Is "canon" meaningless?

[The Glyphstone]

That is hard to see. Geek Q does not care, geek C and Z care too much....you can't be both.

See Geek Q does not even care that Boba Nobody died...he was a minor, boring character that did nothing. Geek C will run around and say Boba is alive and say ''because Book C and Some Guy '' say so. And Geek Z is drinking the Cool Aid while looking over the beautiful canon laid out before them.

Then you need to create Geek K, who values canon because it maintains consistency in the fiction they enjoy (letting them debate politely with Z), and appreciates that it indicates the writers see their creation as a universe and not just an endless string of unconnected stories (so he can pal around with C), but doesn't build their entire hypothetical existence and sense of self-worth around it and can see when to set it aside in the name of a better story (in harmony with Q). Moderates exist in fandoms too, not just politics.

Since we want to be fair and unbiased, of course, there should be two accurate and realistic portrayals of both pro- and anti-canon attitudes. So you also need Geek X, who rejects canon out of spite because it doesn't leave room for their depraved slash fanfiction.

[Rodin]

That is hard to see. Geek Q does not care, geek C and Z care too much....you can't be both.

See Geek Q does not even care that Boba Nobody died...he was a minor, boring character that did nothing. Geek C will run around and say Boba is alive and say ''because Book C and Some Guy '' say so. And Geek Z is drinking the Cool Aid while looking over the beautiful canon laid out before them.

*Raises hand*. I'm one of those. I take it on a series by series basis. You mess with canon of some series, I get annoyed. For others, not so much. Short of the Doctor gaining laser beam eyes, I don't really care what they do with Doctor Who canon. Mess with Babylon 5 canon though, and I will be typing angry forum posts all day long.

[Tvtyrant]

In my opinion, not really. It is fun for debating with friends/online, but it doesn't effect the enjoyment of the literature/show/multiverse in question very much.

Take Diskworld. The original wizards in diskworld are ruthless, powerful and power mad. Then they rapidly developed into a completely different joke about university staffs, professors and the high church, full of eccentricities and obesity, and has weaned off of it a little.

While there are later references to the transformation in the story, it happens so quickly and so unexpectedly that it reads like a completely different story. They supposedly happen in the same world, but the nature of the world changes so much during those books that you just kind of shrug and ignore the connections to the earlier works.

[Psyren]

Google "mom rewrites harry potter" to see the glaring problem with letting every single thing be on the same legitimacy as canon. You open the floodgates to all kinds of nonsense.

[Closet_Skeleton]

They love to say to others ''it is canon, so it is good, and Ye has the czar spoken the word''.

Nobody is like that. Pretty much every canon obsessed fan has at least one piece of canon they want to get rid of.

Many fans of canon will also have "I love this incensed parody comic but I'm glad its not supposed to be in continuity because characters acting out of character is funny as a joke but not as a mistake".

Take geek Q They don't care one tiny bit about canon. It is just made up carp.They can care less if fifteen stories all contradict themselves. They like a story, they don't like a story...it does not matter. They can even like three stories about the exact same thing that are just a little different....and not care about it.

All stories are just made up Carp. The canon is part of the story. People don't generally read part 2 of a trilogy and then say "I don't care if the author says part 1 and 3 are canon, that's just some Salmon he made up to sell me 2 more books". Sure the odd person will say "book 3 was a disappointment and this Turbot is how I would prefer to think it ended" but they don't consider the whole idea of stories being set in a coherent universe to be a load of old dogfish.

[Tvtyrant]

So you also need Geek X, who rejects canon out of spite because it doesn't leave room for their depraved slash fanfiction.

May I quote this?

[The Glyphstone]

May I quote this?

Only in context, please, but otherwise go ahead.

[Tvtyrant]

Only in context, please, but otherwise go ahead.

