What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
IT HAS VALIDITY IN THE MADE UP UNIVERSE, THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
Metal Gear is a poor example because the backstory doesn't make sense anyway.
But let's say you just decided to switch up mainstream Marvel canon (Earth-616 or whatever) and Ultimate. Just everything that's been Ultimate is now mainstream canon and vice versa. Now, all of a sudden, current stories don't make one damn whit of sense because you've significantly mixed up the precursor plot points.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont both write books in the "Malazan" setting that they co-created. They have this gigantic timeline of the major events that happen throughout the books which chronicle these events into proper detail and consult each other on any major matters regarding characters or events that impact either one of their works. I am to understand that they also have a legion of fact checkers (friends) to correct them on any mistakes or discontinuity, even between books written by the same author.
If only more authors were this diligent about their work, we wouldn't be worried about canon and retcons.
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
So let's say I added a mustache to the Mona Lisa and tried to sell it as The Mister Lisa and said to the public that The Mona Lisa is The Mister Lisa's boyfriend, you don't think Leonardo da Vinci, if we was alive, would have any claim over the validity of my claims (legality aside)? You don't think validity matters unless it's within reality? There's no being "valid" or "pure" in art because it's all "fake" to you?
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
So let's say I added a mustache to the Mona Lisa and tried to sell it as The Mister Lisa and said to the public that The Mona Lisa is The Mister Lisa's boyfriend, you don't think Leonardo da Vinci, if we was alive, would have any claim over the validity of my claims (legality aside)? You don't think validity matters unless it's within reality? There's no being "valid" or "pure" in art because it's all "fake" to you?
I would TOTALLY pay you 20 bucks to see you do that.
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Ok, that makes sense. So let's say that your colleague continues writing books concerning Herfy Porters and his gym adventures, and you declare these to also be good and to be published.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont both write books in the "Malazan" setting that they co-created. They have this gigantic timeline of the major events that happen throughout the books which chronicle these events into proper detail and consult each other on any major matters regarding characters or events that impact either one of their works. I am to understand that they also have a legion of fact checkers (friends) to correct them on any mistakes or discontinuity, even between books written by the same author.
If only more authors were this diligent about their work, we wouldn't be worried about canon and retcons.
Related: Fallout Tactics was terrible.
However if I wrote some fan-fiction right now about Malazan, it would be "non-canon."
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Ok, that makes sense. So let's say that your colleague continues writing books concerning Herfy Porters and his gym adventures, and you declare these to also be good and to be published.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
No, because the IP owner's version has the right and the authority to designate the "correct" version god damn it. He has a right to tell his prospective audience "this is the material that figures into my developing IP." That is the WHOLE POINT of saying something is "canon" or "correct."
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
Consider 'canon' as 'original text' and everything after as separate entities, simply copies. Stop thinking of authority here, just look at it as a matter of what's the basis. We get that you don't think of canon as being important, so just think of it as being what came first and any importance anyone attributes it as what it's earned from being the groundwork from which every 'non-canon' storyline emerged.
Now please, for the love of god, stop flogging this dead horse.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
"Canon" is a handy way of saying "all future works should be assumed to be based on this body of prior works unless stated otherwise."
Anything that Marvel Comics (for instance) publishes takes place in the canon. You don't have to ask, "Wait, is this based on the X-Men movie or the X-Men cartoon or X-Men 2099 or Ultimate X-Men or what?" You know, before opening up the first page, which version of the characters you're expecting to see.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
They do that in comic books all the time.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
Which is, ironically, exactly what Orson Scott Card did with Ender and Bean.
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Ok, that makes sense. So let's say that your colleague continues writing books concerning Herfy Porters and his gym adventures, and you declare these to also be good and to be published.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
No, because the IP owner's version has the right and the authority to designate the "correct" version god damn it. He has a right to tell his prospective audience "this is the material that figures into my developing IP." That is the WHOLE POINT of saying something is "canon" or "correct."
Yes, his developing intellectual property is an important legal concern. I was under the impression that we were putting legalities aside for the purposes of this discussion. I understand the legal importance of the designation.
Res on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
There would be far too many books to count.
Besides, if G.R.R. Martin can't finish one series...
