Edit: I beginning to think we are just going in circles. And the amount of time being put into these posts is quickly becoming not worth it. Even as I think we might be reaching a better understanding of each others terms, it is just becoming difficult to find the energy to continue.
Well, if we are I think that's a shame. I was hoping to provide some insight (for everyone reading this, I mean) as someone who enjoys canon (and in no way does so because I think it provides any sort of superiority over non-canon works; I read fanfiction too!), and had put a lot of thought into what was being discussed here. But two people who are entrenched in their positions and just continue talking
at each other rather than
to each other accomplishes nothing.
Many people would say that the words in the dictionary are the only "true" words. I recognize that there are other types of dictionaries, and even the dictionary recognizes that there are multiple definitions for a word. I also am aware that there are entire organization devoted to keeping dictionaries "clean" and defining words to prevent the definitions from changing and shifting too much.
And I guess we have some confusion here. Because "canon" in and of itself may not carry judgement. "Canon and there is only one canon for any given IP" does bring with it a value judgement. Because it makes a binary set-up.
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone express any idea that the only "true" words are those found in the dictionary. Leaving aside the issue of other languages (since they have their own dictionaries), many won't have older words that have fallen out of the contemporary vernacular, but that doesn't make them any less "true," in the typical understanding of the word. Likewise, while I'm aware that there are "language academies" which act as regulatory agencies for what constitutes proper grammar, that doesn't strike me as them claiming any sort of dominion over what language is "true" and what's not. I don't think that "l33t sp3@k" or whatever the young people use is necessarily "false" language (the only thing I'd call a "false" language is a collection of sounds with no recognized (even by the speaker) meaning behind them, and even then only if they were put forward as actually being a language, which would therefore be disingenuous).
That said, I'm glad we can agree that "canon" doesn't necessarily connote judgment! I believe that's going to be the case however you use the term, I should note, simply because the binary state doesn't connote any sort of value judgment. It's binary, yes, but it's a binary measurement of something
other than "does it have value or not?"
Leaving aside that I think this is a misuse of the word "truth" - "demarcation" would be a better term, unless we're recognizing that the semiotic usage of "truth" has been altered by the liminal state of the imaginary realm - I'm glad we can agree that there's another aspect of canon beyond the recognition of an externalized authority.
If you could figure out a way to separate the idea of truth from the idea of defining something, but I can't see a way to do that that doesn't involve simply ignoring the way the two concepts are intertwined.
I see them as already being separate, however. I'll refer you back to the analogy regarding your living room and your neighbor's living room. The "definition" is a recognition that one is part of your house, and the other is not. That doesn't mean that your neighbor's living room is any less of a living room.
Okay, I've been trying not to seperate the sections, because these responses are already incredibly long. But I need to pull this out.
A fact that is not true, is not a fact. You can't possibly have a fact that if known to be false, because then it is not a fact.
Again, I believe that they were demonstrating an example of how terms - when utilized with regard to a liminal area - are broken down and repurposed. The "fact" that they were referring to was a shorthand for "what's an acknowledged part of the canon." Saying that means it's "true" doesn't make any sense, because this is still a realm of imagination; none of it has actually happened. If someone says "the adventures of Tintin are a true story," they're demonstrably wrong. To then say that aspects of his adventures are "facts" is likewise wrong. So the use of that term can only be understood to make sense if it's understood to be referring to something else.
Do you not imagine that what he was talking about what more like the idea of "true" has been expanded to mean more than simply "true in the real world" to include "true in the fictional world". This idea of a linimal space could be seen as a a space where fictional worlds are regarded as somehow real. This is a change from older models of understanding.
You're overlooking how Turner specified that liminality involves "the old patterns of meaning [being] dissolved" so that new ones can be created. To retain the existing meaning by simply expanding it falls short of that, because it doesn't discard the original meaning in order to repurpose it to suggest something else entirely (which is what's happening). In anything, that would create confusion because it equates two things which are fundamentally different (i.e. reality and an imaginary state, even if grounded) and so causes a loss of understanding rather than any sort of new understanding. It therefore strikes me as more correct to suggest that the liminal state involved with an imaginary work that's been imbued with aspects of realism therefore necessitates that a suspension of implied meanings - i.e. what we
think we know - so that we can better understand that on its own terms. Which is what canon is, essentially, supposed to help us accomplish.
And, again, by stating that there must be only a single canon for any IP, you aren't in a model where my living room and my neighbor's living room aren't being judged, because that neccessarily recognizes that not only do I own a space, but my neighbor owns a space, and there is a third expanse of territory. More accurately, towards your model, there is your living room... and everything else is the same sort of grey blob of "not your living room". Recognizing other living rooms is recognizing that there is multiple canons.