Would the whole paragraph be enough? Because I don't think I can cram the whole conversation into my signature :D

[Kitten Champion]

Outside of religious considerations I don't really care honestly. The canonical nature of a text doesn't influence its quality or affect me personally really. I prefer some internal consistency within a body of work, at least about big things like important character development and plot points... but that's more of an issue of continuity than canon. If you've got a story to tell and it's worth telling whether it "really happened" is just inconsequential to me.

[The Glyphstone]

Would the whole paragraph be enough? Because I don't think I can cram the whole conversation into my signature :D

Sure, or just a reference to what we're discussing.

[Aotrs Commander]

Google "mom rewrites harry potter" to see the glaring problem with letting every single thing be on the same legitimacy as canon. You open the floodgates to all kinds of nonsense.

*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

It is a good job I am already Undead, because otherwise I would have lost all will to live right there and then.



As for canon: I work on the basis that if you are trying to tell stories set in the same universe, you actually have to be consistent about it. A story that is self-contained is... just a story. A diversion for a while. But if there's nothing else to it, if there is no universe outside it to explore... Then it's not really anything of any substance and I, at least, am likely to forget about it ass soon as it's over. But if there is a universe there outside the story... it needs to be consistent. (Even if you want to make alternate continuties, they must each be internally consistent... and should not stray so far from the original that only the names are the same - at least if you want MY interest.) Episode-of-the-week, or where nothing ever changes and nothing ever has an effect... Can make for entertainment, but nothing really spectacular. (Corrolary - going the opposite, where Filler Is Evil and everything has to have plot critial importance - is perhaps not quite as bad, but a balance with some stand-alone episodes, giving the characters chance to play around with their new toys or just interact or whatnot, is better.)

But essentially: if you, the writer, insist on having no restrictions on your writing so you can do whatever you like without thought to whatever happened previously because you can't be arsed trying to write with boundaries¹... Then I likely can't be arsed to partake in whatever you've written. You clearly don't care, so why should I?

(Doctor Who just barely gets away with it, in my opinion, because they break the universe so often, something is bound to go A Bit Funny in places...)



¹Well, for one, good luck ever being able to put anything out in the real world, because you have to spectacularly good to wield the influence to do that.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Most often for me, by the time a body of work gets large enough so that canonicity (continuity) of the various material could pose a potential problem for my enjoyment, I tend to just drop interest in the material altogether. (This isn't to say I haven't engaged in canon arguments before. Or haven't engaged myself in 'large' canon universes.)

I tend to particularly enjoy long running series if there is an overall point to it, with a specific ending of some kind in mind. I think fiction with that overall approach is generally stronger than longrunning, ongoing franchises.

What matters most to me is the quality of the story. Consistency is always a nice thing for immersion into the world, but if the illusion of consistency is repeatedly broken due to the work being long enough (or having lots of authors), then it's probably time to move onto other stories or settings.

Because I'd rather see a good story than worry about an endless myriad of intricate details all sorting out in some satisfactory manner within the larger setting as a whole. Canon is only as important as you want to make it.

And if I get to the point of feeling that I understand a given setting better than a particular author or creator seems to, I think it's time for me to move on. There's just no point to making myself annoyed over something like that. It's an odd feeling to suspect that I care more about a franchise than the franchise owner does.

[Wardog]

Every TV show has multiple authors working on it, yet, within a single TV series, it is usually unchallenged that there is a "canon" in play.

The fact that you talk of the situation in which you, the viewer, has to deal with producers making a purposeful change in the characteristics of Superguy, suggests that there was already established characteristics of Superguy. That's what we are talking about when we talk about canon.

Well, as I said: canon is worthwhile when it is used to ensure consistency in any one series or continuity.

What is unreasonable is when someone acts as though the 2010-2013 Superguy trilogy is the "real" Superguy, and the completely-different-in-tone 1960s Superguy the Movie is not "real". And then a third person comes along and insists that, actually, none of the movie adaptations are the "real" Superguy, and the only version that should be considered real is the one in the most recently rebooted comic series.


