Alzrius
The EN World kitten
[MENTION=8461]Alzrius[/MENTION] Well, Ed trusts her to speak on his behalf, and she has done that for more than 10 years now, this is quite enough for me (and for many others, including the admins of the FR wiki, since they accept Ed's answers as valid references for info contained in articles).
The fact that it's "enough" for people isn't meeting any sort of objective standard, though, which is kind of what "canonity" is all about, e.g. it's an objective status bestowed by the highest authority, and so doesn't rely on any degree of public acceptance. As the holders of a given intellectual property are the ones who hold that title, the claim of someone else to have any similar status, even if they're the original creators of said property but no longer own it, must therefore be subject to scrutiny.
In this case, the question of "Ed trusting her to speak on his behalf" is itself something that we're being asked to take at face value, at least insofar as the links you've posted go. I'm not trying to be paranoid, nor suggest that there's any level of foul play involved, but I'm a pretty firm believer in "trust but verify." That she says that she's speaking in Ed's voice - to the point of writing that the content of her posts is a reply of his that he's dictating to her - is something that we can't verify (with regards to what's been linked to here, I mean).
Also, from this link : http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1854&&whichpage=1#30938 it also emerges that THO owns a copy of said contract (sure, she could be lying and making everything up, but I mean, what would be the point of that?).
Saying that there's no reason for someone to lie isn't any indication that they're not, unto itself. I'm not saying she is, but at the same time I haven't seen any impetus to give her the benefit of the doubt. It's also odd to consider that she has a copy of a contract that she's not a party to.
Besides, this matter is non neglectable, and the info about Ed's word being canon has been told multiple times and on multiple occasions (as I said, even at a GenCon panel). If it weren't the case, surely Ed or anyone else would have clarified. Especially since he and THO contact each other quite often (she is one of his players in his original world campaign, IIRC).
I think you mean "nonnegotiable," and in that regard I agree; while there can be confusion over the status of something as canon or not, there's a very clear final arbiter, which is the IP holder (though they can be silent on various topics). That said, the issue of something "being told multiple times" doesn't matter in the slightest - canonity isn't a popularity contest, and it doesn't depend on any degree of public acceptance. I also don't think that it's a necessary presumption that Ed would have clarified things if this were not the case, since that creates an expectation that "this must be true, since we'd have been told if it was false."
Perhaps this is something that Ed required as part of the contract...
Possibly, but I think it's better not to assume reasons.
Also, it is not as meaningless as you make it to be. I have made an example in another post. There are matters (basically the major stuff) where Ed will say only what WotC has agreed on (for example, if a deity is back or not), but this is a way for details on other matters, which DMs/players could be interested but that aren't and by their nature wouldn't easily be published in books (for example, the details on how a religious ritual is performed, sayings, typical food, attitudes in certain religious communities or towns/regions towards certain matters or other stuff like that), to have an ''official'' source. Or in this current state of the Realms, with WotC basically refusing to give a broad update of the setting, Ed's word essentially is the only official source that we have (when he doesn't run into NDAs).
Except that that is meaningless, insofar as it has no particular impact besides players wanting details with the nebulous stamp of "official" on them, for their own personal desire to not use "unofficial" material. That's what I was talking about before, with regards to such a contractual stipulation having no particular force or effect in any regard.
Last edited: