And they obviously aren't happy right now.
Which is because the mode of engagement under discussion has been impaired; that's not a basis for telling other people that the mode isn't (or was never) worthwhile to engage in. (Which is a sentiment I'm seeing a lot of in this thread, as well as other places where the topic is being discussed.)
Much like opening Schrodinger's box though, the canonicity of a work was undetermined before you started trying to decide what is and isn't canon. And what value does it bring to make that distinction? You keep saying it does have a value, that it affects your enjoyment to know whether or not something is canon. But, it is only putting things in a "true" "not true" box. That's it.
While there can potentially be ambiguity with regard to whether or not a particular work is part of a particular canon, that only affects the potential value of it with regard to that particular mode of engagement. You can still value it some other way. So yes, with regard to that particular mode, that's "it." I'm not sure what the significance is of highlighting that; if you have no use for that mode, then it's a non-issue for you.
And yet, I'm not talking about "This is +A canon and this is C- Canon". I'm saying that you are putting a value on Canon. Things with Canon would have this value that things without it lack. I haven't even said if it is a big or a small value. Only it exists.
Leaving aside the unnecessary capitalization, yes, things that are canon can be appreciated in the mode of engaging with canon. That's almost a tautology. The value is perceived (which I think is a better term than "exists" when it comes to finding something personally valuable) when the work is engaged with that way. And while there are a lot of people who clearly don't value such an engagement, that doesn't diminish the value for those who do.
Okay, so you are trying to narrow this further and further down.
"People who read a work to understand the canon are affected if the canon is changed" is a very narrow thing, and a very obvious thing. I mean, I could have told you before this thread even started that some people care about canon. What I've been trying to do and see is how that is any different from the other modes of engagement we have, and the practical concerns of the IP.
Okay, insofar as investigating how that's different from the other modes of engagement, that's a line of inquiry I can understand. I'm less sure I know what you mean with regard to "the practical concerns of the IP" though. That said, the first issue (i.e. seeing how engaging with canon is different from other modes) is one where I suspect the core of the discussion lies, and indeed has been brought up several times now. So I suppose the question I have in response is whether or not you've perceived what the difference is (which is distinct from if you find value in it or not)?
If all you want to say is that "people who like DnD canon and consider it important are upset that DnD canon is changing." That's nothing we didn't know. But to throw this to the higher level, why should the IP holder care that some people like the canon and don't want it to change? I liked Mary Jane Watson being married to Spider-Man, I don't think we have enough happily married couples in Fiction. Does my liking that mean that Marvel loses the right to change that? No.
I don't think that's a "higher" level - though again, I'm not completely sure what you mean by "higher" - but rather a different, unrelated, question. Again, issues of "should" don't seem like a fruitful line of inquiry, simply because it's us presuming what someone else
ought to care about, and interrogating the ways in which they do or do not align with that expectation (at least as we perceive it). Given that the IP holder(s) in question aren't here to lend any insight on that front, I don't think it'll bring us any greater understanding here.
I can make an argument for why the story would be better if they kept it, but what argument is there for an IP holder not changing Canon which is their right?
Again, I feel the need to back up and examine the underlying premises, since I'm not sure how inquiring about the personal motivations of the IP holders - which we can't know anyway, short of them telling us - is going to lend us a greater understanding of why canon matters to the people who engage with it.
And yet, all of those things can apply to a work of fanfiction, and you would say that that work of fanfiction does not have any canon. You have explicitly stated this.
I think I know what you are thinking, that a fanfiction author will choose to use new canon that the IP holder puts forth... but they may not. The IP holder has no power to make the Fanfic author accept lore they don't like, anymore than the Fanfic author can force the IP holder to accept their lore. But, you will continue to insist that only one of them has "true canon", true externality, true reality, true lore.
Because "all of those things"
don't apply to a work of fanfiction. I'll note here that you
don't know what I'm thinking; rather, you're making an educated guess based on what I've said, and in this case your guess isn't correct. It's not that a fanfiction author will necessarily choose to make use of a new canon; there's no presumption that they will. Rather, it's that the fanfiction author's work is - at least partially - derived from the canon they're drawing upon, and so is dependent on that for at least some of its definition, in a manner that doesn't hold true in reverse. That means that the work can be interrogated based on subsequent changes to the established canon, which then changes the understanding of the work of fanfiction in ways that the author might not have intended.
But the only reason for that mode of engagement is to have that stamp of approval.
Unless you think the reader of a fanfic can alter the reality offered by the author? Do you feel like that is the case? Do you feel like a fanfic author has less control over their body of work than a normal author?
I've pointed out before, the reason for that particular mode of engagement is not - and certainly not "only" - for the so-called "stamp of approval." Rather, it's because the externalized nature of the work grounds it in a way that a derivative work doesn't possess.