(Or to summarise: canon is good when its used to ensure consistency within a continuity, but bad when its used to argue that one continuity is "real" (or "realer") and others are not).

[Coidzor]

Does anyone else find something wrong when a bunch of geeks on a forum talk about 'fans' as though they were some other group they're looking down upon?

Well, y'know, there's liking something, and then there's being rabid.

[Coidzor]

*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

*skulldesk*

It is a good job I am already Undead, because otherwise I would have lost all will to live right there and then.



As for canon: I work on the basis that if you are trying to tell stories set in the same universe, you actually have to be consistent about it. A story that is self-contained is... just a story. A diversion for a while. But if there's nothing else to it, if there is no universe outside it to explore... Then it's not really anything of any substance and I, at least, am likely to forget about it ass soon as it's over. But if there is a universe there outside the story... it needs to be consistent. (Even if you want to make alternate continuties, they must each be internally consistent... and should not stray so far from the original that only the names are the same - at least if you want MY interest.) Episode-of-the-week, or where nothing ever changes and nothing ever has an effect... Can make for entertainment, but nothing really spectacular. (Corrolary - going the opposite, where Filler Is Evil and everything has to have plot critial importance - is perhaps not quite as bad, but a balance with some stand-alone episodes, giving the characters chance to play around with their new toys or just interact or whatnot, is better.)

But essentially: if you, the writer, insist on having no restrictions on your writing so you can do whatever you like without thought to whatever happened previously because you can't be arsed trying to write with boundaries¹... Then I likely can't be arsed to partake in whatever you've written. You clearly don't care, so why should I?

(Doctor Who just barely gets away with it, in my opinion, because they break the universe so often, something is bound to go A Bit Funny in places...)



¹Well, for one, good luck ever being able to put anything out in the real world, because you have to spectacularly good to wield the influence to do that.

What? Fahrenheit 451 is inconsequential because it doesn't have *sequels*? Am I reading you correctly? Why should a story go on to make a series in order to have literary worth?

[Aotrs Commander]

What? Fahrenheit 451 is inconsequential because it doesn't have *sequels*? Am I reading you correctly? Why should a story go on to make a series in order to have literary worth?

I said such carries no weight with me - and a quick google search to determine what that was and that would be born out in this case. If wiki is accurate, it is about, principally, a future society that burns books and an examination of, prsumably of what that society would look like and, presumably, how bad it would be. Beyond that one concept exploration, what does it offer? How many stories could you tell about that concept?

(This leaves aside the fact that it has nothing to offer me even then, since it would appear to be principally about People/society, which is something I simply don't care about unless the people are doing something interesting.)

So yes, I can say with a high degree of certainty that I would read it, shrug and go "okay" and it would leave no lasting impression.

Anecdotally, I can say that the only thing I can even think of that I rate highly that is NOT part of a larger something else would be an old atomic sci-fi book called Rip Foster Rides the Grey Planet, and I find it tragic that it does not have more to it than that, since it would have been a very entertaining universe to explore. (Granted, I'm writing this at half-past three in the morning, others may come to mind in the morning, but I wouldn't bet on it.)

So yeah, I will go out and say: if something doesn't attempt to do any world building beyond which it requires to tell a single story, it will almost certainly be of little to no lasting interest to me, for the simple reason it won't invite me to think about it. (And generally, things that TRY to make me think about some message presented in them go down like a lead balloon, since they very rarely present a message I don't already find obvious.) It might be fun to partake while it lasts, but it will almost certainly leave no lasting mark. (This applies to all media: for example, to action movies. I've seen quite a few, but none of them have made any particular impact on me.) If something is worth exploring, it's worth exploring to the full extent of its capability, which is typically beyond the length of most single books or movies.

(And yes, you may correctly postulate that that means I don't read any comtemporary or historical non-sci fi/fantasy fiction. Unless you want to make an arguement that the Three Investigators qualifies - though with the sheer number of books I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify under the "doesn't have continutity" thing.)

