Canon isn't realistic...

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Comparing canon to history or anything else in the real world is like comparing apples and pomegranates. It may work as a literary convention, but they really don't have anything to do with one another.

My point was to demonstrate that issues of history are often in dispute, and that if you apply this same vagueness to fictional history, this provides a good deal of flexibility in discussions of canon with relation to gaming and fandom.

When I worked on Dragonlance this was an important part of my job. I eventually determined there were two things going on here: continuity, which is essential for framing a campaign setting properly in publication and in tying it together with what has come before; and canon, which in large part is decided by the end user.

I think this is a valid distinction. In writing speculative fictions, for examaple, the reader is expected to accept certain setting-specific non-realities, like magic or faster-than-light drives. Consistency in important, because it makes such things behave in the same way as real things behave. If I drop a brick, it doesn't hit the floor one day and float around the room at random the next. Likewise, we tend to categorize people in many different ways in the real world, so seeing similar categories (race, community, ethnic group, language, belief system) is familiar and plausible.

Canon, on the other hand, is a consumer's perspective on the relative quality of different works sharing a setting. Krensky mentions Western Canon in his post (something I admittedly had to look up). There is apparently a concept that there are bodies of work that are most representative of high quality Western culture.

Wouldn't you say, Cam Banks, that as an author in a shared universe, you are ALSO a consumer, and you have to make decisions on your version of canon in order to maintain consistency within in your own work?

Maybe we also confuse "canon" with "official" because of the confluence with copyright? Lucas controls Star Wars, and so I can't go out and write a Star Wars novel without a license. He can deny me a license if he doesn't like the quality of my work, or if he dislikes the direction in which I take the setting or the characters.

Star Trek is a better example of the creator's subjective canon selection. Paramount decided when they were ready with NextGen that all of the novels were "non-canon" with regard to the TV series. JJ Abrams decided to reset canon with a plot device, so now both the novels and all of the previous TV series (maybe excepting Enterprise?) are non-canon for the new movie. The new Star Trek is undoubtedly a better film than say, Star Trek V, so this may be an example of "official" canon better coinciding with fan-popular canon, i.e., Star Trek V no longer really happened...

Does the word "canon" have so many divergent meanings and so many misinterpretations that it is no longer a meaningful term for debate?

 

[Bumbles]

What struck me as funny is that there really isn't a real-world version of "canon."

But there is! The word "canon" itself is from the real world, and the particular meaning involved in fiction comes from the real world example of what works are considered part of the holy scriptures.

Sure, there's disagreement in many cases, BUT then it's not like there's not disagreement as to what's canon in many cases of fiction.

However, if you want an example of fiction where the kind of doubt is built into it....try Thieves World, which explicitly included the idea of uncertainty and different perspectives, given that it was an anthology series taking place in the same area, it was believed some blending would occur, but to avoid the problems of contradiction, this kind of disclaimer featured in it.

Anyway, I won't give any real world examples, but if you want to see some, I'm sure Wikipedia can provide a few with a little looking.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

This is best exemplified by how, more and more often, when a public figure says, "I didn't say that," some commentator can bring out the tape and show that the public figure did, in fact, say exactly that.

To play devil's advocate, I'll point out the following.

1) The replayed tape is often taken out of context.
2) Different listeners perceive what is said in different ways -- the phrase "borderline offensive" is used for a statement that is plausibly but not absolutely offensive.
3) We don't always say what we mean, and as we think through our positions, our memories of previous statements can get distorted. It is hard to tell deliberate dishonesty apart from an honest mistake.
4) Even in the age of 24-7 news channels and twitter, the vast majority of things said out loud are never recorded or made public.

Let me use an example that is far removed from present-day politics. There are popular conceptions about the Founding Fathers of the United States. There are things we learn in history class or see on television. Anybody interested in that period in history should take a look at a copy of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis. He used massive amounts of research to attempt to construct portraits of people like Benjamin Franklin and George Washington as human beings. It is fascinating reading, and it shows how 200 years after the fact, we're still coming up with new interpretations.

I really believe that in 200 years, there will be similar reinterpretations and conflicting opinions about modern public figures, and copious amounts of recorded materials will probably make the job HARDER, not easier.

 

[Krensky]

My point was to demonstrate that issues of history are often in dispute, and that if you apply this same vagueness to fictional history, this provides a good deal of flexibility in discussions of canon with relation to gaming and fandom.

