I'll note that you're largely looking at this in terms of what makes something a story, which strikes me as somewhat orthogonal to what's being discussed. There are lots of stories which aren't canon, as we've established previously. The presence of narrative elements isn't what we're looking at in terms of what makes something canon (beyond their presence in a conceptual framework). Likewise, there's no qualification of being "equally" vital.
In terms of what makes something canon, I'll note again that this is an area where there isn't a lot of specific terminology nor broad agreement. Having said that, I'll reiterate what I think canon is, which is that it's a particular realm of imagination which is conceptually grounded (i.e. seeming more real due to its externalized state giving it an immutable quality, at least with regards to those engaging with it) where an authority defines what is and is not part of the body of lore. That, you'll notice, relies on more than just the designation of authority: if the definition isn't clear or otherwise understood - particularly where contradictory things are given the same designation, which is often implicit - then the canon is thrown into question.
I'm looking at it in terms of stories because you can't have a "body of lore" without some sort of story. You can't even have history without some sort of story. Those elements are vital unless we are talking something purely instructional like a "how to build a shelf" guide. And I would say there is likely no body of canonical lore that is largely made up of instructional manuals on how to do something.
But, let me break down your definition again. "which is that it's a particular realm of imagination which is conceptually grounded where an authority defines what is and is not part of the body of lore."
"Particular realm of imagination" = story
"conceptually grounded" = that you don't control
"what is and is not part of the body of lore" = Authority over what is true and what is false.
That's largely because that's what you seem to be focusing on, when in fact I think a far more fruitful line of discussion would be what you mentioned earlier, and yet aren't talking about at all now: that you find the entire concept "insidious." I really think the discussion would be served more about that, as most of your questions make a great deal more sense when viewed in this light, i.e. that you're certain that there's an insidious element there, and are trying to ferret it out.
But let's put that aside for a moment and presume - for the sake of the debate - that there isn't anything to distinguish canon aside from the authoritative declaration involved: what's the problem with that? I ask because I'm not sure why you seem so tightly fixated on that particular aspect of what's canon. We've already established that there's nothing fallacious involved in that, so why do you find that to be of note?
And this is where you lose me. You seem to be under the opinion of "but people can and do use something the wrong way." That's not an indictment of canon in particular, it's simply recognizing that things can be put to use outside of their intended purpose. It's akin to Gary Gygax pointing out how, in the infamous interview that 60 Minutes conducted, that a chair can be used as a blunt instrument, but nobody puts warning labels to that effect on it.
Now, I'll admit that's somewhat hyperbolic here. I'm fully aware that people can and do bring up canon in terms of debates, often about quality, but that's why it's important to remember that those are different modes of engagement, and so the people who do that are
wrong. They're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Tearing down the entire concept of canon - which isn't really something that can be done anyway, since I believe that it's inherently recognized - won't help in that regard. It's not helpful to eschew any distinction that, say, fanfiction is different from the canon fiction (which, again, is why we call it fanfiction in the first place).
The issue, rather, is to point out that canon and quality are entirely orthogonal to each other.
Sturgeon's Law applies across the board.
On the contrary, there's absolutely no value judgment involved whatsoever. It's akin to saying that the dictionary carries a value judgment, since it defines what words mean, and so that necessarily carries a value judgment. When an authority exercises their governing prerogatives over an area that's understood to be under their purview, that's legitimate on their part, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily virtuous in what they do (or that it will be widely accepted, for that matter).
I actually have a pretty easy example of this, of why I find it to be insidious and what I think this does. I will also address your point of "people using it wrong doesn't make it wrong" as part of this. Early in the other thread, I saved these two posts. I'm going to cut a lot of the first one to make it easier to highlight the language I'm looking at.
Which is very convenient for them, isn't it? Only Wizards themselves knows what the "real" canon for 5E is.
For those fans who liked the idea of an official canon, and want to know what is actually "true" for 5E... theoretically you can rely on what's in the core rulebooks. Anything else - be it from 5E, from older editions, or any other source - is a sort of quantum canon, possibly "true" or "false" for any given product, and not to be relied on.
