The definitional authority is the authority to say what is part of the definition. That is defining truth.
If your paradigm leads to pointing out that only a single version is "true" then you are placing it above other versions that are not true.
Except, as I've noted previously, that's not my paradigm. I'll refer you back to the example regarding the dictionary: if you use a word in a way other than how it's defined, does that mean you've used the word in a manner that could be described as "false"? Are the only "true" words the ones listed there?
A definition, in the context of canon, is a demarcation. It outlines the scope and limit of the conceptual work in question. It's not a value judgment with regards to anything that isn't a part of itself. That's something that you seem to
want to be true because it justifies trying to attack the entire concept of canon, which strikes me as backwards: you don't need to get rid of the concept, since it doesn't have the element of object to in the first place.
Understanding is impinged because two conflicting things cannot be true. If I say the Red's best pitcher is a red haired individual, and the Red's best pitcher is a woman, then there is no conflict. Because both can be true. If I say the Red's Best Pitcher is a red-haired individual and that the Red's Best Pitcher is a black-haired individual, then there is conflict, because both things cannot be true. Unless I add clarification that allows it to be true.
Which goes to show that there's more to canon than the defining authority. Since even if the defining authority declares two things to be true which contradict one another, then by itself that's not enough to make the canon understood. Hence, more is necessary.
And I responded to them to explain why I said what I said. And yes, I did admit to cutting some of one of the posts, but you could trivially click on a name and read the entire post to make sure what I cut wasn't vital (it wasn't).
You have complete access to the entire context. And nothing I posted required anything more than what you understood from this thread.
With regard to explaining why you said what you said, that doesn't alter the fact that they pointed out that you misrepresented them. You can't really turn around and then say "no, you're wrong about your own positions; I represented you accordingly." There's no dialogue in that case.
Likewise, having access to the entire context isn't the question; this isn't an issue of access, it's an issue of taking a piece of something and saying "you just need this piece to understand it as well and in the same manner as if you'd partaken of the entire thing." That's self-evidently not the case, since they're different (and, again, the people you quoted said you weren't presenting them correctly).
And yet every discussion of canon is grounded in the idea of truth. Your definitions are grounded in the idea of truth, just in a different phrasing.
No, it's not. The phrasing is grounded in something that's different, and which you're incorrectly conflating with the idea of "truth." If it happens to resemble that, it's because this particular area - as I've noted before - lacks a unified definition and specific verbiage to help make that clear.
As someone who's a fan of canon and has made an effort to understand it better, I'm assuring you that it's not predicated on the idea of "truth." Is there any room for you to be open to changing your mind in that regard?
It doesn't matter if it is a fictional work which can only be understood to be true via an authority, or something in the physical world (much of which can only be understood to be true via an authority who has claimed evidence to support that authority) the idea is still the same. By making "canon" you are making the "real and true version" of a thing. You can say that is because they have defined the boundaries that are understood to be part of the conceptual framework of a fictional universe if it makes you feel better, but it is still claiming a truth.
I can even show you via something like this. Here is the definition of "canon" from the wiki for TinTin
Note how it says that opposite of canon is fanfiction, and presenting fanfiction as "fact" will be considered Vandalism. And here is one for Marvel
I'll point out here that wiki material is written by fans, and is still subject to the same issues of verbiage that I've repeatedly brought up now. That's leaving aside that the word "truth" is never used there; rather, the word "fact" is, which is (once again) not the same thing. They're self-evidently using it as a shorthand for "anything which is not part of the canon," which once again goes to showcase that there's a difference in meaning that's understood.
The nature of canon as a grounded and externalized realm which is nevertheless still imaginary in nature imbues it with a liminal quality; it's between the real and the unreal. Because of this, the presumed understanding of the meanings involved therein are also subject to an altered state (i.e. we don't use "canon" in the same sense as it's used with religious terminology; a difference has been introduced).