You're not talking about canon then, you're talking about continuity.

I think this is a valid distinction. In writing speculative fictions, for examaple, the reader is expected to accept certain setting-specific non-realities, like magic or faster-than-light drives. Consistency in important, because it makes such things behave in the same way as real things behave. If I drop a brick, it doesn't hit the floor one day and float around the room at random the next. Likewise, we tend to categorize people in many different ways in the real world, so seeing similar categories (race, community, ethnic group, language, belief system) is familiar and plausible.

That's verisimilitude or internal consistency. Continuity is the fictional history of a world. Canon can define continuity, but is not continuity in and of itself.

Canon, on the other hand, is a consumer's perspective on the relative quality of different works sharing a setting. Krensky mentions Western Canon in his post (something I admittedly had to look up). There is apparently a concept that there are bodies of work that are most representative of high quality Western culture.

Not necessarily. Again, canon is a body of literary work. People, especially fen, tend to be opinionated about just what is and is not part of a fictional universe. This leads to people forming their own canon, the list of works they consider genuine to the universe. At it's base form, a canon is just a list of artistic works, typically limited to those of a narrative bent. All those '10 Essential Fantasy Novel' or whatever lists on Amazon are technically canons. Your college reading list was a canon.

Maybe we also confuse "canon" with "official" because of the confluence with copyright? Lucas controls Star Wars, and so I can't go out and write a Star Wars novel without a license. He can deny me a license if he doesn't like the quality of my work, or if he dislikes the direction in which I take the setting or the characters.

The link between canon (the actual word, you seem to be confusing it with continuity) and official comes about because the original canon was the list of books the Catholic Church decided to include in the bible. Canon also comes from the ancient Greek word (via Latin) for measuring rod or standard.

Star Trek is a better example of the creator's subjective canon selection. Paramount decided when they were ready with NextGen that all of the novels were "non-canon" with regard to the TV series.

Largely so that they could ignore the continuity of those books.

JJ Abrams decided to reset canon with a plot device, so now both the novels and all of the previous TV series (maybe excepting Enterprise?) are non-canon for the new movie. The new Star Trek is undoubtedly a better film than say, Star Trek V, so this may be an example of "official" canon better coinciding with fan-popular canon, i.e., Star Trek V no longer really happened...

Abrams created a new continuity but he didn't reset the overall continuity or change the canon. Everything in the series and movies happened. It just happened in a different universe. Star Trek has been pretty consistent in it's support for (or at least it's use of it as hand waving) the Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Plot device happens, things change. Old things still happen, just in a universe where Plot Device didn't occur. Spock was pretty clear on this in his 'stop whining at us about continuity' speech in the middle of the film.

Does the word "canon" have so many divergent meanings and so many misinterpretations that it is no longer a meaningful term for debate?

The problem comes in when people start confusing and conflating different bits of literary jargon. A canon is just a list of 'books'. In this context it's a list of books that defines a fictional universe and the events that 'actually' happened in it.

 

[Sunderstone]

Maybe we also confuse "canon" with "official"

or "Mythos" or to a much lesser extent "Flavor" (regarding campaign settings).

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

You're not talking about canon then, you're talking about continuity...That's verisimilitude or internal consistency. Continuity is the fictional history of a world. Canon can define continuity, but is not continuity in and of itself...The problem comes in when people start confusing and conflating different bits of literary jargon. A canon is just a list of 'books'. In this context it's a list of books that defines a fictional universe and the events that 'actually' happened in it.

OK, so I'm starting to get the distinctions here. I think I am talking more about continuity. Continuity for, say Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, is typically set by published works from WotC that can be considered "canon."

What makes a work set in a specific universe canonical? Is it merely popular opinion? Is it ownership? HP Lovecraft encouraged the use of his mythos by other authors, so are all of those works canonical? If Star Trek supports multiple universes, than isn't EVERYTHING potentially canonical -- just not necessarily part of the same timeline?

Is the concern with canonicity a matter of simple influence? If something I don't like in a universe is taken as "canon," then other creators may use that aspect in their own work. Ultimately, this could drive the fictional universe in a direction that I find less enjoyable overall. Is this the root of debate here?

 

[Umbran]

To play devil's advocate, I'll point out the following.

