|
Post by Emmie on Nov 29, 2009 2:34:52 GMT -5
I've seen a lot of discussion recently regarding canon. I know it's always been a hot topic. What I'm interested in is people's beliefs about canon, not in arguing what is or is not canon, but how do others view the formation of canon. Because I think herein lies the great divide between people's opinions on the matter - how a person approaches the concept of canon and how they translate this conceptual viewpoint. I suspect people are working with different definitions and that this leads to inevitable conflict. Disclaimer: This is not a debate about whether Season 8 is canon. So let's just not go there - we all know how that bit will go (not well..? ), so let's not argue the point so as to avoid this death trap, yeah? This is just a discussion about the concept of canon. As such, I welcome all viewpoints from those who would share their thoughts.So here's a few questions. I'm not going to use a poll because that would be perhaps be more reflective of my own views when I really want to hear other people's opinions. Please feel free to share your thoughts! 1. What is canon? 2. Who determines canon? And on what authority? 3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist?
|
|
CourtneyDax
Psychic Link to the PTB
May 7, 2002
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 879
|
Post by CourtneyDax on Nov 29, 2009 2:46:25 GMT -5
1. I go by dictionary.com soooo : 2. In tv show canon, the original creator determines what is canon or what is not canon. I never trust anyone to say what is right, except for Joss. 3. Canon allows the universe to be established, which allows discussion to brought on (and so on and so forth). In order for the Buffyverse to be cohesive, certain works have to be not considered (like Dark Congress because it resurrects Tara). We, as people, like to have things that we know are certain, but we also want to get as much of Buffy we can get. So even though the Buffy Omnibuses are basically published fanfiction, we still like to read them because it makes us feel closer to the characters. Do you get what I'm saying? Btway, this is a really great discussion topic so I'm giving you karma. Yay!
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Nov 29, 2009 2:52:59 GMT -5
Thanks! And thanks for posting. I really appreciated you sharing your viewpoint. *karmas*
|
|
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 Nov 29, 2009 2:59:25 GMT -5
1. What is canon? Canon is the established universe of a work of fiction. (And not Angel: Aftermath... baah, I couldn't help it, the question was just begging for a joke. I'll shut up and be serious now. ) 2. Who determines canon? And on what authority? If I weren't tired/procrastinating a lot of homework, I'd probably pull out Roland Barthes' "Death of the Author" essay and argue passionately that there is no authority to canon. But I am tired, I am procrastinating, and I don't actually believe that anyway. Canon's existence is firmly established by a creator of some sort. The universe must be developed in one media form or another before it can even be said to exist, much less have canon. This creation act develops a set of rules which the universe must (usually) abide by. Once the first media form's stories are finished, the rules are set - every set of authors following must work within these rules in order to legitimize their stories as "canon". The creator giving some sort of nod to a story is only a green-light to make an effort to write a legitimate story; it does not automatically legitimatize the story as canon. So how ultimately is a story determined to be within the rules of the universe, and therefore "canon"? It's partially creator-based - if the creator acknowledges the story as canon, then that works - and partially fan-based - if the fans can find enough holes in a story that clearly show the story is breaking the rules of the universe without legitimate story/character cause for doing so, the argument should be made for the story to be apocryphal. (Jane Espenson touches on this briefly with regards to character in the Creation Con 2009 panel with Tim Minear - Gaius Baltar appears to be doing something out-of-character until it's revealed that his Virtual Six and his belief that he's an instrument of the Cylon God legitimatizes his actions as real and not some dream or something.) 3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist? Well, given what I've already argued, having firmly established canon is important in a universe. Having little to no canon leads to the sort of Family Guy-Simpsons-South Park type storytelling where every week, things get reset with no consequences from the previous week's adventures. Canon shows the real-world effects of characters and on-goings in the universe, establishing them as grounded in some sort of reality and therefore having some sort of "before-place" and some sort of "after-place". Doing this allows you to easily guide character arcs and story arcs from one end to another without being willy-nilly all-over-the-place-with-your-characters-and-plots. And again I call on Jane Espenson - the most frequently bashed plot device is the deus ex machina, but if you legitimatize the "deus" or higher force in the universe as a real thing acting on the universe and its characters and plots, then the "ex machina" part isn't so unbelievable as to be out-of-universe and therefore apocryphal. (I just wrote an entire post about canon without making fun of Angel: Aftermath. Be proud. ) (ETA: wait, I did. At the beginning. Never mind. Angel: Aftermath. Sad-face.)
