Saying "should" is a value judgment, which isn't the same thing as simply having an opposing viewpoint, though. It's saying that someone else's reasons, opinions, or feelings are not valid. It's not something that brings anything of value to the discussion. You might not agree with someone else disliking something or being upset over it, but that's different from saying that they're wrong to do so and "should" feel differently.
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 disagree, as I'm of the opinion that such an interpretation goes against an essential element of what canon is. It can be altered by the authority in charge of it, but that's all. The fans or other people who engage with it can't change it; they can produce derivative works that alter various parts of it, and that's perfectly fine, but the source material remains unaltered.
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?
Again, those are value judgments, which aren't what we're discussing here. If you feel entertained by reading fanfiction, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and no one has the right to tell you that you "should" not have enjoyed them. Certainly I wouldn't; I like reading fanfiction too! (Well, the stuff I consider to be "good" fanfiction, at least.)
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.
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?
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.
I'm want to make it very clear that this isn't meant to be any sort of slight against you, but I'm wondering if you're understanding what I mean when I use the term "modes of engagement." Simply put, it's a reference to how you're partaking in something; in what manner you appreciate it, in other words. Remember the example of the statues I brought up before: you can like them for their technical skill, their historical references, their physical beauty, etc.
In that way, if we presume that taking entertainment in something is a mode of appreciation, then the next question is what specifically we're finding entertaining, i.e. how we're appreciating it. You can enjoy a story for its characters, its evocative world-building, its descriptions of fight scenes, etc. Appreciating something that's understood to be part of a canon body of work is simply another mode of engagement in that regard.
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.
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.
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?
The questions you're asking now are with regard to identifying the authority in question regarding a particular canon, which is very similar to the
Word of God trope (though not exactly the same). In the case where the authority is a corporate entity, it can be difficult to pin down a specific individual within that corporation, and doing so might not even be appropriate; there's a argument to be made that there needs to be some sort of consensus with regards to the individuals making up the corporation for something to be considered canon (as opposed to, say, a single tweet from one member of the staff), in which case the closest we have is the publication of further source material (in the same vein and under the same format and banner), since that's necessarily been through the entire corporate production process. Things like licensed material can be much trickier to figure out.
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 disagree, and I think those titles creates unnecessary ambiguity by separating lore into tiers whose exact relationship is unclear, which goes against what canon is supposed to help us understand. Prior to the recent announcement about pre-5E materials, the Forgotten Realms had products in 3.5 and 5E, and those materials were all canon. Splitting those into two different levels then creates questions of Forgotten Realms products in different editions (otherwise why is the distinction being made at all?), and introduces confusion.
Tiers? That is a bizarre value judgement for you to make. 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.
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.
I fear we're reaching a point of talking past each other, since I've explained why I don't believe that's an accurate description. Restating that you think otherwise isn't giving anyone a deeper understanding of what we're talking about (nor does it help to change anyone's mind).
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?
Which demonstrates the need for better terminology - with broad consensus - with regard to this entire subject area. Certainly, there's a sense of importance to this whole discussion that I don't think should be lightly dismissed. It's not for nothing that the second sentence of Wikipedia's description of
Peter Pan in Scarlet, for instance, tells us that the book is the "official sequel" to the original story, and then cites why that is.
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 I understand the reason why you're advocating for that. Presuming that I've adequately explained where I'm coming from, I'm not sure I see the value in what you're suggesting here. Is it that you feel the term "canon" somehow elevates a particular presentation of a body of lore above other presentations of the same material, i.e. that it's some sort of notation with regard to quality or "worth"? Because I don't believe that to be the case at all - there's certainly fanfiction out there which is (to my mind) of a better quality than the source material!
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?
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'm not sure, but I do think that a different term is needed, if for no other reason than it would present greater information in distinguishing between something that's a derivative work and something that isn't. More information, as conveyed by different terms, tends to abet understanding, and I suspect would alleviate a lot of the tension that goes into debates like these.
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.