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont both write books in the "Malazan" setting that they co-created. They have this gigantic timeline of the major events that happen throughout the books which chronicle these events into proper detail and consult each other on any major matters regarding characters or events that impact either one of their works. I am to understand that they also have a legion of fact checkers (friends) to correct them on any mistakes or discontinuity, even between books written by the same author.
If only more authors were this diligent about their work, we wouldn't be worried about canon and retcons.
Related: Fallout Tactics was terrible.
However if I wrote some fan-fiction right now about Malazan, it would be "non-canon."
Thus crushing your weak argument.
Like others, I equate non-canon with hodge podge nonsense. That's not to say that your hodge-podge nonsense in and of itself wouldn't be a good read, but it wouldn't be a part of the official story and would thus be divergent from the real thing. Like alternate history.
Sol Invictus on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
They do that in comic books all the time.
That's cool, yeah. I don't like superheroes, though. I'll read 100 Bullets, Transmetropolitan and DMZ but superhero stuff is usually tripe.
Yes, his developing intellectual property is an important legal concern. I was under the impression that we were putting legalities aside for the purposes of this discussion. I understand the legal importance of the designation.
But do you understand the reasoning behind the law?
Intellectual property law isn't meant just to protect an author's income. It's also meant to protect an author's reputation.
Derivative works, even by different authors, reflect upon the source material. They probably shouldn't, and in an ideal world with perfectly rational human beings they probably wouldn't, but unfortunately they kinda do. People's enjoyment of Dune is diminished knowing that there are crappy sequels written by the author's son, for instance.
Establishing one set of works as canon and another set as divergent returns a certain amount of legitimacy to a work. It gives authors a little bit more freedom to explore in established worlds (whether their own or other authors) without sullying the original work.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Shit, man, now we're not gonna see him for a month!
After this canon discussion that doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Wash on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I take what has happened in the Forgotten Realms such as the spellplague as canon.
Anything I do in my games, how my players act, if they killed X NPC or whatever, I treat as canon in any games I run in the same setting in future.
However, my campaigns are "non-canon" as far as the official setting goes. If they release a 5th edition and a 5th edition Realms, I will take into account the new "canon" for the setting if it is different to my own and implement my own changes to places if it is appropriate.
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
Eddard
Yeaaaaaaaah.
I really wish Martin were a more prolific writer. I don't see why Erikson can churn out a thick, wonderful book on a regular 9-month schedule (plus smaller, wonderful books in the time in-between) but Martin takes at least five years to come out with a book, the latest of which is a totally disappointing read. He must be losing his touch.
I take what has happened in the Forgotten Realms such as the spellplague as canon.
Anything I do in my games, how my players act, if they killed X NPC or whatever, I treat as canon in any games I run in the same setting in future.
However, my campaigns are "non-canon" as far as the official setting goes. If they release a 5th edition and a 5th edition Realms, I will take into account the new "canon" for the setting if it is different to my own and implement my own changes to places if it is appropriate.
You can't spell 'continuity' without 'canon'!
yes you can!
Shut up.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
"Canon" is a handy way of saying "all future works should be assumed to be based on this body of prior works unless stated otherwise."
Anything that Marvel Comics (for instance) publishes takes place in the canon. You don't have to ask, "Wait, is this based on the X-Men movie or the X-Men cartoon or X-Men 2099 or Ultimate X-Men or what?" You know, before opening up the first page, which version of the characters you're expecting to see.
Yes, that makes sense. Just like when you watch X-Men 2 or 3, you know it is based directly upon the previous movie and not the comic books. All I'm saying here is that, legalities aside, the official or non-official label is pretty superfluous. The official label doesn't really mean anything. Fans treat it like it does, as if calling one canon official gives it some mystic property, somehow making it more real than the other canons, but it's not, nor is the non-official canon more real. Neither can be any more real than the other because obviously neither is real at all.
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
Ok, that makes sense. So let's say that your colleague continues writing books concerning Herfy Porters and his gym adventures, and you declare these to also be good and to be published.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
No, because the IP owner's version has the right and the authority to designate the "correct" version god damn it. He has a right to tell his prospective audience "this is the material that figures into my developing IP." That is the WHOLE POINT of saying something is "canon" or "correct."