But can you recognize that in no such instance is there any aspect of "truth" - let alone a qualitative judgment in value based on that - involved in such a recognition? Because I made that example as a demonstration of an instance of demarcation, which necessarily applies a definition on your part (i.e. "this area is
my living room") and is self-evidently true, but which entails no particular value judgment. Your neighbor's living room is not part of your house (which in this case represents the total canon), but that doesn't make it "false," let alone somehow less than your living room.
A greater exploration of ideas in the work isn't a greater understanding of the work? That is something I can't really wrap my head around. Unless you are referring to "a greater understanding of the work" in purely terms of connections and physical objects. Things like "This person is the parent of that other person" or "this is what is in the mountain". It is purely concrete aspects of the work... which again seems like it is trying to deal exclusively in facts.
And if this is how you are talking about canon, as only the concrete elements and which of those elements are locked in place by an outside authority... then I am even more confused about this as a "mode of engagement". You seem to think that fanfiction doesn't have this. That if I speak to another person who has read the same fanfic, I can't have this same understanding of concrete elements... but we can. And there is no guarantee that I can talk to someone who has read a canon work, and I've read a canon work, and that we have read the same canon.
A greater understanding of the ideas in the work strikes me as being very different from a greater understanding of the work in question. You can watch, say, Star Wars and come away with various ideas that can be examined, discussed, demonstrated, analyzed, etc. in various ways, formats, and mediums - including derivative works - but those ideas are, as previously noted, not under the purview of canon to begin with. To continue with the Star Wars example, you can look at ideas such as the morality involved with rebelling against a tyrannical government, the religious themes involved with trusting in something greater than yourself, themes surrounding family and familial bonds, life after death, questions surrounding when violence is appropriate or not, etc. All of those are ideas, but none of them are something that the Star Wars canon can lay any special claim to. As such, any of those can be explored in a derivative work because, ultimately, that work is exploring things that are beyond the purview of the canon in question; in that case, the canon is simply being utilized as a familiar mechanism to look at something else altogether.
What we look at with regard to canon is the specifics involved, and what they tell us about the imaginary realm. That's important to note: it's the imaginary realm specifically that's being examined and understood, in its aspect as having a grounded nature. That's not an issue of "facts" - unless you're utilizing liminality to suggest that "facts" don't mean the same thing that we make of them in our everyday use of the term - because it's still a work of fiction.
Likewise, fanfiction doesn't possess this because, as noted previously, the fanfiction doesn't have the ability to (fully) define itself, as the canon elements are open to being altered by the governing authority of the canon it's drawing from. The specifics of who a character is, what they've done, what relationships they have and with whom, are potentially open to being canonically altered in a way that changes the understanding that the readership of a fanfiction which borrows those elements makes use of.
Yes, the only thing impinging your understanding of the Forgotten Realms is that WoTC removed their approval from the material that was written. IF you and your friend wish to discuss the Forgotten Realms based on those materials? You still can, and share that same basic understanding. Each of your tables though, were already breaking canon, unless the two of your tables are playing identical games or you are actively working to have your games match events so that "canon" is maintained between them.
At the table to table level? Nothing has changed. Your ability to discuss with people about the Realms? Hasn't changed. The only change is what Crawford is saying about your game.
I'll mention again that the table level is a different mode of engagement. The "impinging of understanding" that I referenced was with regard to the engagement with canon as its own mode, separate from considerations of making use of things in the course of game-play. Remember, engaging with canon is autotelic: it's an end unto itself, because that engagement provides for understanding and examination which is its own source of enjoyment. Being able to examine the boundaries of a fantasy world and ponder what they mean with regard to the nature of that world as its own thing is a joy unto itself (at least for me), and stimulates the imagination further.
In that regard, the nature of the understanding that's shared with others relies on that, as it helps to provide definitions that allow for immediate recognition with others who (for example) weren't part of the mode of engagement relating to a particular tabletop game. If I run into someone at a convention, we can talk about the Dragonlance saga even if that person hasn't played DL1-14 at my table, or read my Dragonlance fanfiction, etc. Canon provides for that shared experience as a mode of engagement.
"the continuity" with an understanding that there are multiple continuities is different than "there is one canon". If you can't engage in the property in the way you like if it is possible for multiple sets of things to be true, instead of a single set of things.
I'm not sure I understand the use of the parsing of terms in this regard. Page 4 of the 5E DMG allows for the idea that your home game takes place in an alternative continuity, which places it beyond the canon in the D&D multiverse. Now, that confuses two different modes of engagement - which is another instance of how understanding of the different methods by which fiction can be interacted with - but doesn't that satisfy what you're looking for? There's a sense of continuity to virtually every narrative, even if it's non-canon in nature.
But you aren't actually internalizing the point.
I need to read 18 books to be able to understand the 19th. But if I want to read a fanfiction based on book two of the same series, I only need to read books 1 and 2.
Yes, books 3 thru 18 might change things and change the context of how you understand the fanfiction if you have read them... but those same books also changed the context of books 1 and 2. There is no fundamental difference.