In my original post on this subject, I mentioned Joseph Laycock's book
Dangerous Games. That was no idle reference, as he talks about this very thing:
"
Victor Turner greatly expanded on the idea of liminality, theorizing that special "liminal" modes of interaction allow old patterns of meaning to be dissolved and new ones to be created." (p. 183)
What's going on here is that you're not recognizing that the liminal nature of these grounded realms of imagination has upended the various meanings associated with them, at least with regard to how they look from the outside. You're seeing a quality that resembles "truth" to you, and apply the typical meaning attached to the idea, not recognizing that it's something else entirely within the context of canon. In that regard you're not alone; as noted, this entire area is one which is poorly understood in terms of being able to precisely articulate it's nature. Even I'm guilty of this, since the above passage makes clearer the point that I was stating earlier: that what you're seeing as "truth" is a misinterpretation of the function of authoritative declaration.
In that regard, role-playing games are actually a fairly good example to draw upon, since they also exist in a liminal state (albeit in subtly different ways to canon), and so also require that various semiotics be altered. "Truth" as you see it, is not with regard to any sort of qualitative state of something being more
correct that something else. Rather, it's merely used as a way of recognizing that certain things are a part of something, and others are not.
Much in the same way that it's true that your living room is part of your house, and that your neighbor's living room is
not part of your house, no value judgment is being rendered in denoting that. Just like with canon.
You are right. Fanfiction only lacks a "real authority" who legally owns the IP and copyright of the product. That is all it lacks.
It also lacks the ability to completely define itself, since the elements that it borrows from the canon material are defined by the understanding of that material.
Last Command was canon, then it wasn't. Nothing about the work, nothing about the research, nothing about the author's understanding of the material at the time changed. All that changed was a new owner decided they didn't want it to be canon anymore. Last Command holds no qualities today that an internet fanfiction doesn't hold, and if tomorrow Disney announced it is canon again... then it only gained that singular quality of being recognized by the legal IP holder.
If you are asking me "how do I decide if a work offers me greater insight into the world written by the original author", well, one of the things I would look for is the original author. This is not a consideration of canon, because canon is quite often written by people who are not the original author. I've read pokemon fanfiction that deals seriously with the concepts of having living beings fighting and being owned. Those are not "canon" I do think they offer some insight into how a setting like that would truly function, and since it is not how the official version functions, then I can assume that there is a difference between them That is an insight.
How do I find common ground with people who have not read the material I have read? I talk to them about the things we have read together, and then build from there. The same way I would talk to someone who watched the canonical Michael Bay Transformer Movies, but never watched the Canonical cartoon series.
How would someone react to a version that is wildly different from the original? By placing it in its own "canon" from the original work. Just like someone can read Spider-Man and Ultimate Spider-Man (both of which are canonical) deals with them being wildly different takes and worlds. I'm curious, do you think that reading a canon Spider-Man story is a different mode of canon engagement if the Spider-Man is Peter Parker instead of Miles Morales? Both are canon, and engaged in Canon, but are wildly different takes on the character of Spider-Man. As was Miguel O'Hara.
These things are the same within a large enough canonical structure as they are outside of it. So, why is applying the same structures, engagements and logic that I apply to have a dozen different versions of Spider-Man any different than that a 13th version that isn't Marvel Approved?
When you talk to someone else who has some knowledge of a particular series which you're also familiar with, however, some basic understanding is typically already in place. That's not just with regard to basic facts, but also with regard to which facts are already laid down
as the basic facts upon which one can rely. That's a function which is served by canon, and it's implicit in what you've said above, as "the things we have read together" makes only passing reference to what those things are, and where their common conceptions come from.
I'll point out again: it's understood that
no one puts any emphasis on fanfiction with regards to the shared understanding of a particular work of canon. This isn't any sort of value judgment on fanfiction in and of itself, but because it has nothing to offer when it comes to creating the shared understanding of the elements that it draws upon. Likewise, people who haven't heard of the work that the fanfiction draws upon will (if their interest is great enough) often look
beyond the fanfiction to the canon elements in order to develop a greater understanding of the work.
That's not something which works in reverse, you'll notice. Despite what you said about having supposedly reached a greater understanding of Pokemon because you read a pokemon fanfic, that's actually a greater exploration of some of the
ideas presented - and, as previously noted, ideas aren't something which can be grounded within a particular canon, apart from any others - in the source material. That's simply because those derivative works lack the ability to provide greater understanding of canon due to their inability to further define it.
None of which says anything about their value as entertainment. They might still be very moving, interesting, or otherwise engrossing. But as a mode of engagement, understanding canon is autotelic by nature, and non-canon things aren't - by definition - a part of that.
