No, I am not saying that their opinions or feelings are invalid, and I'd thank you to not read that into what I am trying to say.
The only value judgement I am making is that I feel it is regrettable that there is such a fetishization of "official, singular canon" that people can feel like the stories they've loved are worthless without that official seal. And it is in this vein that I am trying to discuss with you different ways to view the word "canon" and the modes you can engage with it, to help show that this may be more an issue of misunderstood or misplaced values, than it is real harm.
I didn't mean to upset you, but there's no way to call someone else's values "misplaced" or "misunderstood" (unless you're saying that
other people are misunderstanding their values) without that being a judgment. You might find their values regrettable in that sense, and disagree with them, but that doesn't mean that those values are things that they should change, or be encouraged to change.
Then every TTRPG goes against that essential element of canon. As does most media created.
Tell me, who has the final say on the canon of Tarzan? Edgar Rice Burroughs? Disney? There were seven different comic book companies making Tarzan comics, did any of them have authority over the canon? What is the definitive canon of Tarzan?
What about Sherlock Holmes? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created the original stories, does that mean that the BBC's Sherlock has no canon? What about the Warner Bros. Movies, do they lack a canon? The original work is untouched, but does that mean that only Doyle's work is considered Canon?
Well I don't know about "most media created," since that would require surveying literally all media and determining whether or not it's original or derivative in nature. But the questions you're asking with regards to who is the authority over what canon strike me as an attempt to undermine the nature of the definition(s) I've put forth by suggesting that there's ambiguity with regard to the identity of the authorities for various canons. If that's the case, I don't believe that it does; simply because it can be difficult to determine who precisely determines what is and is not canon for a various property doesn't mean that the recognition of "canonity" becomes any less valid, but rather is merely a bit of difficult to figure out.
But you are making a value judgement too. You are declaring that only one thing can contain the "canon" and that that has value. That other works are not canon, and therefore do not share the same value.
A "value judgment" is meant to be understood as "passing judgment on
other people's values." Declaring what
my own values are, while it necessarily includes an issue of personal determination, isn't the same thing.
And it is interesting that you only talk about the fanfiction, because Kevin Anderson's books were canon. What value is lost from them now that they held back then? If I enjoyed the books in 2013 what is different about them now? What change does making them Noncanon have upon the story?
I'm detecting a competitive undertone here, as though you're seeing this as some sort of competition to be "won" instead of a discussion to help reach a greater level of clarification and understanding. I'm not sure what's "interesting" about my not having mentioned Anderson's books; I didn't reference them because I'm simply not familiar with his work, or what series he's written for. If you perceive that to be some sort of "dodge" because it raised questions I didn't want to answer, well...I don't know what to tell you except what you're seeing doesn't match my intentions.
It is a value judgement you are making. You are saying "this is less valuable now" I'm just trying to point out that the value being lost is... minimal. Practically non-existent. The same value that is lost to Doyle's Holmes when the BBC made Sherlock.
Again, a statement of personal values is different from suggesting that someone else's values are "misplaced."
Fair enough... but that is by far the least important reason to enjoy a piece of work. If it is poorly written, with bad-characters and terrible world-building, I'd say making it canon or not is the least of my concerns.
You're phrasing a personal determination as an objective truth, here. How important a reason is is entirely up to each individual to determine, and no one else has the right to pass judgment on that.
Honestly, do you think it would be a good thing to recommend a book or movie solely for it being canonical? I could make a case to support a book based off excellent characters. I could make a case that the world-building was phenomenal and deserves appreciation. I could argue that the action of the fight scenes shows a technical skill that deserves praise. In fact, I have done the first two on many occasions, where I will say that a plot failed to engage me, but the characters or world-building made up for it.
Simply put, yes. I've recommended books to others based on that criteria, and had them recommended to me for that in turn. I know people who are very interested in such things, and know that I am, and I've often found those recommendations to be quite valuable. That doesn't mean that issues of world-building or characterization aren't also things I find worth noting, but those are separate considerations from what something contributes to the greater body of canon.