That said, even the core rulebooks are subject to change in future printings (and it's very likely they'll get a major overhaul in 2024). So what is "true" now may not be (and probably won't be) true for the rest of 5E.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that their internal canon consists of all of the 5e books. That way they can be internally consistent with their future 5e product releases. Just go with that and I don't think you'll be led astray.
JEB and Maxperson are both supporters of Canon, and upset about their mode of engagement being interrupted... but look at the language being used here. It is all whether something is "true" or "false". That is the question JEB is focused on "What is true? What is False?" and then Max gives a very odd response. That if you just focused on the core rules, "you can't be led astray".
This implies, heavily, that the fear of not knowing what the true or false lore is is rooted in being wrong. You might be "led astray" and believe things that are not true, so you have to limit yourself to only this that we know is true, because the rest may not be.
And I know you want this to be about what is "grounded", what is immutable... but that isn't the case. Because both these people have been using this lore, and that lore has not changed. Not a single thing has been published that contradicts a single word from the Lore of last week. What has changed is that they are no longer certain it is "true" that they may be "led astray" by false lore.
And, this is consistently the position of everyone who has been upset by the change. You say you don't really care one way or the other, the people who do care? Who are saying they care? This is their position again and again and again. "We need to know what is true. We need to make sure we aren't using the wrong lore"
Which begs the question... wrong in what way? How does it make a difference if the Mayor of Baldur's Gate is a human or a half-elf or a Genasi? What is wrong with any of those options? Only that one is "true" and the others are "false" and they need to make sure they know the "truth". Not even that they are using it. Maxperson has said that he often goes through canon and takes what he wants and doesn't use the rest. This isn't about what he is using... he needs to know the truth. He needs to not be "led astray" by the false lore. To the point that he has started talking in the other thread about the "hidden canon" that WoTC is using, but not telling players about. That there is a secret truth, that only those people "in the know" know about.
And this is what canon does as it is currently understood and defined. This is what the position of "there is only one canon" inevitably seems to lead too. People who vehemently know "The Truth", that have the special status granted by being right. That are secure in that status because it isn't just their opinion that they are right, but that the outside, authoritative agency has said they are right, and that this is truly the truth. And thus, they prove that they are the most diligent and true fans. Because they invested the time in making sure they know the true truth of the work.
That is why I find the model of a single canon insidious, because there is no avoiding this phenomena. If there is only one truth, then there will be people who seek to use that to hold themselves above others. That is why I prefer viewing canon as a multiplicity. There isn't a single truth, there are as many truths as there are versions.
-
How an authority becomes an authority isn't a question of "seeming right." While you can absolutely query who the authority is over a particular canon (recall the issue involved when it's a corporate entity, causing confusion when a particular individual in that corporation makes a statement which isn't formally echoed by the rest of the corporation nor any of the other staff), asking if a particular manner "seems right" strikes me as trying to grade such things on a moral scale, which doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful in reaching a greater understanding.
Intellectual properties, much like real properties, change hands all the time. As such, the attendant authorities also change, and different authorities will have different ideas over what is canon and what isn't. Whether or not that "seems right" it's the way it is. Much like how someone might not like a particular bit of canon, it's not any less true because of that.
However, in practical concerns, this means that you give the ability to define the truth to the person with the largest pocketbook. The "true" version of spider-man isn't the version the most people like, or the version that the most people are aware of, but the version determined by the person who spent the most money.
Yes, IP's change hands all the time, and that is something that will always be the case (well, unless a miracle happens in regards to copyright law) but just because someone can be the official version, doesn't mean we also have to give them the key to being the only "correct" version.
I question how "fuzzy" this really is. While canon determinations aren't synonymous with issues of IP law, the designations seem fairly close for the purpose of where the distinctions are drawn. Thematic elements are just that: based on theme. Particular ideas, unto themselves, are just that: ideas, and can be executed in wildly different manners. None of those alone are enough to be said to belong to only a certain canon.