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Nov 29, 2009 12:18:02 GMT -5
Thanks for posting HH! Anyone else care to weigh in with thoughts?
And a general question for the thread -
Do you believe that canon is determined by the consensus of the audience (the audience must accept it as official for it to be official) or the creator? Or both?
|
|
jellymoff
Ensouled Vampire
Claimer of Funn[Mo0:0]
Posts: 1,174
|
Post by jellymoff on Nov 29, 2009 12:28:37 GMT -5
The way I see canon is very simple. Canon is the "official story". When dealing with a property like Buffy, there are several video games, comics, books, etc, not all of which strictly follow the event of past (or planned future) events. Canon is "what really happened".
As far as who determines canon, it is the creator of the property, and that person (or persons) alone who determine canon. I often see people talk about "what they consider canon". This type of statement does not hold water, because unfortunately it does not matter what you or I consider canon.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Nov 29, 2009 12:59:04 GMT -5
I agree, jellymoff. Because "official story" cannot exist as multiple realities and that's what would happen if canon were determined by the audience and not the creator.
|
|
|
Post by wenxina on Nov 29, 2009 13:27:38 GMT -5
1. What is canon? 2. Who determines canon? And on what authority?
Going to answer these two together since I find them inherently linked. The creator, or any authorized party designated by the creator, may determine canon (in the case of J.R.R. Tolkien, his estate and the publication of his History of Middle-Earth series is managed by his son, who deserves mad props for going through all his father's notes and compiling things is a reasonable and logical fashion). Canon is the universally accepted "story"; thus the only story that matters. Fans may not like parts of what is deemed canon, but fan approval is irrelevant. There can be no such thing as a personal canon, because quite frankly, that's ridiculous. A fan can have ancillary stories that they like, but that doesn't necessarily make them canon. For example, I liked (it's been a while since I read this, so I'm not sure if my initial reaction has changed) Pretty Maids All in a Row. But it isn't canon. Nor will it ever be, since it directly contradicts things that are set in stone in canon. As for retroactive canonization, or the questionable status of works that do not directly contradict canon, that again is left up to the creator. But until a stamp of approval is made public, they remain non-canon works.
3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist?
Having a regulated set of works from which to draw from, in terms of forming opinions, arguments, debates, etc is infinitely useful in making sure that everyone is reading from the same sources. As such, opinions formed from fanfiction and other non-canon works are irrelevant. In short, a set canon allows for constructive conversation. Ideally, at least.
|
|
|
Post by Skytteflickan88 on Nov 29, 2009 13:41:25 GMT -5
1. What is canon?
It can be how one determines WHAT exactly happened in a verse and WHY.
For example;
WHAT:Buffy sent Angelus to hell
WHY: Because she had to save the world.
WHAT: Everything from Season 8 is canon.
So, canon can be which story is true/real, (for example, the tv-show), and what interpretation of a scene, event, is the "right" one(for example; If Buffy loved Spike in Chosen or not).
Notice that continuity errors, and the writer's choices of where to take characters can alter canon. For example, in Season 2 of Buffy, Spike hated Buffy. That could have been all he felt for her, in case he had died in Season 2, and all the writers, actors and fans would agree on that. But since Joss decided to make him a love interest, it is now possible that canon could have changed, and Spike could have been in love with Buffy as early as Season 2, even tough that was not the intended canon.