[Rodin]

It sounds like you consider the entire history of great writers and artists to be worthless*. Practically every novel of note in the "must read to understand the human condition" category of classics is a stand-alone work. I'm struggling to think of any Classic work which is NOT a stand-alone work. Even Shakespeare doesn't qualify, except maybe a little bit of his historical stuff which is connected by virtue of being, y'know, history.

I can't even come up with a snarky response to that position.


*And yes, considering it worthless to you means considering it without merit.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I like continuity. And I hate when some shows (Star Trek, cough cough) bring up plots that could very easily be solved by something that was introduced just two episodes ago. Plot stagnation, you might say. It makes the story feel inconsequential, after a while, which, especially for drama, is just bad. If, no matter if the planet/galaxy/city/family/reputation is saved or not, next season/episode/book everything will be the same anyway, what's the point?

If you only choose to enjoy continuity driven shows that is your preference but applying that as a criticism (beyond the run-time of any particular episode) to shows like Star Trek is completely invalid. Because of course it is holding the show to an entirely different methodology by forcing the show to tell one big story instead of being an anthology work using the same stock set-pieces. It's not "plot stagnation" because you have created a patently false premise that Star Trek has a plot. It has episodes which have plots of course (and DS9) but the shows, rather like most television, are instead premises not a plot.

They used something two episodes ago? Well I never noticed much when I first got into the show in the late 90s watching TNG re-runs in syndication where the ordering was rather erratic so chances are I never saw that "just two episodes ago" phenomena. Or it was one created by whomever was programming the cable station.

Not that you have to be able to watch things out of order or anything, but what being able to do at all also means you have a highly contained writing style which is also good for say anyone not able/willing to schedule their life around the television schedule every week. Or otherwise don't watch every episode of something.

It also keeps your show more flexible. If you don't have a plot you're less likely to encounter the problem of suddenly having tied up the whole thing and not having anything left for another season. Not to mention any number of always difficult pacing issues. Or conversely not having your ideas dashed by the eternal truth of uncertain network support. And the added task of riding herd on the writing staff (or doing it all yourself) to be sure no one writes you into a corner or something.

There's good reasons why most programming doesn't confine itself with continuity.

(Also while besides the point Trek also has an issue where you'd have trouble challenging USS Make-****-Up very very quickly if they started remembering their own technobabble and heaven help us improving on it. Nobody wins a Lensman Arms Race in the end.)

[Aotrs Commander]

It sounds like you consider the entire history of great writers and artists to be worthless*. Practically every novel of note in the "must read to understand the human condition" category of classics is a stand-alone work. I'm struggling to think of any Classic work which is NOT a stand-alone work. Even Shakespeare doesn't qualify, except maybe a little bit of his historical stuff which is connected by virtue of being, y'know, history.

I can't even come up with a snarky response to that position.


*And yes, considering it worthless to you means considering it without merit.

If you want to take the perspective of that last sentence on my opinion, then yes¹: that would not be unreasonable as least in regard to "the classics". I don't the find the Classics hold anything for me at all, narratively, aside from what value they hold as historical works and/or perhaps if I were doing something that required a look at the culutre of the time. (If I ever do some world-building in which I require a culture of book-burners or something, I would likely find Fahrenheit 451 of use as research material. But then of course, I'm not reading it for the story.) So yes, I don't find Shakespeare to be particularly interesting, aside from the it's obvious historical importance. I would NEVER say that the classics do not have an important place history, and or that they don't need be remembered (or even studied in some cases... though I found everything I studied in English literature to be profoundly boring, since I was not fortunate enough to be even looking at the bits of Shakespeare I might have found interesting.) But that doesn't mean that I have to like, be engaged or interested by the stories within them, even if I can appreciate the technical quality or workmanship and/or effort that went into making them, or the history that surrounds them. (Indeed, I am far more likely to be interested in the history that surrounds it than in the work itself. History is interesting.)