No one things that the presence of "laser swords" makes something necessarily a part of Star Wars. No one thinks that the use of short-lived clones makes something part of Naruto. Certainly, there's no way to know what the creators are "thinking of" when they make something, which is why canon isn't concerned with what their state of mind was when they created their work.
And yet, you have made that distinction. The state of mind does matter, because it determines which things are derivative and which are canon. But it seems that you are thinking about this in terms of IP law, which starts getting a bit murky in certain areas.
Also, IP law specifically goes against your view of a single canon, because it allows for Public Domain, which is giving the canon authority to multiple people.
Again, that first requires an understanding of whether or not such works are canon (or, to put it your way, if there's a canon in the first place). The key here is to understand if such works are "fanfiction" - which I'm not sure could necessarily be applied to all non-canon works (e.g. something that is canon and later de-canonized) - or if they're part of the canon body of lore or not. You've noted that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain (though in fact I believe the last few of Doyle's original stories are still under copyright), but introducing that as the standard then requires us to ask if all of those subsequent works by other authors (and writers, producers, etc.) are also.
Why? Why can we not simply assume that an enclosed body of work contains within it its own canon? Why do I need to ask if Elementary or BBC's Sherlock are fanfiction, non-canon or canon? Why can they not simply be canon for their own body of work?
No, it doesn't. Much like when you said that there's an "insidious" element to it, you're seeing something that isn't there. A work of fanfiction cannot be (fully) understood without referencing the canon is simply a statement of fact: there's no implicit value judgment (i.e. good, bad, better, worse, etc.) involved in that. At most you could say that might be somewhat inconvenient, because someone who isn't familiar with the canon work will have a harder time understanding the aspects of the fanfiction that involve said work, but a measure of difficulty in comprehension isn't a value judgment.
I fundamentally disagree. It is entirely possible to write a fanfiction that requires no knowledge of the canon to be fully understood. The authors of these works make sure that there is nothing that needs you to know canon to understand. I'd think about "Darth and Droids" or "The DM of the Rings". Neither have any need for you to understand the canon to understand the work itself. Or at least, no more than you would need if you were encountering Star Wars or LoTR for the first time.
I find that guessing at people's motivations tends to be a fruitless pursuit. There's no way of determining if you're right, short of the individual(s) under discussion being queried, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll tell you the truth. That's without getting into issues of potential subconscious motivations (or biases) which suggest that even they don't know why they did something. It's a guessing game with no answer.
I disagree.
Because "better" and "worse" are value judgments, which are orthogonal to questions of what's canon or not. Again, there are lots of instances of people not liking a particular revelation in canon, but not denying that they're still canon. (Looking at you, midichlorians.)
But canon is given more weight simply because it is canon. Even if it is worse. And that lends itself to ignoring anything that isn't canon, because it is only canon that matters.
On the contrary, it's self-evidently true. Because the canon work is external to the people engaging with it, the definitions involved in shaping the imaginary world make it more concrete by imbuing it with an immutable quality similar to how the real world works, hence making it seem more real. That, in turn, allows for greater insight since it suspends the notion of "it's imaginary, so it can be changed at a whim." Things such as cause-and-effect relationships, internal logic, and self-consistency can therefore be queried, all of which provide greater insight.
I can't rewrite "Of Darth and Droids". Control of that story is external to me. Equally external to me as the movie "A New Hope."
This value of externality is not what makes something canon or not. Every piece of literature you ever read, unless you wrote it yourself, is external to you and unalterable by you.
It's likewise self-evident that any particular realm of imagination is going to be arbitrary. As noted, part of what makes canon attractive for people who prefer that mode of engagement is that it suspends that aspects, hence the grounded quality it subsequently takes on. With that said, I'm not sure that "arbitrary" is the word you're looking for here, as you seem to be implying some sort of system of merit that you think should determine who is and is not in possession of authority over a given canon? While that's a romantic decision, is that not "insidious" also, since it presumes that someone's work can be snatched away from them just because someone appears out of nowhere and declares that they've worked even harder on something than the creator has, and so they're taking possession of it?