But in the event that someone
does engage with the canon by reading those later books, their understanding of your fanfiction will be changed as a result. Further developments to the characters will necessarily impact their view of how you've used them in your work. Now, the substance of that impact is entirely variable in nature; as noted before, the scope and scale of such things will vary wildly from individual to individual, but the change in understanding is still there, happening without regard for what you as the author have elected to present with regard to what's happening in your story. That's a breach of the externalized authority involved, making it necessarily non-canon by nature.
I was trying to equate the length of them, because even though they are about the same length, they are treated differently.
And for your concepts, chronology? Narrative Development? Characters and Characterization? All of those exist for both works. But, for some reason the chronology and characters of one work is considered important enough to cause discussions of canon, but not for another work.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. You raised a question regarding why the length of certain works seemed to have an imprecise relationship with the amount of canon generated and the attention that canon subsequently received. I pointed out that's because the imaginary work doesn't rely on physical factors which are typically used to measure length (e.g. volumes, word count, issues printed, episode produced, etc.). While the intangible factors might be present in both works, the amount generated are not equal, with the canon in one being greater because the specific aspects it encompasses are more than the other, something which isn't an issue of how long a particular work is.
It seems that there are two things that give rise to people caring about canon. The importance of the work, it needs to be big enough to be "important" to a section of the adult or teenage community. And there needs to be a contreversy. Something that brings canon into question, that gives rise to this desire to map out the "real" boundaries and make sure that they are held defined.
No one needed to start talking about the Canon of The Hollows series, or of Law and Order. Discussions of canon seem to be limited to spaces where there is debate and boundaries being drawn between fans. Maybe that is because the discussions of canon only happening when there is a debate on canon, but it seems odd to me that an entire mode of engagement only exists when that engagement is in question, and it completely in the background when it is not.
I think there are some assumptions here which need to be examined more closely. For one thing, the degree to which people care about a particular canon is quite often hard to discern. For one thing, they won't often bring that up unless it's already part of a discussion about that particular work; so it's entirely possible that they care about a particular canon a great deal, but that's simply not what's under discussion. There might be a lot of Bronies here on EN World, for instance, but they're not going to talking about My Little Pony on a D&D-related website.
Which then brings us to the second issue, which is that in order to judge the degree to which canon is cared about by a given community, you typically need to go to hubs of those communities, which are oftentimes difficult to find. I say "difficult" because there's no official designation for which fan-sites, discussion board, Facebook pages, discord servers, etc. are the most authoritative. I suppose you can look at things like the degree of traffic or activity that they receive, but that's quite often going to raise difficulties in parsing what's about "canon" and what's about other aspects of the work in question (i.e. they might have a discussion board and also a fanfiction forum, for instance). For all we know, there's a thriving "Law & Order" community out there having large discussions about the canon of the series right now!
So, again, it seems that you are only talking about concrete elements. Canon is only the concrete elements that can be understood to be part of a work, statements of fact that set up boundaries of what is and what is not.
Again, I'm not sure "fact" is the best way to refer to fiction. That said, I feel confident putting forward that ideas, inspiration, and themes aren't something that any particular canon can lay claim to.
The change was not voluntary on the part of the former authority though. That's the point. Yes, it was voluntary by the current authority, but they are not the people who created the initial canon. Just as they are not the people who created the fanfiction.
I confess I'm not sure what you're pointing out here. The governing authority of a particular canon might change, but the imaginary realm in question is
only able to be defined by its own authority. The work of fanfiction never attains that status, since it can always be redefined (at least in part) by an authority beyond that of its creator: the authority that governs the canon which the fanfiction draws from.
And how is that different than Disney redefining the work of George Lucas? You keep skipping this part, that somehow it isn't the same sort of change if someone buys the IP and changes it compared to it being two authors who never had a financial understanding. Why is one different than the other?
Because in the former, the former authority is making a voluntary transfer of governance to the new authority. The new authority may then redefine the canon, but that's not anything unusual; the original authority might have redefined the canon as they added more material to it. In the case of George Lucas, Episode IV: A New Hope told us that Darth Vader was the one who killed Luke's father. In the next episode, our understanding was changed when we found out that he
was Luke's father (spoiler alert). Canon doesn't possess any sort of guarantee that a particular definition will be immutable. Rather, it presents us with an an externality that's grounded by the fact that only a
single authority (even if it's a corporate entity made up of numerous people), which lessens the labile nature of the imaginary work. Fanfiction doesn't possess this because it's presented as being under the authority of its author, and yet the elements utilized from a particular canon can be redefined by that canon's authority, often (or rather, almost always) without regard for what that does to any particular work of fanfiction.
I am saying that they both take place on a post-apocalyptic earth. If you thinks that makes them the same canon, I think that shows the weakness of arguing that setting and canon cannot be separated.
Quite the contrary, I'm pointing out that it's self-evidently wrong to consider them part of the same canon. They make use of the same idea, and I suppose you could bring up themes that are found in both, but that's all, and those aren't an issue of canon.
