There are several things to unpack here, the first of which is that I've mentioned previously that canon relies on multiple things, of which the authoritative nature of the external authority is one. And yes, if you don't have that you don't have canon, which is true for any of its components, hence why I mentioned the
Anna Karenina principle previously.
I know you mentioned the Anna Karenina Principle. But I think you are overstating your case. Because when you overlap the elements of a story with the elements of a canonical story... there is only one difference.
Can you have canon without a setting? No, but you also can't have a story without a setting.
Can you have canon without characters? No, but you also can't have a story without characters
Can you have canon without continuity? No, but it is incredibly difficult to the point of being nearly impossible to have a story without some sort of continuity.
So, what other components are there that you can remove from "canon" that makes it no longer a canon, but wouldn't make it no longer some type of story? I can't think of any. So, if there is only one element that is different, and removing it makes it no longer canon... where does that leave your principle? Can you give me other elements of canon that are equally vital?
Second, "appeal to authority" is a misnomer, as it connotes that there's some sort of fallacy of logic going on. Even leaving aside that the actual
appeal from authority (not "to," notice) isn't necessarily a fallacy in an of itself, there's no particular "appeal" here. The authority is self-evident and an integral component of what makes canon what it is. If your objection to the value of the idea (which seems to be what you're doing here?) is that it involves an authority, I don't see how that undercuts the idea in and of itself. The authority is determinative regarding the canon itself - that doesn't cast aspersions on things that aren't canon.
So... I said an appeal to authority, in that canon is relied upon appealing or referencing an authority figure, and you want to talk to me about a fallacy that is an appeal from authority... which is something a little bit different. You say canon is reliant upon having an authority, and I simply am noting that you seem to mean something very specific by that. It has to be a "big enough" authority in some respects, or a "big enough" property to have that need of canon. And there can only be one authority. You have in fact quite often said that a canon held by an organization presents difficulty, because you don't know if a single individual in that organization has the right to use that authority.
Every part of this discussion seems to hinge on this concept of authority. Who has it, how they use it, ect.
What exactly do you find "insidious" about that? I really think you need to expound on this, as I'm guessing it goes to the heart of why you seem to hold (if I'm understanding you correctly) that there's something about the entire idea of "canon" that's somehow harmful.
And I'll say again that I don't understand what it is that you find insidious about it. I've explained multiple times what the personal appeal of that particular mode of engagement is, that it's separate from other such modes, and that there's no particular indictment involved with preferring one over the other. Presuming that you understand and agree with all of that - and if I'm reading you correctly, you do - then what's the problem?
You are trying to say that there is no indictment involved in preferring one over the other. And yet, we've both also been very careful to not indict the different works... because many people do. By looking to that authority, by making one version of events "the truth" you immediately have created a hierarchy. There isn't just "canon" and "non-canon" there is "true story" and "not-true story"
I agree that there should be no inherent judgement or change in value between a "canon" story and a "non-canon" story. However, that indictment does come up, because there is only one canon, and that canon is true, and that true canon is decided by an outside authority, so it isn't just an opinion, it is a fact of the story. It can sound very reasonable, and yet it is very very easy to twist it into setting one story above another, because it is more true according to an outside authority.
That's why I like the idea of multiple canon's. Why I agree with Chris Perkins when he said in that blog post "The DM or player remains the ultimate arbiter of what’s true in their expressions of D&D." The issue then stops being "canon vs non-canon" but becomes "Canon A vs Canon B" which takes it from "truth vs untruth" and makes it "Truth vs other truth"
I'm having a hard time understanding how that's a "practical" concern. The sum of what you're saying here appears to be grounded in a sense of dissatisfaction that derivative works aren't canon. But given that you don't seem to care for the idea of canon anyway - that is, it's not a mode of engagement you prefer to utilize - then what's the practical nature of this concern? Why is it somehow bad or objectionable that derivative material isn't canon? The only thing I can come up with is that you're of the opinion that there's a value judgment inherent in that, but if that's the case then I disagree strongly.
And yet... there is no way to phrase what is canon without having a value judgement. Canon is the "authoritative version of events in the story" it is "the version that an outside authority says is true". I can't think of a way to give Canon that stamp of authoritative truth that doesn't come saddled with a value judgement, especially since there cannot (according to you) be more than one canon.