As for Thor, you're asking about issues where there's no particular identifiable authority any more (or if there ever was), but this strikes me as another aspect of your objection to the entire concept of authority, which for the life of me I don't understand. You've mentioned the "arbitrary" nature of people being able to buy and sell intellectual properties, but that doesn't seem arbitrary if the seller is willing to sell, buyer is willing to buy, and both can agree on a price. Rather, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, it seems like you think that the mere existence of an authority - or at least them exercising their governing privileges - is somehow an indictment of everyone who isn't an authority?
Would you say that's the insidiousness you're seeing?
To a degree. By saying there can only ever be a single true authority over any given space, you necessarily devalue the authority of anyone else who is working in that space and making their own versions.
Every author and creator has authority over their own work. Readers can never change that work, only ever make different versions that are then theirs. Trying to say that there is then only one "true" authority, lessens the others.
Again, references to the real world don't strike me as something that can be referred to as "material." A realm of imagination can't claim to encompass the real world (bad things tend to happen when people try to merge the two), and I don't think you're trying to claim otherwise. Rather, you seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of disintegration of authority if canon references the real world at all, which isn't the case: the real world continues to exist independently of any sort of authority over a particular work of imagination. There's no overlap in canonical authority, then.
Because Equestria isn't real. It's found entirely within a particular boundary of imagination. I don't see how the difference between "something found in reality" and "something that's purely imaginary" is a strangely-drawn line. Quite the opposite, I'd say that's perhaps the most readily-apparent line there is
That's a coincidence of naming, and not an actual reference to the same place. If you have a character named "Luke," that doesn't make it a Star Wars reference. Now if they were named "Luke Skywalker," that would be different. And while I know you're going to jump on the idea that there are characters with the same name found in different works of fiction, that's not the same thing either, since in those cases the names are clearly not meant to indicate that they're the same characters.
You seem to keep missing this point, and I'm not sure how better to explain it.
A setting is a setting. Whether I set my story in New York or Skairn doesn't matter in whether or not it is the setting of the story. Marvel has canon that deals directly with New York. They have declared (canonically) what is true about
their version of New York. At the same time, TMNT has canon about New York. And they have declared (canonically) what is true about
their versions of New York (they've made a few different ones).
But, you seem to be of the opinion that a setting that is based on the real place of New York is different that a setting that is purely fictional. Because you are saying that there can only be one canonical version of Equestria (which isn't even true)
Why can't there be different canons for
different versions of Equestria, just like there is different versions of New York? A consistent definition would say that either you can do that, or that every version of New York that isn't "reality New York" is non-canonical, because there can only be one true version.
I'm not sure what that's meant to indicate: yes, Marvel and DC can both have a Chicago, and they're both possessed of their own canons, since they're referencing the real world. Likewise, fanfiction can reference Equestria, but that doesn't alter its being fanfiction.
So, you want to declare that settings based in the real world are fundamentally different from settings that are not. But, this causes issues.
For example, the Bubble Gum Kingdom from Adventure time seems entirely made-up... but it takes place in a post-apocalyptic world that used to be "the real world". It is still Earth and a place on Earth, just a different version. The exact same if we decided to take New York from "I am Legend" which features a post-apocalyptic version of the city. (and has two canon versions)
Again, I think that this is a bad discussion to have with regard to something where the particulars aren't known. Questions of canonity often (in fact, I'd say they almost always) require some examination of the work in question - at the very least it doesn't hurt - to try and figure out what's canon and what isn't, as the declarations are often implicit. Hence, I'd say that something neither of us are familiar with is a bad example.
I'd say I'm familiar enough with it. I know that the two versions are heavily distinct, owned by the same company, and feature many of the same characters and setting. I declare that they are two different canons. Two different versions of the same concept.
You say that one must be canon (and true) and the other non-canon (and false). That you wish to study them to figure out which is which is your own perogative, but I don't see the value in making that determination. What value do you gain from this, except to make sure that you know "the right version" of the story?
Is that because you find it insidious? If so, how?
Because Public Domain characters belong to the public. You might as well say there is a single authority who can decide what constitutes a shirt for all people, and what can be on it. Or who regulates what color a house can be. The public domain is the public's property.