Put it this way: if you want to get my lasting attention, you HAVE to grab my imagination. People do not grab my imagination.



If you want to talk "lasting impact" on me, probably the single biggest influence on my entire life and unlife was Stewart Cowley's Spacecraft 2000-2100AD - a book which has arguably no human characters (and only a few humans even named within it in passing) and yet tells a fascinating story, in bits and pieces, of a war between Earth, Alpha Centarui and Proxima Centauri through the history of its vehicles and caps it with mystery found from in the wreckages of alien spaceecraft and unexplained phenomina that has been encoutered by all three races over the time of their space-travel. (It is also not the only book in its continuity, though it is the only one I own). That, for more than ANY other single work of fiction, carried a lasting and permenant effect on me.





¹Though it is not strictly true, as I said that "lasting effect" and that some works of that ilk are enjoyable while partaken in, but that I find they have no lasting impact.

[Rodin]

Fair enough. Lord knows there are classics that I only read because of school (*cough* Scarlet Letter *cough*) and others that I theoretically should have enjoyed but couldn't get past the prose (I've tried reading Gulliver's Travels on at least 3 different occasions and never gotten past the first chapter).

Fahrenheit 451 definitely got my hackles up due to how highly I rate that novel.

[Lheticus]

Fair enough. Lord knows there are classics that I only read because of school (*cough* Scarlet Letter *cough*) and others that I theoretically should have enjoyed but couldn't get past the prose (I've tried reading Gulliver's Travels on at least 3 different occasions and never gotten past the first chapter).

Fahrenheit 451 definitely got my hackles up due to how highly I rate that novel.

Strange...I have the same sort of problem with Gulliver's Travels. I bet I could get through the whole book if I just skipped the Lilliput arc--for some reason, I just don't like it.

[Pronounceable]

Golden rule of canon: If I like it, it's canon.

Outside of the one in my head, all canons are worthless. Since that's where I exist, it's the only one that can logically count from my perspective. Though I usually prefer things that aren't enough of a cluster**** to allow large scale canonicity arguments to become a thing (such as superhero comics or SW, both of which can gtfo as a whole, minus the bits that I like).

Continuity is a bitch and a half though, especially when contradictory yet both awesome things X and Y exist and you can't decide which is cooler and should be the one that counts. Even in that case though, they're both canon.
...
I also used to nerd out about all this canonity/continuity crap before reading Umineko no Naku Koro ni and thinking about its themes a bit cured me of this disease. It was like magic.

[Knaight]

Um...well, it does not. The death of a fictional character is meaningless. Remember, for example, when Superman died? It was all over the news, it was a really, really, really big deal. Superman died...for real..forever...from that date forward. So from that day, years ago, there was to never, ever be another Superman story...he was dead and gone forever. Except....of course...he was NOT Can I go to Wal Mart right now and buy a Superman comic? Wow...well, I can! Go figure....

Superman, or for that matter any other Marvel/DC character is a bit of a special case. The death of a fictional character does generally alter the space in which future stories can be made within the same setting. When Boromir dies, he never comes back in Lord of the Rings, for example. Obviously this is only relevant while the series as a whole or the set of series of a shared setting as a whole continue, but within the context of an individual story or set of stories it's relevant. The bulk of published stories are largely self contained works made by one author, and probably one book long. Under those continuity is going to generally be maintained.

[Coidzor]

I said such carries no weight with me

Semantics. Don't try to duck your snubbing of every stand-alone work ever as not being enough for you because it doesn't have oodles and oodles of sequels when you go on to confirm that was exactly what you meant.

- and a quick google search to determine what that was and that would be born out in this case. If wiki is accurate, it is about, principally, a future society that burns books and an examination of, prsumably of what that society would look like and, presumably, how bad it would be. Beyond that one concept exploration, what does it offer?

