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?
I'll note that you're largely looking at this in terms of what makes something a story, which strikes me as somewhat orthogonal to what's being discussed. There are lots of stories which aren't canon, as we've established previously. The presence of narrative elements isn't what we're looking at in terms of what makes something canon (beyond their presence in a conceptual framework). Likewise, there's no qualification of being "equally" vital.
In terms of what makes something canon, I'll note again that this is an area where there isn't a lot of specific terminology nor broad agreement. Having said that, I'll reiterate what I think canon is, which is that it's a particular realm of imagination which is conceptually grounded (i.e. seeming more real due to its externalized state giving it an immutable quality, at least with regards to those engaging with it) where an authority defines what is and is not part of the body of lore. That, you'll notice, relies on more than just the designation of authority: if the definition isn't clear or otherwise understood - particularly where contradictory things are given the same designation, which is often implicit - then the canon is thrown into question.
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.
That's largely because that's what you seem to be focusing on, when in fact I think a far more fruitful line of discussion would be what you mentioned earlier, and yet aren't talking about at all now: that you find the entire concept "insidious." I really think the discussion would be served more about that, as most of your questions make a great deal more sense when viewed in this light, i.e. that you're certain that there's an insidious element there, and are trying to ferret it out.
But let's put that aside for a moment and presume - for the sake of the debate - that there isn't anything to distinguish canon aside from the authoritative declaration involved: what's the problem with that? I ask because I'm not sure why you seem so tightly fixated on that particular aspect of what's canon. We've already established that there's nothing fallacious involved in that, so why do you find that to be of note?
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"
And this is where you lose me. You seem to be under the opinion of "but people can and do use something the wrong way." That's not an indictment of canon in particular, it's simply recognizing that things can be put to use outside of their intended purpose. It's akin to Gary Gygax pointing out how, in the infamous interview that 60 Minutes conducted, that a chair can be used as a blunt instrument, but nobody puts warning labels to that effect on it.
Now, I'll admit that's somewhat hyperbolic here. I'm fully aware that people can and do bring up canon in terms of debates, often about quality, but that's why it's important to remember that those are different modes of engagement, and so the people who do that are
wrong. They're making an apples-to-oranges comparison. Tearing down the entire concept of canon - which isn't really something that can be done anyway, since I believe that it's inherently recognized - won't help in that regard. It's not helpful to eschew any distinction that, say, fanfiction is different from the canon fiction (which, again, is why we call it fanfiction in the first place).
The issue, rather, is to point out that canon and quality are entirely orthogonal to each other.
Sturgeon's Law applies across the board.
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.
On the contrary, there's absolutely no value judgment involved whatsoever. It's akin to saying that the dictionary carries a value judgment, since it defines what words mean, and so that necessarily carries a value judgment. When an authority exercises their governing prerogatives over an area that's understood to be under their purview, that's legitimate on their part, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily virtuous in what they do (or that it will be widely accepted, for that matter).
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.
You might find it strange, but I'm given to understand that a lot of people find it strange when someone takes pleasure in a mode of engagement which they personally have no use for (or, alternatively, with a particular work of imagination that they don't care for). That's fine, even if "strange" comes very close to sounding like a pejorative; it's something else altogether to cast aspersions in the face of that.
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?
How an authority
becomes an authority isn't a question of "seeming right." While you can absolutely query who the authority is over a particular canon (recall the issue involved when it's a corporate entity, causing confusion when a particular individual in that corporation makes a statement which isn't formally echoed by the rest of the corporation nor any of the other staff), asking if a particular manner "seems right" strikes me as trying to grade such things on a moral scale, which doesn't strike me as being particularly helpful in reaching a greater understanding.
Intellectual properties, much like real properties, change hands all the time. As such, the attendant authorities also change, and different authorities will have different ideas over what is canon and what isn't. Whether or not that "seems right" it's the way it is. Much like how someone might not like a particular bit of canon, it's not any less true because of that.
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?
I question how "fuzzy" this really is. While canon determinations aren't synonymous with issues of IP law, the designations seem fairly close for the purpose of where the distinctions are drawn. Thematic elements are just that: based on theme. Particular ideas, unto themselves, are just that: ideas, and can be executed in wildly different manners. None of those alone are enough to be said to belong to only a certain canon.
No one things that the presence of "laser swords" makes something necessarily a part of Star Wars. No one thinks that the use of short-lived clones makes something part of Naruto. Certainly, there's no way to know what the creators are "thinking of" when they make something, which is why canon isn't concerned with what their state of mind was when they created their work.
I find it incredibly odd that you make this assertion... which doesn't address anything in the section you are quoting.
I'm still waiting for you to talk more about what you find "insidious" about canon, you'll recall.
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.
