to enjoy without worrying about possible contradictions. Oh, and nice opening quote, BTW. Unfortunately, canon is a lot more complicated than cannon.
|
|
milsonj0
Innocent Bystander
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 2
|
Post by milsonj0 on Oct 30, 2010 8:53:30 GMT -5
Not Buffy related but a good read about canon none the less, www.canonwars.com/I think the best way to look at Buffyverse canon, would be to break it down like a planet core. Inner Core - Joss Whedon Auteur Canon The work in which Whedon has had auteuristic/exec. producer control over the work. Season 8, Fray, Tales and obviously the TV shows. Outer Core - Joss Whedon Involved Canon This one might be a bit more discussion worthy. Work which fits into continuity/universe based upon input by Whedon, from notes/scripts/plot points. I would places AtF in this category. In this interview www.tvguide.com/news/must-be-talking-9439.aspxI would also place Buffy: Origin in this category, based on Whedon's script it was adapted to fit in the universe, and to paraphrase Whedon, it is pretty much canon. I would also put Long Night's Journey here because its canonicity is rather ambiguous. The new Spike probably fits here or the next layer. Both cores are 'canon' but are separated by how each fan sees Whedon's importance to the universeLower Mantle Canon by Association Namely Brian Lynch's Spike: Asylum and Shadow Puppets were characters from these books have been featured in 'canon' works. Upper Mantle 'In Universe' by Association Again this might cause some debate but if Lynch's non canon work is open to discussion, maybe we should consider the ancillary work by writers who have wrote for the shows or other canon work? The Mantle operates in a limbo between canon and not. The Mantle is arguably up to personal interpretation. Or canon until proven not, or not canon until proven is.Crust - Ancillary Work All other comic, books and licensed merchandise. Set 'in universe' so again upto personal interpretation whether it is 'in universe', but according to Whedon is strictly non canon. The original film and unaired pilots are not canon and can be considered asteroids.I hope this makes some kinda sense
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Oct 30, 2010 9:59:31 GMT -5
I never miss a chance to speak out on this.
The whole concept of canon is wrongheaded and a misconception from the very beginning. It has no place in my head and it doesn't belong in anybody's head.
|
|
|
Post by angeliclestat on Oct 30, 2010 11:37:45 GMT -5
Midwesternwatcher-I know you are a male...but marry me:-)
|
|
Jordan
Innocent Bystander
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 15
|
Post by Jordan on Nov 11, 2010 12:09:58 GMT -5
I think canon is important because it helps ensure the consistency of an imagined universe. That of course doesn't except canon stories from being inconsistent with the body of work they're part of, nor does it ensure that everything canon is of the utmost quality, but if executed properly a cohesive canon can help to forge a believable fictional world in which the stories told shape said world, and said world shapes the characters that dwell therein.
Fictional worlds are undoubtedly best served when a single creator or storyteller is at the helm. Tolkien's Middle-earth is the best example that comes to mind, with its complex histories and painstakingly fine-tuned mythology helping to create a sense of depth and believabilty that not only informs the storytelling of the 'mothership' (The Lord of the Rings), but allows the reader to explore ancillary tales (The Silmarillion, The Hobbit) that, while optional, aid in the layering of the fictional world and help to further improve stories previously explored by providing more in-depth context to given situations. The Star Wars Expanded Universe, which is admittedly more spotty than Tolkien's fictional world in terms of quality, nevertheless benefits from the inclusion of hundreds of storytellers in the creative process, allowing the stories told to cover an even greater period of time than would be manageable were only a single storyteller to shape the universe. But each story is filtered through the original creator's guidelines before seeing publication, ensuring consistency and cohesion.
Perhaps the best example of mismanagement of canon lies in the output of the Western comics industry. Long-running series like Batman and Superman have changed hands so often over the years that even the vision of the original creators has gone "out of fashion," so to speak. This revolving door of talent has resulted in numerous reboots, constant shifts in tone and style, and routine continuity issues. The remedy for this has unfortunately been convoluted, universe-altering "crises," designed to make the patching-up of the failings of writers and editors a series of cash-in "events." Not only is this just plain tacky, it also alienates all but the most devoted readers, and is just sloppy storytelling. Compare this to creator-owned comic series like Mike Mignola's Hellboy universe, and the difference is night and day.
