Then either I was unclear or you misunderstood me, but I was trying to communicate that the nature of canon is more than just a declaration of status. I've mentioned at length that there's also things such as the externalized nature of it, the mode(s) of engagement, and the nature by which it defines things so to aid with the conceptualization of the aspects that remain undefined. None of that means that the declaration of status isn't also a part of that; it is, and it's important. It's just not all there is when we look at what constitutes "canon."
In this case, removing that particular designation of status is enough to render something non-canon, which isn't surprising: all WotC did was issue a declaration that the pre-5E material was non-canon, after all.
However, where you lose me is when you say that isn't something that "should" be a big deal. Saying "should" is an instance of pushing your beliefs on others, by telling them what you think is and is not worthwhile for them to care about. That's not really something that benefits anyone.
You can't really have a disagreement without opposing viewpoints.
I recognize people are getting upset over the lose of an official stamp. I'm just putting forth that, considering the nature of TTRPGs and fiction in general, it really shouldn't be something that we get that upset over. For example, retcons break canon. Sometime they do it softly, sometimes brutally. But the point of Retroactive Continuity is to take the canon of what happened and change it.
That isn't neccessarily a bad thing, and so canon being immutable and unalterable is something we already agree is not true. The next step I think is recognizing that there is no real issue with multiple levels of canon.
I'm snipping your examples there because you're running into the issue of modes of engagement again. I've noted (back in
this post) that that's a different mode from engaging with the nature of the lore, setting, characters, history, etc. on their own, apart from their use as aids in game-play. I should note that both are entirely legitimate on their own, and being separate ways of engagement, should probably each be discussed on their own terms. As I mentioned previously, there's nothing wrong with disregarding canon for your home game, as that's a necessary component of using them to game with; you're going to be adding and/or changing things simply by setting a game in a canon setting (even if the scope and scale are small). But that's not the same as talking about the canon nature of the lore unto itself.
Sure snip it and lets talk modes of engagement.
If I went and purchased the novels by Kevin Anderson that are no longer canon, did I waste my time or money? If I found a fanfiction site and found a Star Wars Fanfiction that I read, did I waste my time?
Am I pursuing a different mode of engagement in watching the official movies, reading Anderson's work, or reading a fanfiction? To me, all of them are the same mode of engagement. I'm not engaging in a different mode, I'm involving different canons perhaps, but that isn't a different mode of engagement.
So, do you think there is a mode of engagement that is different between reading a story that is written by Anderson and one written by a fanfic writer online? Did reading Anderson's stories change when Disney said "that isn't part of our canon anymore"?
It's not that I'm "missing" that, it's that I fundamentally disagree. Fans can introduce their own changes - there's nothing wrong with that - but those changes by their very nature are not canon to the work in question. Canon isn't something determined by them due to its externality, and as such the changes they introduce aren't understood to then become part of that externalized conceptual framework. The stories they make might have their own derivative lore (again, no pejorative there), but internal consistency alone isn't enough, which is why they can still be queried for how new aspects of the canon that they're making use of impact their derivative work. Of course, they can just declare an alternate universe or something to similar effect, but that's not canon. Like with a home D&D game, it's a personalized extrapolation of something that exists beyond the individuals using it can change.
Why not?
Why is canon only held by a corporation? Why can't other writers have Canon? OR maybe they do, maybe Rowling has Canon... but then does Heyman have canon for making a movie based on the same stuff? It certainly didn't play into the books, the original canon. There are dozens of authors making works tied into the Harry Potter universe. What do you call their continuity? If it isn't "canon" what is it?
I suppose that's as good a summary of our difference of opinion as any. I'm simply of the mind that imbuing derivative works as having canon - or, if you want to phrase it differently, the same "gradation" of canon - as that which they're making use of, it essentially erodes the term to the point where it's not (very) useful in discussions regarding the source material. When someone wants to differentiate between the standardized body of lore that all fans of a given work would know from their own personalized alterations to it, being able to call one "canon" - and define what makes it that way, in a manner that the personalized alteration lacks - seems to better encourage the discussion.
For me, it's important to be able to keep that definition intact, if only to help define why, for instance, My Little Pony fans care more about what the forthcoming movie will do to the canon established by the last nine seasons (plus the movie, special, web-shorts, etc.) of Friendship is Magic than they do about any particular work on fimfiction.net. There's a reason why that is, and having the terms and definitions to discuss why that is abets the discourse in a way that saying "it's all canon, since everyone determines their personal canon" doesn't.
That's what titles are for.
Disney's Star Wars Canon vs Star Wars Expanded Universe Canon.
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic Canon vs Hasbro's 1987 My Little Pony Canon.
DnD 5e Canon vs DnD 3.5 Canon.
It doesn't make "canon" worthless as a term, it just means you have canon for thing A and canon for thing B.
I'm not sure that a home D&D game can be canon in anything other than setup, since no one in this thread is suggesting that trying to maintain canon in game-play means that you then can't alter anything in the course of play. Certainly I'm not suggesting that; quite the opposite, I said previously that what you do in your home game will likely necessarily alter the established canon, which is fine, because a personal game has no canon aspects to it, anymore than fanfiction does (which, to be clear, is none).
Which means it isn't canon at all. As noted previously, the status declaration isn't the only thing aspect of canon, but it's an important part of it. That can be seen in how people distinguish between fanfiction (to the point that they call it "fanfiction" in the first place) and what's "official."
Sure it is canon. Canon for that table.
And personally... Fanfiction is a weird term. Wicked is Fan Fiction. Dante's Divine Comedy is Fan Fiction. In one way of looking at it "fanfiction" is "fiction written by fans", but we also end up using it derisively for "lesser" works. Or maybe non-commercial works.
I've already mentioned that it's more than just wanting a "stamp of approval," but rather than it's the acknowledgment of the grounded nature of a developed area of imagination. That groundedness comes from how the entire thing is kept external to one's self, given form and definition beyond what you (in the general sense of "you") can change. Whatever alterations you make in terms of personal fiction, a home game, etc. don't change the nature of the canon. When the authority over that canon discards part of it, that aspect is lost; as a result, the de-canonized part no longer helps to inform you about the nature of the parts that are canon, and so lose that useful element.
To put it another way, I don't believe that there are "multiple" canons for a particular work, nor levels nor gradations of canon (though I'm aware that others have put forward such things in the past). There's only one canon, and things either are or are not part of it.
Okay, wait... that might be the key there.
I'm not advocating multiple canons for a single work. I'm advocating multiple canons for a universe/setting/ect. A different canon for each body of work.
And it really becomes a question here of what other term we should be using? I am aware of a fan-work derived very very loosely from another property. Not naming it because the setting is occasionally super-dark, like pitch-black dark at times. But I am aware that this "derived work" is loosely (and even canonically [it involved dimension hopping to get the ball rolling]) based on another property. I also know that it has a MASSIVE body of lore. Like, they have a world map with 34 nations, histories and religions for all those nations, hundreds of write-ups for the different types of powers and people.
What do I call that if not a canon? They certainly call it a canon, they have a community that is actively working together to consolidate that information and make it easier to access and fix the issues from the initial creation of it. If I can't call that a canon... what do I call it? What word do we have for a massive collection of lore, external to you, that you can't change about a setting, if it isn't canon?