What value do I judge "it is canon" on? If it is the original author, of course it is canon... nothing the author writes, unless they specifically say differently, would be non-canonical. How do I measure whether or not I enjoyed something being canon... like you've said, it either is or it isn't. If an author declares book two of a series non-canonical... what about book two has changed to the reader, if not just that it is no longer the story the author is pursuing? It is like commenting on whether a book is in a box or out of a box. Nothing else changes, so why does it matter if it is in the box?
I've mentioned before, the value that each individual places on canon is exactly that: up to each individual. If you don't personally place any value on that, there's no need for me to try and convince you otherwise. Now, if you're asking how the determination is made as to whether or not something is canon in the first place, that's a different question, but it doesn't seem to be what you're asking here. You're asking why "book two" changes to the reader if it's no longer canon; that's a question of "why does the reader care about that?" To which I'd point to what I said before about the draw of how the externalized and grounded nature of the canon (i.e. it's beyond what the reader can personally alter), as well as how that helps to inform the reader about the parts of the world they can't see, is the value. Why they place value on that in the first place is entirely up to them.
But you missed the more important question.
What do I call a body of work that holds all the qualities of canon, but not the title of canon? You have declared that canon can only exist in singular pieces. There is only a single canon for, let's say Pokemon (there isn't, but I'm pretending). If I then find a world built off of pokemon, just as complex in its lore and just as deep in its continuity, but not owned by Nintendo... what do I call it? If it can't be canon, even if it is an external authority on the facts, lore, and timeline of the work, then what is it?
I don't believe it's accurate to say that I missed it, as I said I didn't have a term to offer. Creating new terminology is important, as this discussion shows, and that it hasn't been done yet doesn't highlight any particular weakness of the ideas in play, other than the self-evident nature of a need for greater verbiage in this area.
Tiers? That is a bizarre value judgement for you to make.
You're repeated use of this phrase suggests that you're offended by my having brought that up before, which is a shame because we've been doing a good job with regard to discussing things without degenerating into acrimony. I'll say again that
why someone finds something important is the value judgment in question that I don't think anyone should be making.
Which one ranks a higher tier She-Ra created by Larry DiTillio and J. Michael Straczynski in the 90's or She-Ra made by Noelle Stevenson in 2018?
To me, that is a nonsensical question. They aren't tiered canons. They are two separate canons. I might as well ask which is superior Spider-Man or Batman? The question is pointless beyond just personal preference.
Again, I want to highlight that this isn't a question of "superior" or not; you'll notice that in my post that you quoted, I was against any sort of ranking or use of tiers by suggesting that there were different gradations of canon. The entire concept, to my mind, works best when it's a binary: something either is or is not canon.
And, yes, Forgotten Realms had material from 2e, 3.X, 4e (funny how you skipped that one), and 5e. But, there is very little confusion I'd think. Is it in a 5e book? If it is, it is guaranteed canon going forward for WoTC (unless they change it like they already did in the reprinted SCAG). If it isn't? Then it isn't guaranteed to be canon unless they print something new. This is the same situation we were in before, the only difference is that the stamp of approval isn't on the older material any more. It could have still been changed by new publications.
So, it comes down to valuing that stamp of approval. Which... isn't a value.
To be clear, the use of "funny" here looks like you're implying suspicion that I ignored something because I thought it would introduce a weakness into my argument, to which I say that you're reading too much into it. The example was just that, an example. Moreover, that strikes me as the sort of thing someone says when they're looking to "win" rather than exchange ideas. If that's the case, I'm not sure how much we're accomplishing by going back and forth like this. There's been some good ideas exchanged, so I'd like it not to devolve into a level of "my reasoning is more cogent than yours."
I've already addressed why canon is more than just a "stamp of approval," despite the declaration of authority being an important part of it.