Easy, you've misunderstood what I didn't like. I don't like saying it is true, so it is better. Canon material is not better than non-canonical material, by defintion (it can actually be better in terms of quality, but not definitionally). I also believe you can enjoy both.
But you define what is spider-man by what is canon for Spider-Man. You, whether you use the terminology or not, are deciding that one version of events is "true" and the other is not. There is no other way to talk about "defining" something other than seperating what is true about that thing from what is false about that thing. Part of defining an apple is saying that an apple does not have legs. Therefore an apple with legs is false, because definitionally, apples do not have legs. It is the same process for defining anything.
See above for where you've misunderstood what's happening when using canon as a mode of engagement. There
is, in fact, another way to talk about defining something other than declaring what's true and what's false; that's required when dealing with a liminal work. The entire point of what's happening is that standard meanings are broken down and repurposed in order to reach an alternative understanding. You're not processing that an alternating process has taken place, and so are misreading what the nature of canon is.
Again, if you feel attacked by the recognition of canon due to a perceived value judgment, this should be a great source of relief to you, since it shows that such a thing isn't there. This means that you can undercut anyone trying to use it that way.
I could quote Max saying multiple times that "Everything is canon, so nothing is canon" but fine.
You say it was fractured, but I say that nothing fractured that was not already fractured. And nothing changed except that the stamp of WoTC approval was removed. That fractures nothing, unless you are concerned about what is "true" about the setting so you can accurately discuss it with others. Which you can still do. I can discuss non-canon work with others, and have done so repeatedly.
When you say "nothing was changed except," you're admitting that something has changed. Likewise, what was fractured by WotC clearly wasn't fractured (at least not in the same manner and/or to the same extent) that it was; ergo, something has changed. You then talk about how "unless you're concerned" with what canon is, but doing that overlooks the fact that some people are concerned with what canon is. Again, it's autotelic in nature; an end unto itself. For the people who are concerned with that mode of engagement, WotC's de-canonizing a large amount of material is a loss of understanding.
No. I want to expand the definition of "canon" to be closer to "continuity". To allow their to be multiple canons for a world without people having to define the "one true canon" of the world.
I don't believe that to be possible, nor desirable. As ridiculous as it might seem, people want to (in general) make imaginary realms more real, which means that they're less labile. Hence, they try to add form and definition to them, which means imposing boundaries and structure. But that requires externalization, since if you have the power to change such an imaginary realm at will, then it loses that grounded quality. In other words, it can't be moved over to a liminal state. Hence, canon is necessary to achieve that.
Even if you were to alter the definition to "continuity," I doubt that much would change. People would still want to know what's part of "the" continuity and what's not, fanfiction wouldn't be considered to be part of it, boundaries would still be inherently recognized, etc. You can see this with how there's still a general sense among people regarding
how magic would work if it were real. Things which don't fit the intuited nature of the work in question are discarded. Canon simply moves that up from the realm of intuition with clearer, more precise boundaries.
We already do this. You can already accept that Nolan's Batman films have a different Canon than the Justice League, which has a different Canon than the DC Animated Universe. We already utilize this model within canon works. This is why people started breaking up the various "worlds" of DC and Marvel. All I am saying is extend that. Allow a fanfic to contain its own canon, under the authority of the fanfic author. Then, whether or not a company or IP holder accepts a work isn't a question of truth or falsness, but just a preference for which set of canon they prefer to utilize.
How has what you're talking about not already been achieved via the recognition of different modes of engagement? If we take it as a given that people read fanfiction not because it better informs them about the nature of the property it's based on, but for entertainment, then the entire idea of "truth" (as you call it) is a moot point anyway. You seem to be declaring that the entire idea of declarative boundaries are somehow insidious, but you've offered nothing to support that idea beyond "some people misuse it in arguments." That's not a reason for dumping (or radically changing) the entire concept.
Sure, but this happens all the time anyways. There is no more crucial context being lost in making a fanfic Oliver Twist novel than there is when Jim Butcher releases the 19th novel of the Dresden Files. You can say "no, because I read all 18 previous books" but then... well you just need to read the original Oliver Twist. There is no difference between the two.
And trust me, there has been some major changes in understanding and context from book 1 to book 18. That is natural as the story progresses.