Again, that first requires an understanding of whether or not such works are canon (or, to put it your way, if there's a canon in the first place). The key here is to understand if such works are "fanfiction" - which I'm not sure could necessarily be applied to all non-canon works (e.g. something that is canon and later de-canonized) - or if they're part of the canon body of lore or not. You've noted that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain (though in fact I believe the last few of Doyle's original stories are still under copyright), but introducing that as the standard then requires us to ask if all of those subsequent works by other authors (and writers, producers, etc.) are also.
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.
No, it doesn't. Much like when you said that there's an "insidious" element to it, you're seeing something that isn't there. A work of fanfiction cannot be (fully) understood without referencing the canon is simply a statement of fact: there's no implicit value judgment (i.e. good, bad, better, worse, etc.) involved in that. At most you could say that might be somewhat inconvenient, because someone who isn't familiar with the canon work will have a harder time understanding the aspects of the fanfiction that involve said work, but a measure of difficulty in comprehension isn't a value judgment.
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 find that guessing at people's motivations tends to be a fruitless pursuit. There's no way of determining if you're right, short of the individual(s) under discussion being queried, and even then there's no guarantee that they'll tell you the truth. That's without getting into issues of potential subconscious motivations (or biases) which suggest that even
they don't know why they did something. It's a guessing game with no answer.
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?
Because "better" and "worse" are value judgments, which are orthogonal to questions of what's canon or not. Again, there are lots of instances of people not liking a particular revelation in canon, but not denying that they're still canon. (Looking at you, midichlorians.)
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.
On the contrary, it's self-evidently true. Because the canon work is external to the people engaging with it, the definitions involved in shaping the imaginary world make it more concrete by imbuing it with an immutable quality similar to how the real world works, hence making it seem more real. That, in turn, allows for greater insight since it suspends the notion of "it's imaginary, so it can be changed at a whim." Things such as cause-and-effect relationships, internal logic, and self-consistency can therefore be queried, all of which provide greater insight.
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?
It's likewise self-evident that any particular realm of imagination is going to be arbitrary. As noted, part of what makes canon attractive for people who prefer that mode of engagement is that it suspends that aspects, hence the grounded quality it subsequently takes on. With that said, I'm not sure that "arbitrary" is the word you're looking for here, as you seem to be implying some sort of system of merit that you think should determine who is and is not in possession of authority over a given canon? While that's a romantic decision, is that not "insidious" also, since it presumes that someone's work can be snatched away from them just because someone appears out of nowhere and declares that they've worked even harder on something than the creator has, and so they're taking possession of it?
As for Thor, you're asking about issues where there's no particular identifiable authority any more (or if there ever was), but this strikes me as another aspect of your objection to the entire
concept of authority, which for the life of me I don't understand. You've mentioned the "arbitrary" nature of people being able to buy and sell intellectual properties, but that doesn't seem arbitrary if the seller is willing to sell, buyer is willing to buy, and both can agree on a price. Rather, and please correct me if I'm wrong here, it seems like you think that the mere existence of an authority - or at least them exercising their governing privileges - is somehow an indictment of everyone who isn't an authority?
Would you say that's the insidiousness you're seeing?
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.
The body of work in question isn't referring to the output of a particular author, however - yet another instance of why greater and more specific terminology is needed - but with regard to what is and isn't part of the collective body of canon.
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.
Again, references to the real world don't strike me as something that can be referred to as "material." A realm of imagination can't claim to encompass the real world (bad things tend to happen when people try to merge the two), and I don't think you're trying to claim otherwise. Rather, you seem to be suggesting that there's some sort of disintegration of authority if canon references the real world at all, which isn't the case: the real world continues to exist independently of any sort of authority over a particular work of imagination. There's no overlap in canonical authority, then.
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.
Because Equestria isn't real. It's found entirely within a particular boundary of imagination. I don't see how the difference between "something found in reality" and "something that's purely imaginary" is a strangely-drawn line. Quite the opposite, I'd say that's perhaps the most readily-apparent line there is.
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?
That's a coincidence of naming, and not an actual reference to the same place. If you have a character named "Luke," that doesn't make it a Star Wars reference. Now if they were named "Luke Skywalker," that would be different. And while I know you're going to jump on the idea that there are characters with the same name found in different works of fiction, that's not the same thing either, since in those cases the names are clearly not meant to indicate that they're the same characters.
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.
I'm not sure what that's meant to indicate: yes, Marvel and DC can both have a Chicago, and they're both possessed of their own canons, since they're referencing the real world. Likewise, fanfiction can reference Equestria, but that doesn't alter its being fanfiction.
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.
Again, I think that this is a bad discussion to have with regard to something where the particulars aren't known. Questions of canonity often (in fact, I'd say they almost always) require some examination of the work in question - at the very least it doesn't hurt - to try and figure out what's canon and what isn't, as the declarations are often implicit. Hence, I'd say that something neither of us are familiar with is a bad example.
So, you are just accepting their authority to declare a public domain character their canon.
Not a position I would take.
Is that because you find it insidious? If so, how?