Yes, his developing intellectual property is an important legal concern. I was under the impression that we were putting legalities aside for the purposes of this discussion. I understand the legal importance of the designation.
I'm not at all talking about legality.
A particular author saying "Work A, Work B, Work C, Work D, and Work E are canon" is as much about explaining what DOES fit into the continuity as what DOESN'T. The implicit statement is that "Work F and Work G are NOT canon." Assuming Work F and Work G do exist.
The author is saying "please do not factor in Work F and Work G when understanding my character, or in remembering the history of the work's events, or the plot line running through the work.
It has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with artistic integrity. The author develops a story, and develops characters, and many do so over the period of multiple publications involving sequels and sometimes prequels or companion novels and works. When I say he has authority of what figures into his developing IP, I mean that a part of being an author is being able to say that This, This, and That factor into my story, but not Yonder and Thither. The point of being an artist, or an author, is to shape a story for his audience. Well, sometimes a story spans multiple works of different types and occasionally even different mediums.
Therefore, consider an author saying "this is canon" as if he wrote it in one of his books and published it and consider an author saying "this is not canon" as if he deleted the line from his manuscript before sending it to the publisher. It's the same thing, and an author has an artistic right to do this.
It is, as I said earlier, like a judge shaping the court record. Lines can be striken from the record. They cannot be striken as easily or as directly from a juror's memory, if the juror heard it. However, reconciling such inconsistencies is a part of being a human being and living in this reality.
You know, all this talk about canon has me interested in seeing a series of books (preferably science fiction or fantasy) that's written for the explicit purpose of having a story that diverges into two separate series, perhaps in parallel universes or what have you if the author so wishes to explain it as such.
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
Eddard
Yeaaaaaaaah.
I really wish Martin were a more prolific writer. I don't see why Erikson can churn out a thick, wonderful book on a regular 9-month schedule (plus smaller, wonderful books in the time in-between) but Martin takes at least five years to come out with a book, the latest of which is a totally disappointing read. He must be losing his touch.
At his age the concern is that he dies before its completion. Honestly, I'm not beyond the idea of tracking him down, trapping him in a room and forcing him to finish the series at gun point but we have all those laaaaaws and stuff.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
"Canon" is a handy way of saying "all future works should be assumed to be based on this body of prior works unless stated otherwise."
Anything that Marvel Comics (for instance) publishes takes place in the canon. You don't have to ask, "Wait, is this based on the X-Men movie or the X-Men cartoon or X-Men 2099 or Ultimate X-Men or what?" You know, before opening up the first page, which version of the characters you're expecting to see.
Yes, that makes sense. Just like when you watch X-Men 2 or 3, you know it is based directly upon the previous movie and not the comic books. All I'm saying here is that, legalities aside, the official or non-official label is pretty superfluous. The official label doesn't really mean anything. Fans treat it like it does, as if calling one canon official gives it some mystic property, somehow making it more real than the other canons, but it's not, nor is the non-official canon more real. Neither can be any more real than the other because obviously neither is real at all.
...Dammit, why don't we have internet punching devices yet?
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
"Canon" is a handy way of saying "all future works should be assumed to be based on this body of prior works unless stated otherwise."
Anything that Marvel Comics (for instance) publishes takes place in the canon. You don't have to ask, "Wait, is this based on the X-Men movie or the X-Men cartoon or X-Men 2099 or Ultimate X-Men or what?" You know, before opening up the first page, which version of the characters you're expecting to see.
Yes, that makes sense. Just like when you watch X-Men 2 or 3, you know it is based directly upon the previous movie and not the comic books. All I'm saying here is that, legalities aside, the official or non-official label is pretty superfluous. The official label doesn't really mean anything. Fans treat it like it does, as if calling one canon official gives it some mystic property, somehow making it more real than the other canons, but it's not, nor is the non-official canon more real. Neither can be any more real than the other because obviously neither is real at all.
Read my last post. It has as much meaning as an author adding a paragraph to or removing a paragraph from a manuscript he is publishing.
And there is no "other canons." It is "canon" or "else." "Canon" means "the official artistic scope." You cannot have multiple canons regarding the same work.
I take what has happened in the Forgotten Realms such as the spellplague as canon.
Anything I do in my games, how my players act, if they killed X NPC or whatever, I treat as canon in any games I run in the same setting in future.