Canon isn't just "moving", there's also different levels of canon. The TV-show are the highest, on the top of the hierarchy. The different comics have their place below(not sure about Season 8 or After the fall, they could be on the same level), not all of the comics are on the same level. So it's hard to say; "This is 100 per cent canon and this is 0 per cent canon." It's easier to say "This is canon, this is potential canon, this is likely to be canon, this is canon according to that important writers," etc etc.
2. Who determines canon? And on what authority?
The main creator, if one can be named, always has highest authority, because that person 'owns' the verse(even tough on can argue that a fictional verse belongs to everyone). Like Joss.
If Joss says; "This comic is canon" it is canon until he changes his mind. Like when he said that he would ignore the comics in case he made a movie. As much as I hated that comment, because I love Season 8, I would accept that the comic was no longer canon. Of course, it could be considered alternative canon, as in the alternative universe episode "The wish" (not to be confused with non-canon comics which are by some considered alternative universes, like 'Reunion' or 'Spike vs Dracula' which were never intended to be canon but could count as alternative canon stories, or something that could have happened in the canon verse but was never mentioned).
But as mentioned above, canon isn't just about WHICH story is canon or not, it can also be what interpretation of a certain scene or panel is the correct one.
In case a scene from the show was written to be a sign of a character's bravery, and Joss was not the one to write it, Joss can't later on just say "That scene was a sign of cowardice", even tough he has the highest authority. His opinion matters, but it's complicated. Unless the writer of the scene consents to this new interpretation, it could be a problem for fans to figure out what's "right" (maybe they're smart and just ignores the canon-issue, unlike me). But so far, I've seen no example of this, but it's very possible that fans, actors and writers have many different ways to interpret the same event(I've read how actors on the show disagreed with Joss on where there's characters where going, and how they played the character differently than how the writer's intended).
And even though Joss has the highest authority, he's not perfect, and a interpretation he says is canon/right, could of course be proven wrong, by himself or by the individual fan who feels that his/her interpretation is more suiting.
So in a way, the individual fan also had highest authority over canon. At least for him/her. But that would be individual canon, not the general one "rules" by Joss and the other writers (who also have hierarchy of authority over canon when it comes to different shows, comics, scenes and characters).
3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist?
Canon is important to me because I want to know how the characters develop. In Spike After the fall and Angel After the fall, we see how much Spike loved Fred and wanted her to live. That adds something to his character, even tough it's not something entirely new, we've seen his love on the show (but not as deep). But up until I found out it was canon, I was unsure in case I should change my view of Spike's love of Fred.
That's why canon is important to me. I have learned to love these characters and this verse, and I want to follow them and understand them. I can't do that as easily in case I don't know what events are "true", not just alternative events, things that could happened.
Canon could also help in case of confusion. It case something is written in issue 31 of the Angel series that later gets proven "wrong" in Season 8 (for example, Angel loses an eye but it's shown in Season 8 that that never could have happened), I can take comfort in knowing that Season 8 is much higher than issue 31 on the hierarchy of canon, and know that Angel didn't lose an eye.
So canon could just be a pain in the butt in case comics contradict each other, or in case Season 8 contradicts something that happened on the show (Waaaarreeeen), and in case the hierarchy of canon gets messed up. It's not always adding to the verse to have to analyze what exactly happened all the time.
To sum up, canon can be a helpful way of viewing the verse, but also very confusing. I've learn to just roll with it and focus more on the stories than their canon-ness. I almost ran screaming away when I read the thread-title, but I just had to play with the fire.
|
|
CourtneyDax
Psychic Link to the PTB
May 7, 2002
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 879
|
Post by CourtneyDax on Nov 29, 2009 13:59:20 GMT -5
Do you believe that canon is determined by the consensus of the audience (the audience must accept it as official for it to be official) or the creator? Or both? I don't think it could ever be determined by the audience, because not all of us would agree. It would be like how everyone interprets the bible differently and BAM! there goes 7 different religions. The original creator of the works has the final say on whats fact or fiction in this Buffyverse.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Nov 29, 2009 16:09:23 GMT -5
1. What is canon?
Canon is the body of material that all fans can commonly assume to be "reality" within the context of the story. It is "what really happened."