And yet, practically, finding the "canonical" version of something like TMNT or Sherlock or any of a dozen other IPs is an effort is deciding which authors wrote the true story and who has the right to determine that. A strange way of even looking at things in this modern landscape.
The same reason that fanfiction can't; it's based on material that's external to them (at least in part) and so is understood within that context. That's not the case when the authority that oversees a particular conceptual framework oversees the entirety of that framework.
But a table controls every single aspect the framework the table is using. Whether or not that was based in something that existed before they started using it or not. For example, Marvel was sold to different companies in 1969, 1974, 1986, 1989, 2009... multiple times to multiple different companies. But, that doesn't mean that Disney no longer has the rights to Marvel's canon, right? Even though they obtained the material later.
Is the difference between a table spending money to buy DnD lore and Disney spending money to buy Marvel only that Disney could spend more money? Canon then becomes something that could be bought. A single person with the will and the money could buy a given property and then change the canon to suit them. Does that seem right to you? That this mode of engagement is entirely up to who has a big enough pocketbook to determine it?
You're conflating being inspired by something with actually making use of a discrete part of an imaginary world. The two are entirely different things. Someone being inspired by the idea of ninjas isn't infringing on any canon if they then go and create an original story which happens to involve ninjas. Someone who wants to write about pollution isn't making use of any particular canon if that's all that drives them to write about a hero whose origin story involves some sort of industrial accident.
At what point does it become discrete enough to count then? Is making a character based off Batman not enough? Does it only count if you are writing a story featuring Batman? What if you are writing a story of a hero inspired to rise to action by Batman?
You said it is different because fanfiction is "derived" from an existing property, but I find that line fuzzy. Does it matter if they are thinking about general ninjas or Naruto ninjas when they are inspired to write their story? Or does it only count if they start taking characters with specific names?
But, I fully still stand by the idea that your issue of things being revealed and changing the context is something that is universal for stories.
Again, I'm not saying that fanfiction can't be poignant or engrossing or valuable in various other modes of engagement. But it necessarily cannot add to the body of canon, which means that it's therefore unable to be used to further understand the canon itself. At most, you can certainly be inspired by fanfiction, but it's ultimately an alternative take that doesn't actually lead to greater understanding of the conceptual framework that canon embodies. The nature of canon is that it alone informs us about the imaginary world, which gives us the grounded nature to envision it better and so understand it more. That's really what canon is all about.
I find it incredibly odd that you make this assertion... which doesn't address anything in the section you are quoting.
You pointed out that a fanfiction that is working with an existing canon can have its interpretation changed by revelations about the source material.
How is this different than Sherlock's drug habit back when he was first written being seen and interpreted incredibly different in a modern version? Do you think that since Sherlock Holmes is public domain that Elementary "doesn't count" so it doesn't matter? There is no canon that "alone" informs us about the world of Sherlock Holmes. Unless you try and say that only Doyle's writing counts as canon, and everything else is derivative and cannot contain its own canon.
If Peter Pan can get an official sequel after almost a hundred years, the issue of "finished" is a lot less definitive than it seems. This is often the case with various canons, but that's less important than noting that this entire issue is simply an example - the most dramatic one, perhaps - of how the derivative work is (at least partially) understood from the context of the canon it draws upon, and therefore doesn't have the authority that a canon work does. It doesn't get to completely define itself, and so can't be understood unto itself without referencing the canon it's drawing from.
See, you did it again. "it doesn't have that authority that a canon work does". A derivative work "can't be understood unto itself without referencing the canon".
You say there is no indictment, no measuring of value, between canon and non-canon works... except that a non-canon work can't be understood without the canon work. The authority lies with the canon work to define the truth. Those are statements of value, statements that raise one work above another.
Personally? I feel this "official sequel" is a marketing ploy. The winner was determined by a contest, and I'd bet the publication date was purposeful to make for a good headline. The vast majority of people have never read the original play, an official sequel to it is as meaningless to them as an official sequel to Beowulf.
I'll note that I didn't say that it was more (or less) interesting; only that it provided greater understanding. Those are two different things; the reveal behind a mystery might be a letdown, but that's still going to provide greater insight into what's happening. While the purpose of canon is to provide greater insight under the presumption that said insight will allow for more enjoyment, that might not always be the case (which, you'll recall, I said previously: there's no guarantee that a particular endeavor will turn out successfully).