You're making my point for me, here. The fullest understanding of the nineteenth book in a series is based around having read the prior books in said series; likewise, the fullest understanding of a work of fanfiction is based around having partaken of the series that it's based on. Hence, the series it's based on is able to redefine the understanding of the fanfiction (to some degree) and in so doing demonstrates that the fanfiction author is
not the sole arbiter of their fanfiction's definition. That's why fanfiction cannot be considered canon.
It is interesting though that you ignored my further point. No one discusses the canon of Junie B. Jones. There is no major in-depth indexing, cataloguing and analysis of the material. And yet, it is a world, with characters, defined by a single author. It matches every single aspect of a single true canon... and yet that mode of engagement doesn't appear to apply to this body of work. And it is quite decently big, 28 books I do believe.
Can you think of why a book series like Harry Potter with only seven books (you can count them as 14 if you want, since they are quite large) has major discussions about canon, but a series longer (or just as long if you want to count them as shorter and reduce them to 14) has no discussions about canon at all? If it was simply a "mode of engagement" then shouldn't it appear in multiple places? I can certainly find discussions of other aspects of modes of engagement, such as technical skill, for many many IPs that have no discussion of Canon at all. Including not only ones like Junie B Jones, but also The Jetsons.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up a point that I've already spoken to, here: specifically, that the length of something isn't a relevant factor. The only reason you see this coming up with regards to particularly large works is because it's difficult to keep a large number of details straight (and/or can be hard to simply keep up on all of the canon material, if the total body of work is particularly vast).
It's telling that you assign Harry Potter the potential quality of being "fourteen" books, however, because that shines a light on the actual issue under discussion: the "vastness" of a particular work of canon isn't with regard to material quantities such as page count, total number of words, episodes, issues, etc. Those are material functions, but canon occupies a liminal space due to being a work of imagination that has been imbued with a realistic quality due to being externally grounded.
What that means is that the area of a potential canon is measured by its concepts, rather than the total amount of physical materials exist for it. "Concepts" here is another lack-of-a-better-term issue, wherein it's meant to cover a large amount of specific materials with regard to the chronology, narrative development, characters and characterizations, etc. of the work. These are, of course, specific in their presentation (as opposed to being ideas, e.g. laser swords vs. lightsabers). Hence, a short series might have a broader canon than a longer series that actually presents very little.
I know tropes are different. My point was that that particular trope came up because a change in an element of the story the read is presumed to be familair with was changed, and that element is now understood in a different way.
This is IDENTICAL to the issue you say Fanfiction has, except that the change was introduced in a cultural shift instead of by a singular authority.
That's not identical, though. Quite the opposite, one is a contextual change with regard to the understanding of a particular convention, and the other is with understanding specific elements which have been derived from a particular canon. Just because they both involve a shift in understanding doesn't mean that
what's being understood is the same, or that the shift is identical.
And a canon character can also be changed and understood differently in past works due to a new revelation in the present work. And if the present work was written by a different author, then it is the exact same situation. See Luke Skywalker in the Rise of Skywalker compared to the Return of the Jedi. A character, canonically seen very differently because of a new work by a new author than a previous work made them out to be.
Again, you are not proposing anything that cannot happen within a canonical work as the reason for this difference. The same things can happen to both types of work.
Except you're overlooking that the shift in understanding in this case is because the authority over the canon has elected to present that shift, making it voluntary. This is in contrast to the involuntary shift in understanding that can happen with a work of fanfiction, regardless of the wishes of the author of said fanfiction. You can bet that there was a lot of fanfiction involving Luke Skywalker which was read very differently after the sequel trilogy came out, which present shifts in understanding outside of what those authors intended.
No. Because my readers should know that I am not Oda. If they thought I was, then that is a very different problem.
They do know that, but that doesn't mean that your story would be understood the same way as it was before that particular element of his work (which you used in your fanfiction) was redefined by him.
Don't they? Both take place on a post-apocalyptic Earth. That is as equally large and vague of a setting as Equestria or the Planet Eternia. It is actually even more specific, because I could add "post-apocalyptic" to either of those settings.
We can have multiple hundreds of canonical earths, but only one canon Eternia?
So, to be clear, you're positing that "I am Legend" and "Adventure Time" are part of the same canon? Because with how self-evidently incorrect that is, it seems like a self-defeating argument.