2. Who determines canon? And on what authority?
The teller of the story determines what is canon. In a situation where there are multiple storytellers (like most TV shows), the "prime mover" of the story has final say. Usually, this is the creator of the story, or a person who has succeeded that person with the blessing of his or her predecessor... most often, the executive producer. Joss Whedon is the final arbiter of canon in the Buffyverse.
3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist?
Canon is useful for giving all fans a common reality on which to rely when discussing the story as an "imaginary reality." It serves the same purpose that history and accurate news reporting serves in the real world... a way for everyone to know what is really going on. Like in the real world, the repercussions and meaning of the facts can be open to debate... but the facts should not be. Canon shouldn't be a matter of individual opinion, just as facts in the real world are not matters of opinion. They are, or they aren't.
People tend to confuse "personal preference" with "canon". People may not like the Buffy/Spike storyline in season 6, or Willow's relationship with Kennedy, or anything in season 8. But that's a question of personal preference, not canon.
For example, a person might choose to deny that global warming exists, or claim that it does exist... but that opinion has no effect on whether global warming actually exists or not. Its existence is a matter of observable, empirical data, not opinion. Canon is the same way... on a much less important scale, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Nov 29, 2009 21:08:44 GMT -5
LOL! Andrew, do you realize that there's a recent controversy in the news because of suppressed data contradicting global warming and that there's even a political drama over it because of leaked documents showing officials doctoring data to convince people of "global warming"? I don't really want to start a debate on this because I'm not an expert, I've just been reading on the subject and my dad kinda is an expert and has been keeping me informed, but I find it apropos that you would use global warming (which is currently much debated) as an analogous model for canon (which too is much debated).
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Nov 29, 2009 22:11:11 GMT -5
LOL! Andrew, do you realize that there's a recent controversy in the news because of suppressed data contradicting global warming and that there's even a political drama over it because of leaked documents showing officials doctoring data to convince people of "global warming"? I don't really want to start a debate on this because I'm not an expert, I've just been reading on the subject and my dad kinda is an expert and has been keeping me informed, but I find it apropos that you would use global warming (which is currently much debated) as an analogous model for canon (which too is much debated). Yep. But debate or no debate, there's only one correct answer. People disagree what it is, but that doesn't change it. (I just have to look at the glacier and arctic ice melt to be pretty confident what my answer is...but that's not relevant to canon. )
|
|
|
Post by Emmie on Nov 30, 2009 3:56:54 GMT -5
LOL! You have a glacier you can look at? Out of curiousity, have you read this?
|
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Nov 30, 2009 5:07:59 GMT -5
I have no problem with canon telling me what actually happened in a story (Xander lost an eye to Caleb in Season 7), but when it comes down to matters of interpretation, in my opinion there can be no canon. If a writer were to tell me that it is canon that Buffy was in love with Spike in Season 7 (just an example, replace with Riley in Season 5 if you like) I would not accept that opinion of events as fact just because it was a writer who produced it. In debates about what characters are feeling or thinking about at a particular time, I don't think the writers have any more authority than you or I to settle it definitively. By leaving a feeling unsaid, the writers must want there to be some ambiguity and room for interpretation, which negates a definitve answer.