Turning this back to DnD for a moment. There is no canon answer to the Mourning in Eberron. There are a few dozen different "maybes" that could be the reason. If I run a game that gives an answer, and it is a good answer that my players like... then what value is there in Baker breaking his intent and giving a canon answer that ends up worse?
You say that canon gives a "greater insight into what is happening" but that isn't true. Canon just gives an OFFICIAL answer to the mystery. An OFFICIAL insight into what they say is happening. Doesn't mean it is greater insight, just means it is the official version of events.
The thing is, I don't believe that it's arbitrary per se: it's that, as we've both noted here, it's very poorly defined. A recurring theme in this discussion has been a lack of proper verbiage for spelling out different conceptual areas. Another has been misunderstandings based on that. This isn't a case of people trying to be shifty about what is and is not canon; it's an issue of trying to articulate something that's largely intuited. Mistakes and misunderstandings are going to happen.
But to a degree, it is arbitrary. Who determines the canon for spider-man? Whoever spent enough money to purchase the rights to Spider-Man. Why do they get to determine it? Because legally they bought it. How is that not arbitrary?
Meanwhile, an author who spends hours and hours writing a spider-man story, but who doesn't own the rights to Spider-Man, has no authority, no canon, in your definitions. Because Spider-man is owned by someone else.
And yet, Marvel also owns canon for Thor... a Norse God who no one ones any rights to. Yet you would say that Thor has a canon, correct? Because he is part of the Marvel Canon. And that matters because Marvel has a canon, even though it holds characters they can't actually control. So, what makes their Thor stories different from Fan Fiction?
I was largely using those as synonyms, if for no other reason than something can be less pleasant to read (and write!) when using the same phrase over and over again. Another aspect of the lack of useful terminology, here.
I don't think that is a lack of useful terminology, and I do think that making those synonyms is a disservice. A world and a body of work can be very different things. There are authors who write in a shared world or setting, that do not have the same body of work, and probably wouldn't want their work understood that way.
I'm not sure what point you're making, here. Yes, different bodies of work (or imaginary worlds, or conceptual frameworks, etc.) can make use of various aspects of the real world. The real world isn't part of an imaginary realm (well, outside of existential takes that are far beyond what we're discussing here!) and so that doesn't seem to imply any sort of shared material insofar as the conceptual frameworks go.
But they are sharing material. They are sharing that reference to Chicago. A story set in the "real world" is still using a setting. Or are you trying to say that "canon" only counts if they are using their own made-up cities? Because Marvel canon uses New York City a lot if you want to try and make that case. In fact, I'd say it would be incredibly difficult to talk about Marvel Canon without mentioning New York, the United States of America, or many other real world locations.
See, these lines seem to again be sort of strangely drawn. Multiple properties can use New York, and we don't need to have a discussion over which one has the true rights to the canonical New York. But two properties that use Equestria, even if they are vastly different places called Equestria, one must be canon and the other most not be.
Is it just because there is a real-life New York? There is a real life Springfield too, still have canon for Simpsons. And if I set a story in Springfield, at want point does it become non-canonical?
This is the point I'm getting at, bodies of work can share settings, without one needing to be canonical and the other non-canonical, because they aren't the same body of work.
Again, I can't really speak to these examples, because I've only seen a little of the original series and none of the new series. Given that understanding a particular canon typically requires having partaken of the series, I'm not really comfortable analyzing any example that uses a body of lore with which I'm unfamiliar. As it was, I still regret having brought up Doctor Who previously; my understanding was that the pre-revival seasons were kept canon with the current one, but I haven't seen any of it, and so I couldn't say anything when particular aspects of the show were then mentioned!
I haven't seen (much) of the show either. Just the first 5 episodes of the new version.
My position though is pretty easy to understand and pretty simple. They are different stories told with the same setting and the same basic characters, with different plots, different themes, different authors and different purposes. They are both She-Ra Canon, just different versions of She-Ra. There is no way I can see to declare one canon and the other non-canon. The framework of a single canon doesn't apply.
To be absolutely clear, I'm not the one who put forward that there is a canon for Peter Pan; that was done by the publishers of Peter Pan in Scarlet when they put forward that it was the "official sequel" to the original story. I suppose one could try to draw a dividing line between what's "official" and what's "canon" - and I won't say that's not necessarily a worthwhile endeavor - but given the imprecision involved in this particular area, I'm hesitant to say that's not what they meant.
So, you are just accepting their authority to declare a public domain character their canon.
Not a position I would take.