But you seem to be of the opinion that a table can't have canon.
And I'll ask a second time, just like above. If I have a world, lore, timeline of events, ect ect ect. All the aspects of Canon... except that I'm not WoTC... what do I call this set of external facts that my players cannot change?
I've already mentioned that I don't have a particular term for you, though I agree that one is needed. Simply because I don't have one at the ready doesn't undercut the need for such a label, but highlights it.
As for whether or not a table can "have" canon or not, I think it can certainly try to present various aspects of a game in accordance with what's canon in terms of setup and presentation, but it's understood that the actions of the PCs will alter things, and that such alterations will have no impact on the canon itself.
Not for nothing but... that truly is a bizarre thing. It may be the "official" sequel, but being written nearly 100 years later, and after Peter Pan has been reimagined by a dozen authors in a dozen different forms, it clearly isn't the sequel that would have happened if the original author had penned a sequel.
I think I do agree that we need better terms and better consensus on what those terms mean, but I think we also need to consider why "official" and "canon" works are somehow given a treatment that isn't given to any other work. After all, there have been many many works based off Peter Pan, and yet now people seem like they want to place this work above those, just because this one was made "official"
I'm not sure that I understand the reason why we need to consider why they're given separate treatment. Certainly, we can examine the process by which such a determination is made, but I'm leery of anything that comes across as an attempt to undercut the validity of making such a determination at all. People are going to feel how they feel about these things, and no one else has a right to tell them that their feelings about that are wrong.
And yet you give a value to canon. A value that is not given to anything that is not canon. And yet all that canon means is found in either the framework of lore, or the official status. And yet, what makes something "official"? Brom's Child Thief is officially Brom's work, and nothing anyone else says about his work really changes what is official for his work. Yet, being a take on Peter Pan, "Peter Pan in Scarlet" is more canon that Child Thief? What value do we get from saying that? What about between Brom's book and Disney's Movie, which one carries a stronger canon?
I do give value to canon, because that's a different mode of engagement than the other modes I outlined above (i.e. characterization, world-building, entertainment value, etc.). In that regard, the canon work has a mode which I can engage with that some other works don't. That's not any kind indictment as to the value of the work with regard to any other modes, as I've noted before. The value comes from that mode of engagement being present in the first place, the same way someone who finds women attractive would find that mode to be present when viewing
Venus Callipyge, while someone who doesn't wouldn't find that mode present, but might be able to engage with the statue in some other way (i.e. appreciation of technical quality).
To me... they are seperate. Disney's Peter Pan is a character that appears in multiple formats and has effected multiple other products and stories. Brom's Work is Brom's and a story I've been told I should read because it is very good. I don't see a value in trying to weigh them against each other, and them rank them based on how close they are to the 1911 play. Comparing them on some sort of canon value is only leading to issues. Both should be judged based on what they were made for and how well they were made. And each contains within it a canon of events and lore that are true for those works.
I don't believe that they're being weighed against each other at all, though. That's the whole point of different modes of engagement; that it's not about any sort of qualitative measurement, because it's apples to oranges anyway. Viewing a statue in terms of its technical skill is different from viewing it for its historical significance, and neither are "ranked" in any particular fashion. There's no qualitative judgment going on.
See, I disagree, if only because I think that solidifies canon as only caring about the "official" status. It would become like a copyright or a trademark. And I think that would only create division and cause heartache, as people would then cling even tighter to the "official" material, and feel like the material outside of that light of officiality is lesser.
Again, it's not "only" caring about the determination of canon or not. I mentioned before that there was fanfiction I enjoyed more than the source material, you'll recall. It's just that people choose which modes of engagement they enjoy more (which isn't to say that one is necessarily better than the other; it's just an issue of which one they personally value more, which is up to them to determine and no one else) and emphasize those. There's nothing wrong with not caring about canon at all, the same way there's nothing wrong with caring about it a great deal.