Now with regards to stories relating to Buffy and Angel, I think the same principles apply: did Joss Whedon oversee or OK it? Is it consistent with his fictional universe? If not, I would say it's most definitely out of canon. Not because it's bad, and not because it's not worth your time, but because Joss has a very specific vision for this universe and what has happened to these characters and the world around them. Any event or thread of character development that hasn't been filtered through him didn't happen to the characters as you knew them on the show, and will never be referenced or revisited in canon because of that. That's not to say that the events of every non-canon story lack entertainment value, or the development explored in a non-canon story wasn't an interesting "what if" insight into that character's fictional life, but no one should be surprised when an in-canon story contradicts that.
And that's why I fail to see why canon is such a hotly debated issue, because in this context, I think it's nothing more than a concept meant to ensure the very simple (and usually unchallenged in the context of a single story) notion of consistency in a larger body of work. Why should a license granted to a publisher make their work any more "true" than BuFfYfAnGrRl217's SPIKE & DRU VS. THE WORLD fanfic? The correct answer is that it shouldn't, because even if IDW and BuFfYfAnGrRl217's stories are relatively consistent with established canon and are even the best Buffyverse stories ever told, if they decide one day to have a massive plot twist where Buffy all of a sudden decides to start staking every vampire in sight and takes out Angel and Spike because she feels like it, then that is obviously going to be contradicted in the next issue of Buffy.
If you enjoy your non-canon stories, that's fine. I've enjoyed a few of IDW's graphic novels, and recently did an epic read through of Dark Horse's pre-Season Eight Buffy comics, and found most of them to be pretty solid reads. But I think it's important to distinguish between what's canon and what's not, because it helps to guide the core storyline of this universe going forward. But I also see some people espousing this notion of "it's not canon so you should avoid it completely," which I disagree with entirely. Just as 'licensed' or 'in-continuity' does not mean "this actually happened to these characters," 'non-canon' does not mean "this sucks."
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Nov 11, 2010 17:23:21 GMT -5
I never miss a chance to speak out on this. The whole concept of canon is wrongheaded and a misconception from the very beginning. It has no place in my head and it doesn't belong in anybody's head. Splainy?
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Nov 11, 2010 20:34:14 GMT -5
First of all, I don't think Joss Whedon is a genius. Even if he were, that wouldn't make him a god or a pope. I subscribe to the radical notion that all men are created equal. If we can't have democracy in the realm of fiction, where can we have it?
I actually have fewer gripes about the TV show than many of you guys. I actually think the "magic as drugs" metaphor in S6 was good, and if you search, you'll find a thread on this board where I defended it almost single-handedly. But I have a perfect right to any alternate universe I want, with or without Joss Whedon's approval.
Second, we all know that canon is a financial and commercial concept. I will not have my thinking controlled by anybody's business deals. A glaring example: Spike should've died in Chosen, but Joss brought him back because the sponsors insisted on it as the price of a 5th season of Angel.
Third, and here's the big thing, the notion of canon suppresses creativity, however much some people say that it shouldn't. That is dangerous to our survival. Consider the Sherlock Holmes fandom, which may be oldest surviving fandom in the world (if there's an older one, I'd like to know which). Nowadays, the first image of Sherlock Holmes we have in our minds is that of Basil Rathbone, who wasn't born when the "canonical" Sherlock Holmes died. I've seen films and read stories where Sherlock Holmes played a role in WWI and even WWII. Without these films and stories, Sherlock Holmes would be forgotten.
And we will be forgotten if we don't get new stories with new characters.
|
|
|
Post by angeliclestat on Nov 12, 2010 11:29:36 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more midwesternwatcher. In particular in the case of Buffy and Angel. Since both the shows are finished, then once the follow on stories don't contradict the TV shows then what is the harm?
I would add to your points above that which is more important - the creator or the characters? I am a loyal Angel fan. I don't care who writes him, once I enjoy the stories. If IDW hadn't done Angel comics then the first time we would have seen Angel since trhe end of his own show would have been in issue 34 of Buffy - 5 years later (Yes of course we technically see him earlier as the masked Twilight, but we don't find this out until near the end of the 'season'). There would have been no explanation as to what happened to the other characters, or what happened in the alley. But luckily we got 'After the Fall'
However since Joss chose not to give anymore input into IDW past AtF, a lot of people have dropped it. But I didn't, because I love the characters. I wanted to read stories in that world, and I honestly didn't care if Joss gave input or not. Therefore if Joss never penned another line of dialogue for Angel and co, I would not care and would continue reading because I love the characters.
|
|
jellymoff
Ensouled Vampire
Claimer of Funn[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by jellymoff on Nov 12, 2010 11:46:53 GMT -5
I think there needs to be a distinction between how much canon matter for a fandom vs. how much it matters for an individual. One of the reasons canon is so important to a fandom is that it gives us a clear set of events to discuss and evaluate. For the sake of discussing Buffy, canon is very important because without it, we would not be able to have clear and meaningful discussions surrounding character development and events that happen in the story.