A fanfiction author does, in fact, have less control over their body of work than a "normal" author (though I think calling them "normal" carries unfortunate connotations about the fanfiction author). As noted previously, that's because the canon elements that they draw upon are defined at least partially by the canon work they're utilizing, and so subsequent developments of that can alter the understanding of the fanfiction author's work.
No. I think you are very wrong about that.
By offering different takes, different realities, a fanfiction can highlight themes, relationships and other aspects of the original work. It can offer different ways to view the world and that has a value.
It doesn't always happen, of course, but it certainly can.
A work of fanfiction can certainly present alternative takes on the source material it's drawing upon, and it can present various ideas about it. But in terms of understanding the canon work unto itself, a work of fanfiction necessarily has nothing to contribute, insofar as helping to present a more grounded scope of the imaginary world. That's why it's non-canon.
But what you imagine isn't canon. It is simply you making up things, and altering the understood structure. The thing that you say is impossible with canon, and the point of canon.
Of course what you imagine isn't canon; the point of that mode of engagement (as I see it) isn't to allow you to add to what's there. It's to provide a stronger framework to build upon in terms of your own personal understanding of the imaginary world. Greater canonical definition abets that.
But defining the world isn't what is generally understood by "canon". And, if the facts of a world change... then your imagination just redefines those other parts of the imaginary world.
If there's any takeaway from this thread, it's that the entire idea of what's "generally understood" with regard to "canon" as a concept is very undefined for a lot of people who're engaged in fandom.
Having said that, I've seen a lot of fans grow angry when the undefined parts of a body of canon are subsequently developed in a way that doesn't match what they've imagined. It's something I'm sympathetic to, but which I think highlights the issue of engaging with something in a given mode: you might find it personally unsatisfying for whatever reason. The same way someone might not be able to appreciate a lecture about the history surrounding
The Equestrian Statue of Gattamelata, they might disagree with the development of a particular body of canon. Even with regard to entertainment, endeavors have risks (e.g. you might lose a game, or find a book growing boring, or see the canon develop in a way you don't care for).
See, your assumption that as a "natural consequence" these tiers would be made is wrong. After all, multiple canons already exist.
Harry Potter has a canon. Star Trek has a canon. Star Wars has a canon. Transformers has a canon. Zelda has a canon. No one ranks these. It would be nonsensical to try. So, why do we assume that someone would try and rank canons from various works set in the same universe? If only because they would have a personal preference over which ones they like better?
The canons you were proposing - as I understood you - wasn't with regard to different bodies of work. Rather, it was with regard to different takes on the
same bodies of work. I agree there's no expectation of rankings involved if they were about different imaginary worlds, but that wasn't what you were talking about (or at least, that's the impression I was under).
Good luck with that. There is no canon for a lot of properties.
In which case there's no need to bring them up here, is there?
So only WoTC had the right to declare canon. And that's what makes it canon.
So WoTC declaring what is canon is expected and accepted as part of what makes Canon canon. So why are people getting upset over this? This is exactly what they expect canon to be. Whatever WoTC declares it to be.
That's part of what makes it canon, yes. The reason people are upset - again, as I understand them - is that they've removed a large chunk of the existing canon, and so made the attendant conceptual frameworks have less material that can be utilized with regard to understanding them better. Recognizing that they have the right to do something doesn't mean that you have to like what they do; those are two different things.
But where you keep stumbling against the ideas I'm presenting is this assumption that only one work, held by one authority can be declared canon for any given universe.
What is canon for She-Ra? The old series or the new series? The people who originally created the character, or the people who adapted the character into a more popular form? Why can't both be canon, just different canons?
I should mention that your first sentence here is written in an aggressive tenor, which I'm hoping you didn't intend. "Stumbling," for instance, carries the implication that my reasoning is somehow falling down when held against yours, which casts this entire thing in terms of winning and losing. As is the idea that what I'm saying is an "assumption" rather than, well, an idea. Even if you disagree, you can say so in a way that doesn't lend itself toward being understood as a fight.
As for She-Ra, I couldn't tell you simply because I'm not at all familiar with the property and its associated canon. I saw a few episodes of the original series well over thirty years ago, and haven't paid attention to it since.
So, by this definition, the point of canon is to make non-canon works. You need to have canon so that people can create non-canonical works that use canon as a springboard. Do you disagree?
I disagree in the sense that I'm not sure that the word "need" is appropriate. Certainly, canon
helps a great deal in that regard, but I'm not sure I'd elevate it to the level of being a requirement; you can base a fanfic off of another fanfic, for instance, which is an instance of making something non-canon from something non-canon (albeit with canonical elements utilized).
Similarly, I don't agree that simply using canon purely as a source of imagination and discussion is necessarily going to rise to the level of "creating non-canon works." Canon helps to understand a particular body of lore better, and make it more vivid in the imagination; what one does with that is entirely up to them.