However, my campaigns are "non-canon" as far as the official setting goes. If they release a 5th edition and a 5th edition Realms, I will take into account the new "canon" for the setting if it is different to my own and implement my own changes to places if it is appropriate.
You could always do what some really dedicated guys do: which is to create your own setting and just update or integrate the rules (such as certain class changes/removals) as necessary when the new rulesets come out.
It's a lot of work to go about doing something like that, though. Much easier to fit everything into the preexisting works of Salvatore and his like, for the most part.
Posts
Yeah, see, what I'm not seeing is how there is any matter of validity at all when it's still fiction no matter how official it is. It's... I mean, it's as I said before. If you switched the canonical status of MGA and MGS, nothing would really change. The non-official one would then be official, the official one would then be non-official, and both would still be made up.
IT HAS VALIDITY IN THE MADE UP UNIVERSE, THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
Metal Gear is a poor example because the backstory doesn't make sense anyway.
But let's say you just decided to switch up mainstream Marvel canon (Earth-616 or whatever) and Ultimate. Just everything that's been Ultimate is now mainstream canon and vice versa. Now, all of a sudden, current stories don't make one damn whit of sense because you've significantly mixed up the precursor plot points.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Steven Erikson and Ian Esslemont both write books in the "Malazan" setting that they co-created. They have this gigantic timeline of the major events that happen throughout the books which chronicle these events into proper detail and consult each other on any major matters regarding characters or events that impact either one of their works. I am to understand that they also have a legion of fact checkers (friends) to correct them on any mistakes or discontinuity, even between books written by the same author.
If only more authors were this diligent about their work, we wouldn't be worried about canon and retcons.
Related: Fallout Tactics was terrible.
So let's say I added a mustache to the Mona Lisa and tried to sell it as The Mister Lisa and said to the public that The Mona Lisa is The Mister Lisa's boyfriend, you don't think Leonardo da Vinci, if we was alive, would have any claim over the validity of my claims (legality aside)? You don't think validity matters unless it's within reality? There's no being "valid" or "pure" in art because it's all "fake" to you?
Ok, that makes sense. So let's say that your colleague continues writing books concerning Herfy Porters and his gym adventures, and you declare these to also be good and to be published.
They are still non-canon, and yours is still canon. My point, as it has been this entire time, is this: Isn't canon and non-canon just a way of saying "This version of the story, in which Herfy Porters has never been to a gym ever" and "that version, in which Herfy Porters enjoys going to the gym quite often?"
However if I wrote some fan-fiction right now about Malazan, it would be "non-canon."
Thus crushing your weak argument.
No, because the IP owner's version has the right and the authority to designate the "correct" version god damn it. He has a right to tell his prospective audience "this is the material that figures into my developing IP." That is the WHOLE POINT of saying something is "canon" or "correct."
Unless you're Dante Alighieri. Then all bets are off.
Consider 'canon' as 'original text' and everything after as separate entities, simply copies. Stop thinking of authority here, just look at it as a matter of what's the basis. We get that you don't think of canon as being important, so just think of it as being what came first and any importance anyone attributes it as what it's earned from being the groundwork from which every 'non-canon' storyline emerged.
Now please, for the love of god, stop flogging this dead horse.
"Canon" is a handy way of saying "all future works should be assumed to be based on this body of prior works unless stated otherwise."
Anything that Marvel Comics (for instance) publishes takes place in the canon. You don't have to ask, "Wait, is this based on the X-Men movie or the X-Men cartoon or X-Men 2099 or Ultimate X-Men or what?" You know, before opening up the first page, which version of the characters you're expecting to see.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
WHO TOLD?
Like, what if (spoiler) never happened to (you know who) in A Game of Thrones? How would the events have played out in the latter books?
They do that in comic books all the time.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Which is, ironically, exactly what Orson Scott Card did with Ender and Bean.
Yes, his developing intellectual property is an important legal concern. I was under the impression that we were putting legalities aside for the purposes of this discussion. I understand the legal importance of the designation.
There would be far too many books to count.
Besides, if G.R.R. Martin can't finish one series...
Fuckin' Elldren's post made me pop it in my stereo.