From an individual perspective, I don't care what people decide to accept or read. If a particular fan wants to create their own Buffyverse were Spike and Buffy live happy ever after and in a suburbs of Detroit and raise their 2 1/2 vampire 1/2 human children, then more power to them! Their personal Buffyverse, however, has no place in a discussion with other fans, unless the discussion is about personal "Alternate Buffyverses".
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Nov 12, 2010 18:24:17 GMT -5
What I would like to see is a Buffyverse that is a "free for all" in the way that Greek mythology is. We all know who Zeus and Athena and Achilles are (or do we, correct me if I'm wrong?), but nobody owns a copyright to it, there's no central source of authority, it's a well where anyone can go to draw water as they please. Right now, there is a popular fiction series based on the assumption that the Greek gods actually exist somehow out of our sight, and a movie was even made about it, but nobody worries about canon.
Now, jellymoff says "Their personal Buffyverse, however, has no place in a discussion with other fans, unless the discussion is about personal 'Alternate Buffyverses.'"
I know what you mean, but you're missing something. If a particular storyline or situation gains traction among the fans, to the point where it is generally known to be, then it does indeed have a place in discussion with other fans, whether it is consistent with so-called "canon" or is so-called "AU." Now, are we giving these new storylines and situations the fair chance they deserve?
I think not. Partly this is because of copyright laws that need rethinking, and partly it's because of authoritarian attitudes within the fandom.
At the very least, "Buffy Between the Lines" deserves to be mentioned on the Buffy wiki. The fact that it is excluded, on the ground that nobody paid money to Fox on its behalf, is a crying injustice.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Nov 12, 2010 19:14:54 GMT -5
There is certainly room for multiple interpretations of Buffy. I consider the original Kristy Swanson Buffy as valid as the SMG version (even if I don't like it as much personally) and am a big supporter of a Buffy reboot. I want to see different takes on the character besides Joss Whedon's. I believe that strengthens her status as an icon.
However, I think canon is a necessary concept if you're trying to create a believable fictional universe. You need to be able to know which stories exist alongside each other in order to have long-term character development and emotional weight. If somebody wants to write an alternate Season Eight, that's fine, but you need to be able to discern the difference between the two narratives.
I've never heard of Buffy Between the Lines. However, it would warrant mention on the Buffyverse Wiki or even Wikipedia if it recieves some kind of recognition from an outside source. It's not about which stories are authorised by Fox, it's about which stories are notable enough to deserve mention. Otherwise you'd have an article about every "Spander" porn story on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Nov 12, 2010 21:06:11 GMT -5
You seem to be taking it for granted that anything outside of so-called "canon" cannot possibly be widely known in the fandom. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Absolutely it IS about which stories are authorized by Fox. When I suggested listing BBTL on the Buffy Wiki, I saw a reply that I can't think of without rage. I was told, "it doesn't matter how professional it may look or sound. Still fanfic." When I pointed out that the wiki was full of non-canon material, I was told, "at least these have been LICENSED AND VETTED," in other words, somebody paid money to Fox.
Your comment, "otherwise you'd have an article ..." excuse me, I can't finish typing it. It's a red herring. Look, there are plenty of comic stories and novels that current rules would permit to show up on the wiki that don't show up because nobody took the trouble to write articles about them. Suppose they threw open the doors to everything. How many "spander porn stories" would show up? I'm willing to bet none, because nobody would bother. There is no such problem and never will be.
You've never heard of Buffy Between the Lines?
And you never will if the Buffy wiki has its way.
BBTL is a fan audio drama series produced by a cast and crew of at least 300 people who live all over the world, coordinated by Skype and email. It's a brand-new and exciting concept, never attempted before. If we weren't so hung up on so-called canon, we'd be trumpeting it all over the world.
Are you interested in its level of quality? The viewpoint of the Buffy wiki is that quality doesn't matter. It could be better than the TV show, doesn't matter, it's not blessed by Joss Whedon, doesn't pay royalties to Fox, so we ignore it to death, and we patronizingly say "you guys can listen to it if you want, but don't mention it to us."
But just in case quality does matter to somebody ...
The project was very rough in the beginning. The first few episode were hard to listen to, hard to follow. What do you expect with a brand new concept? As time went on, things got better and better. By the time you get to the last episode of Season 2 of BBTL, or the two stories so far in the "Tales from Wolfram & Hart" series, we're talking serious quality. It's a matter of taste, but I think it's an experience comparable to the TV show.
"If it receives some kind of recognition from an outside source." It has been favorably reviewed by independent reviewers. Check out the website. Hell, why can't the Buffy wiki itself, or we at Slay Alive, be an "outside source"? If we all stand around in Hamlet-like decision, afraid to be the first one to speak what should be obvious, we'll get nowhere.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Nov 12, 2010 21:49:35 GMT -5
Buffyverse Wiki is a relatively small wiki with no solid guidelines over content, so whoever you talked may only have been stating their personal opinion. I would support coverage of fan fiction, but only if that fan fiction has established notability. If Behind the Lines has been reviewed by indepedant sources then it's notable and warrants mention. Feel free to create an article for it (with links to said reviews) and I will personally defend it's inclusion on the wiki. However, Buffyverse Wiki doesn't exist to advertise fan fiction. There are plenty of people who would write an article about Spander porn because they wrote and want to promote it. Notability guidelines are there to prevent that kind of bias.
I agree with the person who told you there is a clear difference between fan fiction and licensed material. Those non-canon novels and comics are still official Buffy products, which fan fiction isn't. It's not about which is better quality, that's subjective, it's just basic fact that one is official merchandise and the other isn't. I'm sure there are hundreds of people on YouTube who can sing better than Cheryl Cole, but Cheryl's the one the with the record contract and successful career. Talent isn't always recognised, the world isn't fair, boo hoo.
And no, I'm not interested in fan fiction personally. I respect it if there's genuine effort and talent involved, as you say BBTL is, but it's still not an official part of the franchise so I don't care. It's snobby of me, but I guess I just need the story to have some kind of official recognition for me to bother with it.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Nov 13, 2010 10:34:35 GMT -5
You do understand that you're letting people buy and sell space in your mind?
You may put up with that, but damned if I will.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Nov 13, 2010 10:46:15 GMT -5
My views on canon are pretty well-known to anyone who's been around here long... to me, Joss Whedon's story is the only "real" one in the Buffyverse.
There are three levels of Buffyverse material:
1. Canon. Anything written or supervised by Joss Whedon, over which he has creative control. Also, anything else declared to be canon by him.
2. Official non-canon. Anything licensed by Fox and produced by professional creators: such as the novels, the pre-season 8 Dark Horse comics, and the IDW comics Joss didn't contribute to or oversee.
3. Fanfiction.
All three can have entertainment value, and I certainly don't object to their existence. (I've written quite a bit of Buffy fanfic myself). But if I'm in a discussion about the canonical Buffy story (e.g. season 8), and somebody brings up a non-canon source as "evidence" of something or "a clue" about something, I'm going to point out that that doesn't count re: the canonical story.
A Buffy "reboot" movie would have no more standing in my mind than a piece of fanfiction, unless Joss himself was on board with it.
|
|
|
Post by midwesternwatcher on Nov 13, 2010 21:59:29 GMT -5
What would you say if somebody quoted Buffy scholarship, something written by, say, Rhonda Wilcox or David Lavery or Viv Burr?
Have you forgotten that this is fiction? There is no "real" story, there are only possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Nov 13, 2010 22:23:59 GMT -5
Have you forgotten that this is fiction? There is no "real" story, there are only possibilities. No, I have not forgotten that this is fiction. A story is as real as anything else. The possibilities must be consistent and follow the established rules of the imaginary reality, or the result is random noise. The story I'm talking about is the continuous one Joss created, beginning with his original script for the 1992 movie and continuing up through season 8. That's the canon. Things that diverge from it may be valid, may be entertaining... but from the perspective of the canon, they're not real. Canonicity or non-canonicity is in no way a measure of quality.
|
|
Shane
Potential Slayer
I saw a baby today.[Mo0:0]
Posts: 135
|
Post by Shane on Nov 14, 2010 2:36:23 GMT -5
[...] All three can have entertainment value, and I certainly don't object to their existence. (I've written quite a bit of Buffy fanfic myself). But if I'm in a discussion about the canonical Buffy story (e.g. season 8), and somebody brings up a non-canon source as "evidence" of something or "a clue" about something, I'm going to point out that that doesn't count re: the canonical story.A Buffy "reboot" movie would have no more standing in my mind than a piece of fanfiction, unless Joss himself was on board with it. QFE. Once Joss leaves the Buffyverse, there'd be stories left to tell and ones already told which most will agree is in the spirit of preceding ones and at that point I may be able to accept them as having actually happened to these characters. (Adventure-type stories which flesh out the characters and don't go against established characterisation would be easiest.) Until then, I don't want Joss's stories to be limited by others' works even if the material is produced under an official licence.
|
|