I am happy to accept canon's role in establishing which event out of a group of mutually exclusive events took place, but when it comes down to what resides in our characters' hearts, that's for all of us to decide on our own.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Nov 30, 2009 8:42:54 GMT -5
LOL! You have a glacier you can look at? Out of curiousity, have you read this? Yes, and a couple of misbehaving scientists don't change the observable facts as recorded by literally thousands of scientists working independently, as much as Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck would like it. Hundreds of years of formalized scientific procedure and peer review were developed specifically to guard against crooks and crackpots and incompetents having their findings blindly accepted as universal fact. It's ridiculous to think that climate change research comes down to a couple of scientists in the UK, and that the vast majority of scientists in the world are engaged in some huge liberal conspiracy to hurt those poor, defenseless polluters. This is far, far off topic for this thread, however, and I long ago promised myself not to get into political discussions on Buffy boards. I enjoy it here and would like to be able to continue visiting and posting.
|
|
CourtneyDax
Psychic Link to the PTB
May 7, 2002
[Mo0:0]
Posts: 879
|
Post by CourtneyDax on Nov 30, 2009 11:38:14 GMT -5
I haven't read all of the posts but has the word "continuity" come up yet? That's a big component in canon.
|
|
Paul
Ensouled Vampire
[Mo0:34]
Posts: 1,173
|
Post by Paul on Nov 30, 2009 18:47:42 GMT -5
1. What is canon?To me, canon refers to the "official" stories and sources which construct a fictional universe. For me, canon relates more the series/stories themselves, rather than the events that occur in them. The actual events in fiction are often vague, and what happens is up to the interpretation of the audience. For example, we know that Faith was abused growing up because it's implied in the show. Go Ask Malice portrays these events, and I'm happy to accept they happened that way because the show backs it up. However, the novel itself is not canon so it doesn't have the same authority and weight as the show. It's very possible the events of GAM occurred in the Buffyverse, but unless confirmed by a canonical source, it can't be proven. However, I believe there are various "levels" of canon. Some stories don't quite count as "official" but nevertheless hold more canonical weight than others. For example, the current Angel comics aren't as canon as After the Fall, but continue story threads and have the same creative team, making them significantly more canon than stories like The Curse, Old Friends, etc. Similarly, Spike: Asylum isn't really canon, but was praised by Joss and has significant influence over later canonical stories. Therefore, "canon" can be a somewhat subjective concept depending on who created the stories and their level of involvement. Joss Whedon himself refers to The Origin as "pretty much" canon, suggesting it's not simply a black or white matter. 2. Who determines canon? And on what authority?Hmm... this depends on the franchise for me. The generally accepted answer is the original or primary creator, but that's not always the case. The fact is canon isn't always clearly determined, so you have to decide for yourself how to identify it. Here's how I define the canon of various series (this is just my opinion, not trying to present it as fact so no hissy fits please): BuffyverseJoss' word is God, basically. He created the universe and to this day has played the biggest role in it's history. In the Buffyverse, I only accept stories which have been plotted or directly approved by Joss Whedon. That isn't always a foolproof theory though. For example, Joss cherry picked Brian Lynch to continue the Angel series. He gave him guidance and feedback, but largely allowed him to work alone. Now that Joss is no longer involved in Angel, has the torch passed to Lynch? Or did the canon end when Whedon's name was removed from the credits? Personally, I think the "official" Angel story ended at #17, but I do believe the subsequent stories have some canonical significance. Kind of a "level B" canon, higher than generic expanded universe material but not as canon as the show. I think canon is particularly important to the Buffyverse because Joss has worked hard to create a small, consistant universe, and including random tie-in stories dilutes his specific vision. TerminatorThe first two movies, the James Cameron ones, are the official story. There are multiple continuations of this story (the later film sequels, the TV show, the novels) but all are contradictory: everything stems from the two original films, which remain a complete story in their own right. From an in-universe perspective, this is easily explained by multiple timelines created through time travel, but from a real-world perspective, these are merely secondary interpretations of Cameron's canon. Several people from the original films (James Cameron, Linda Hamilton) argue that the story was finished after T2 and I agree (though I enjoy the other stuff). Marvel UniverseEverything is canon regardless of writers, quality, even continuity errors. Even stories specified as taking place outwith the main Marvel Universe (ie, the Ultimate universe) are still part of the Marvel Multiverse. It's just the nature of this universe to be all-inclusive; there's too many titles and characters to discriminate a cohesive canon. Even though I'm a fan of smaller, more exclusive canons like the Buffyverse, I also appreciate the sheer scope and inconsistency of this universe, it feels like a huge, living, breathing world. Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm StreetSimilar to the Marvel Universe: everything is canon. The original Friday writer has dismissed the sequels as non-canon but who cares what he thinks, Jason made this series what it was. Similarly, Wes Craven popped in and out of the Nightmare sequels with limited creative control. Later retconned as a shared universe ( Freddy vs. Jason) and officially continued through comics when the film series turned to remakes. Has expanded to include the Evil Dead series ( Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash). Various spin-offs (comics, novels, TV shows) might as well be counted as canon because no writer is keeping track anyway. HalloweenSimilar to the Terminator series, only the first two movies are canon. The other sequels and comics offer alternate and contradictory accounts of what happened after those films. You can pick your favourite version (mine is the H20 timeline) but it all stems from the first two movies. WhoniverseAnother "everything is canon" universe. It's just being going on too long (1963!) and had too many writers to really discriminate. Some people don't count the novels/comics but I don't see the point of excluding them. For me personally, the Russell T Davies era (Ninth Doctor, Tenth Doctor, Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures) is a nice little self-contained canon with consistant themes and quality, but that's just personal taste. Time travel can explain contradictory stories. In an ideal world, Joss Whedon would write up a list of canonical Buffyverse stories and save us all the argument. But he's not going to, so we have to make some assumptions. Unfortunately, not every series has a Star Wars Holocron mapping out the various levels of canon and how to define them. 3. What purpose does canon serve (or ideally should serve)? How is it useful? (Or) Why does canon exist?For me, canon is almost like a form of quality control; it keeps the series focused and on track. This important when you have huge franchises like Buffy with various tie-ins like comics, novels, video games, etc. Those things can be enjoyable, but it's nice to know there's a recognised difference between them and the official story. Canon becomes especially important when you have a jump in medium like Season Eight and After the Fall, because you can't just lump all comics together anymore. Some comics are just cheap merchandise, and others are official spin-offs/continuations of the show (i.e. Fray). Here's what Joss Whedon himself says about canon: Do you believe that canon is determined by the consensus of the audience (the audience must accept it as official for it to be official) or the creator? Or both?Hmm. I believe in the concept of "personal canon"; in other words, you only have to count what you want. That doesn't affect the official canon, but it can affect your own enjoyment of the series. At the end of the day, fiction is entirely subjective and it's up to you how to interpret it. If someone doesn't like Buffy season six, and would prefer to believe the story ended with "The Gift", who are we to tell them they're wrong? Here's what Brian Lynch says on this matter: If ignoring the Star Wars prequels aids Brian's enjoyment of that series, why should we insist "No, you must count them because they're canon!!!" A lot of people here seem to view canon in black or white terms; it's either canon or non-canon. Scientific fact. The truth is, it's more similar to theology than science. The word canon originated as a term to identify which books the Church chose to be counted in the Bible. As we all know, religion is a very subjective area. Something might be "canon" in the Bible, but that doesn't mean all Christians have to believe it. Some people follow the Bible word-for-word while others read certain stories and form their own personal beliefs and interpretations. Modern-day fiction is similar; there should be a clearly-defined canon, but you don't have to accept it if you don't want to.
|
|
gumgnome
Junior Vampire Slayer
Who has got the button?
Get out of my BRAIN![Mo0:1]
Posts: 970
|
Post by gumgnome on Dec 1, 2009 4:39:24 GMT -5
^ Excellent post, Paul! *karmas* I agree with everything you said, and you said it far more succinctly than I ever could! Thanks for an enlightening, well-written post.
|
|
|
Post by AndrewCrossett on Dec 1, 2009 8:35:42 GMT -5
I agree too, but I think "personal canon" should be called something else. It's confusing that people use the word to refer to two different things. One is for everyone, the other is for just you.
Maybe "Canon" and "MyCanon."
|
|