Like others, I equate non-canon with hodge podge nonsense. That's not to say that your hodge-podge nonsense in and of itself wouldn't be a good read, but it wouldn't be a part of the official story and would thus be divergent from the real thing. Like alternate history.
Shit, man, now we're not gonna see him for a month!
That's cool, yeah. I don't like superheroes, though. I'll read 100 Bullets, Transmetropolitan and DMZ but superhero stuff is usually tripe.
But do you understand the reasoning behind the law?
Intellectual property law isn't meant just to protect an author's income. It's also meant to protect an author's reputation.
Derivative works, even by different authors, reflect upon the source material. They probably shouldn't, and in an ideal world with perfectly rational human beings they probably wouldn't, but unfortunately they kinda do. People's enjoyment of Dune is diminished knowing that there are crappy sequels written by the author's son, for instance.
Establishing one set of works as canon and another set as divergent returns a certain amount of legitimacy to a work. It gives authors a little bit more freedom to explore in established worlds (whether their own or other authors) without sullying the original work.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
After this canon discussion that doesn't sound like a bad thing.
Anything I do in my games, how my players act, if they killed X NPC or whatever, I treat as canon in any games I run in the same setting in future.
However, my campaigns are "non-canon" as far as the official setting goes. If they release a 5th edition and a 5th edition Realms, I will take into account the new "canon" for the setting if it is different to my own and implement my own changes to places if it is appropriate.
Note: Not everyone does.
Yeaaaaaaaah.
I really wish Martin were a more prolific writer. I don't see why Erikson can churn out a thick, wonderful book on a regular 9-month schedule (plus smaller, wonderful books in the time in-between) but Martin takes at least five years to come out with a book, the latest of which is a totally disappointing read. He must be losing his touch.
You can't spell 'continuity' without 'canon'!
yes you can!
Shut up.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, that makes sense. Just like when you watch X-Men 2 or 3, you know it is based directly upon the previous movie and not the comic books. All I'm saying here is that, legalities aside, the official or non-official label is pretty superfluous. The official label doesn't really mean anything. Fans treat it like it does, as if calling one canon official gives it some mystic property, somehow making it more real than the other canons, but it's not, nor is the non-official canon more real. Neither can be any more real than the other because obviously neither is real at all.
I'm not at all talking about legality.
A particular author saying "Work A, Work B, Work C, Work D, and Work E are canon" is as much about explaining what DOES fit into the continuity as what DOESN'T. The implicit statement is that "Work F and Work G are NOT canon." Assuming Work F and Work G do exist.
The author is saying "please do not factor in Work F and Work G when understanding my character, or in remembering the history of the work's events, or the plot line running through the work.
It has nothing to do with legality and everything to do with artistic integrity. The author develops a story, and develops characters, and many do so over the period of multiple publications involving sequels and sometimes prequels or companion novels and works. When I say he has authority of what figures into his developing IP, I mean that a part of being an author is being able to say that This, This, and That factor into my story, but not Yonder and Thither. The point of being an artist, or an author, is to shape a story for his audience. Well, sometimes a story spans multiple works of different types and occasionally even different mediums.
Therefore, consider an author saying "this is canon" as if he wrote it in one of his books and published it and consider an author saying "this is not canon" as if he deleted the line from his manuscript before sending it to the publisher. It's the same thing, and an author has an artistic right to do this.
It is, as I said earlier, like a judge shaping the court record. Lines can be striken from the record. They cannot be striken as easily or as directly from a juror's memory, if the juror heard it. However, reconciling such inconsistencies is a part of being a human being and living in this reality.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
At his age the concern is that he dies before its completion. Honestly, I'm not beyond the idea of tracking him down, trapping him in a room and forcing him to finish the series at gun point but we have all those laaaaaws and stuff.
...Dammit, why don't we have internet punching devices yet?
Read my last post. It has as much meaning as an author adding a paragraph to or removing a paragraph from a manuscript he is publishing.
And there is no "other canons." It is "canon" or "else." "Canon" means "the official artistic scope." You cannot have multiple canons regarding the same work.
You could always do what some really dedicated guys do: which is to create your own setting and just update or integrate the rules (such as certain class changes/removals) as necessary when the new rulesets come out.
It's a lot of work to go about doing something like that, though. Much easier to fit everything into the preexisting works of Salvatore and his like, for the most part.