1) The replayed tape is often taken out of context.
2) Different listeners perceive what is said in different ways -- the phrase "borderline offensive" is used for a statement that is plausibly but not absolutely offensive.
3) We don't always say what we mean, and as we think through our positions, our memories of previous statements can get distorted. It is hard to tell deliberate dishonesty apart from an honest mistake.
4) Even in the age of 24-7 news channels and twitter, the vast majority of things said out loud are never recorded or made public.

In points 1, 2, and 3, you are talking not about the existence of canon, but about its use. I am talking merely about the existence.

The same points can be made for fictional canon. A player can say, "In book X, it was shown that the item can do Z." Never mind that in books X+1 and X+2, the ability to do Z was removed. The existence of canon does not guarantee its proper use, for the fictional world or the real one.

As for (4), I note that novels typically cover the span of many days, often weeks or even years, but they take only hours to read. Ergo, many things that happen are not recorded in the novel. This in no way prevents us from pointing at canon and saying, "This happened."

In real history, there are always three questions - What happened? Why did it happen? And what did the event mean for the future? The existence of a real world canon clarifies only the first. The existence of a fiction canon only sometimes covers the second. The third, in both cases, is always a matter of interpretation.

Edit: I have seen, and largely agree, with the points above made about canon vs. continuity. However, to a certain degree the point is moot, as people use canon to mean continuity, then, to that degree, canon has come to mean continuity anyway.

 

[Bumbles]

OK, so I'm starting to get the distinctions here. I think I am talking more about continuity. Continuity for, say Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms, is typically set by published works from WotC that can be considered "canon."

Thanks to the way people communicate, "X is canon" has become virtually the same as "X is in the continuity" .

Yay for flexible language! I wouldn't fret too much about it.

What makes a work set in a specific universe canonical?

Depends on the circumstances. It can be simply authorial fiat, or somebody can have their own set of "canon" for their own purposes. It can even be changed from time to time.

Is the concern with canonicity a matter of simple influence? If something I don't like in a universe is taken as "canon," then other creators may use that aspect in their own work. Ultimately, this could drive the fictional universe in a direction that I find less enjoyable overall. Is this the root of debate here?

Pretty much yes. Just look at the Starfleet Battles folks and THEIR canon.

 

[Cam Banks]

As a contributing author to an IP that has multiple authors (I hesitate to call Dragonlance a "shared world") I upheld whatever continuity framework we had already agreed to or that was supported by the IP owners. Obviously, as I introduced new characters and told a story that hadn't really been told before, I was adding to the body of work, but I don't think that's the same as being a fan who accepts that body of work.

I used to have people argue with me about my own writing for Dragonlance, saying that I was too restrictive or I'd thrown out something they always liked or something like that. I had to remind them that in my own personal campaigns I was nowhere near as concerned about official continuity, and that they shouldn't either. I know some people feel that they need to stick as close as possible to the "official" way things work, but no D&D campaign can do that. The moment you buy the book, you're in charge, and I think folks should take ownership of canon for themselves.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

In real history, there are always three questions - What happened? Why did it happen? And what did the event mean for the future? The existence of a real world canon clarifies only the first. The existence of a fiction canon only sometimes covers the second. The third, in both cases, is always a matter of interpretation.

From this, I take it to mean that you feel that there is a distinct, objective shared reality in the actual universe.

I don't know that it is true. If it is true, I don't know that it matters.

Each of us interprets reality based on our sensory input. We see different aspects of the world than others, and we can interpret what we sense in different ways. Reality is subjective. I'm of the opinion, for example, that insane people are acting rationally based upon their perceptions, and the perceptions are what diverge from the norm. How would you act if you actually started hearing disembodied voices telling you how to behave?

What I take that to mean is that we can only know "reality" based on an approximation. This is actually not too far from the way quantum mechanics views reality, if I'm understanding what I've read about it.

The downside to this view is that it tends to remove a degree of certainty and security from my worldview. The upside is it tends to help me be less judgemental of the opinions of others, since I know they may be seeing reality in a way that's different from my perspective.

Now, I don't qualify everything I say based on that belief, because it would be socially unworkable. Wife: "Is it raining outside?" Me: "Based upon my observations, it appears to be raining within the area visible to me and based upon the commonly accepted definition of the word 'rain.' The weatherman yesterday expressed an educated opinion that we would see rain for most of the day in this general geographic region. I suggest, based upon the preponderance of evidence, that you would be more comfortable with a rain jacket."

It becomes more relevant when we start talking about things like "canon" and "continuity."