It offers a pretty damn good exploration of that concept which is all that it needs to offer as a single work.

How many stories could you tell about that concept?

Censorship run amok? Many. Do I have to go and dig up scores of different works on the subject of censorship run amok being bad for you or something?

(This leaves aside the fact that it has nothing to offer me even then, since it would appear to be principally about People/society, which is something I simply don't care about unless the people are doing something interesting.)

Irrelevant. You said it has no worth because it doesn't have oodles of sequels or a clear tack to take for churning out sequels.

[The Grue]

Warcraft is a difficult case. Blizzard doesn't care about canon at all, because they don't actually care about the story. All they care about is awesome-looking bosses, awesome-looking faction leaders and generally flashy stuff. It's incredibly obvious from numerous things, but the most glaring example is the latest expansion, Warlords of Draenor, can be essentially describes as this

"Hey, I have a midlife crysis. You remember Warcraft 2 with orcs and humans with oily muscles, who killed each other?"
"Yeah."
"Let's bring it back! People will think it's so cool to meet all the orcs they've read about."
"But... Aren't they dead?"
"Uh, well, we'll make something up. Maybe they used time travel or something."

Is a "midlife Crysis" where you're suddenly really into flashy PC FPS games as you get older?

[Forum Explorer]

Irrelevant. You said it has no worth because it doesn't have oodles of sequels or a clear tack to take for churning out sequels.

If I'm reading him correctly, he isn't saying it has no worth, but no impact on him. Without a whole universe (which doesn't require sequels to do, but they certainly can help) to immerse himself in, he just tends to completely forget about stand alone stories after he's done reading them.

[Hyena]

Is a "midlife Crysis" where you're suddenly really into flashy PC FPS games as you get older?

Midlife crisis is when you completely forget why people love the game you're currently making (diverse, large world, complex relations between races) and instead make an effort to make that game into Warcraft 2, which was just orcs and humans beating **** out of each other, which effectively describes entire WoD and large parts of MoP and Cataclysm. Oh, and pop-cultural references for everybody. Wanna see dwarves unearthing secrets of the Titans and finding out the truth about their progenitors? No? Good, because neither does Chris Metzen. Instead, you get Indiana Jones fighting goblin Hitler.

Redacted: Oh, I get it, I've misspelt the word "crisis" in my original message. Well, that was rather funny.

[Rodin]

Heck, they bent Warcraft lore into a pretzel right from the start with WoW. They annihilated the story they were wanting to tell because they needed two factions.

End of Warcraft III: Orcs, Night Elves, and some of the Humans are all allied against an imminent demon invasion.

Frozen Throne: Humans from Stormwind go full racist and kick out the regular Elves.

Beginning of WoW: Orcs and Humans are suddenly at war. More inexplicably, the Night Elves and the Orcs are at war, and the Night Elves are buddy-buddy with the racist Humans that just got finished kicking out the regular Elves. The Orcs which just got finished fighting waves of Undead are now allied with the Forsaken, because reasons.

Burning Crusade: The Blood Elves, who fought with Illidan against the Undead, suddenly decide to join up with the Forsaken, also known as the Undead that destroyed their homeland and a significant portion of whom are actually the twisted mockeries of their own people. And the Forsaken still haven't stopped being full-bore evil during all this time. Oh, and the Draenei suddenly have starships, and their old lore (including what they look like) is completely ignored. What.
----------------------

Seriously, it's like they cherry picked a few plot events from Warcraft III and then made everything else up on the spot. By the time Illidan was the Big Bad Evil Guy of Burning Crusade I was just shaking my head and laughing. That's when I stopped caring about the lore at all, because Blizzard obviously didn't give a damn.

[Hyena]

Humans from Stormwind go full racist and kick out the regular Elves.

Uh, no. Humans from Lordaeron go full racist - Garithos was leading the Lordaeron Kingdom Remnants. Stormwind was destroyed by the Horde in Warcraft 2, but then retconned back into existance with WoW, because Blizzard needed a human kingdom other then Theramore.

[turkishproverb]

Your post is one that I feel really needs to be addressed in segments, and I'm only prepared to address this one as of now. First, canon CAN be "pure and good and true to the original/the source material/itself." It requires at least 2 specific conditions that are inestimably difficult to achieve with a massive money-making series, though (which is why so many of these have canons that are indeed meaningless: )

1. The author(s) of the work make the effort to maintain perfect internal canon consistency.
2. The author(s) of the work maintain sufficient control over that work to negate the potential for Executive Meddling.

The second thing I'd like to say is there's "canon" and then there's "minutia." Boba Fett dying in the Sarlacc pit was canon until it wasn't, and an X-Wing having a type 3 or type 6 generator is minutia. Usually, there can be a few inconsistencies in the minutia without truly affecting canon.

This post is more or less meaningless in relation to how the word is supposed to be used. And responses like this, or ones that lead to the mis-use, come up way to often. So, yes, "canon" is meaningless now to all intents and purposes. This is because people have taken the term and tried to shoehorn it into an area it doesn't belong, resulting in it bordering on meaning "in-continuity" due to mis-use by the likes of Gene Roddenberry and Joss Wheden.

Canon, outside a literary context, was to cover what in a body of work was considered important enough to be "required reading" effectively in that field, usually centering on the likelihood it was written by the original author, or with his permission, or was an influential/well known enough piece, IE the "Literary Canon" or "Holmes Canon".

Sorry, Joss, I don't care if the Buffy movie "happened that way" in your TV universe or not, that has nothing to do with whether it's "canon". Watson's wound moved, and there was no argument about both those stories "counting" back when canon debates for Holmes were a new thing, and those were being done as amusing intellectual exercises. It has nothing to do with if the work is sound in continuity.

Canon is not meaningless. The problem is that people keep using it and confusing Canon with Continuity.

archie Turtles comics are Canon IDW Turtles comics are Canon. But neither of them are In Continuity with each other.

Silver Age Superman comics are Canon New 52 Superman comics are Canon. Neither are In continuity with each other.

This post has some idea what I'm talking about.

Of course the fundamental problem is that canon is nominally (and sorta though not entirely IRL) a system to resolve consistency issues.And well the problem is that it can't beyond a certain point.

Not..really. Aside from the consistency of "what is canon" it's very rarely been used for that purpose outside of geek circles.

I'll think you'll find that the ordinary geek is as zealous in defending 'canon' as is any religious zealot.

Heh. Hard to argue that.

@Asta_Kask: "Fan" is just the shortened form of "fanatic", after all.

or possibly a corruption of "fancy" or "afficianado", depending upon who you ask.

As for canon: I work on the basis that if you are trying to tell stories set in the same universe, you actually have to be consistent about it. A story that is self-contained is... just a story. A diversion for a while. But if there's nothing else to it, if there is no universe outside it to explore... Then it's not really anything of any substance and I, at least, am likely to forget about it ass soon as it's over.

That...has to be the most inaccurate thing I have read in this thread. I do hope it was merely a massively poorly worded statement, as otherwise I really have little idea where to begin in everything that is wrong with what you just said.

Although there is a clip from a movie that comes to mind...

It sounds like you consider the entire history of great writers and artists to be worthless*. Practically every novel of note in the "must read to understand the human condition" category of classics is a stand-alone work. I'm struggling to think of any Classic work which is NOT a stand-alone work. Even Shakespeare doesn't qualify, except maybe a little bit of his historical stuff which is connected by virtue of being, y'know, history.

I can't even come up with a snarky response to that position.


*And yes, considering it worthless to you means considering it without merit.

There is Sherlock Holmes, which is accepted by many even in the literary world as a classic, although that usually doesn't have the whole body of work on required reading lists to understand humanity.