![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethI see people asking about a particular bit of data 'is it canon'. Like there's a yes or no answer to that. And usually the closest you can get to an answer is to point at the source. Was it official, if so was it on paper, web, or TV, if so was it something we saw or something we heard.
I made a comment with my personal hierarchy in:
Canon isn't a set thing. There's a hierarchy within canon sources, even on screen canon. Specially when they contradict.
Like, both Mary in dialogue and the Hub computers in graphics give Toshiko's birth date, only they give them very different. Which one is 'canon'?
Also, what is the point of canon, to you?
Is it data that most people could be expected to know, giving you a common foundation for debate?
Or is it data that the producers of the source text are most likely to refer to again later?
My rule of thumb hierarchy for canon, where higher up likely trumps lower down, goes:
We see it happen in an episode
Regular character in an episode says it
Guest character in an episode says it
Artwork / graphics / files on screens in an episode says it
Subtitles says it (yes, this goes lower down, because different companies make the subtitles than makes the rest of the episode, and sometimes subtitles disagree with other versions of subtitles)
Then there's a pretty big gap, before you get to
We see it happen on a webisode
Regular character in a webisode says it
Guest character in a webisode says it
Artwork/graphics/files on screen in a webisode say it
Webisode subtitles say it
and another gap to
Website supplemental text files say it
Website supplemental graphics files say it
which may or may not be higher than
Official tie in novels say it
which may or may not be higher than
Official tie in magazine says it in a factual article
or
Official tie in magazine says it in a fiction, say a short story.
Then there's commentaries. On the one hand, people involved in making the show hold the opinions expressed in the commentary, and those people might make shows based on that opinion at a later date.
On the other hand, characters within the show wouldn't necessarily know those things.
And within the show, the opinions of the actors may or may not influence the opinions of the writers, and there's a whole hierarchy of who has more control over what ends up in future episodes.
Canon is not a singular entity, it's a... well, big splodgy fuzzy thing, really.
Oh, and I left out comics, and audio adventures.
In Torchwood there's not enough of them for them to significantly diverge yet, but in Doctor Who the official comics and the official audios went off in different mutually contradictory directions, as did the books. Three 'verses, all some degree closer to canon than us on the internet making fanfic.
Comics, novels, and audio adventures are all likely to refer back to the TV episodes, as are webisodes and web pages.
Episodes are unlikely to refer to any of those other sources... with the possible exception of when the same authors are involved.
I think the s in authors is a big part of where the question goes fuzzy. I mean, in a single author 'verse, if they write it, then it's canon. If they write it as an interview or opinion then it's probably less canon than a finished fiction, but if that's their opinion and they're going to write based on that opinion, that's a pretty fine distinction.
But in a multi creator 'verse, who gets the final say on anything?
And when the final say person keeps changing... then what?
I think people who start off in a 'verse with a limited creator-pool and only a few seasons (and I'm counting Buffy and Angel as 'only a few', which says something about perspective shift), you can get the idea that canon has edges.
If you start off in comics, or in Doctor Who, where the 'canon' has been created by god only knows how many people since before you were born... well, little bit more complicated.
If I was jumping in and writing new episodes of Doctor Who - er, no, lets say 'when', 'when' is a happy word - 'when' I write for Doctor Who, I will consider to be canon... everything the boss that hired me tells me specifically is canon. If they make a list of all classic Doctor Who and say I've got to write something consistent with all of it, I will hollow-laugh, and if they're serious I'll scream and run away. Because nobody was doing that when they were making it, so it don't fit together.
So what do you mean by 'canon'? Stuff that's out there with an official seal on it, ready to be seen and compared to? Or stuff that's true in a self-consistent 'verse that the stories are set in? Canon or continuity?
... there's a reason they called them books Discontinuity guides.
Once things get to comics level fuzzy-canon, with multiple titles by multiple authors all with slightly incompatible storylines that tie in every now and then to create a cyclically rebooting 'verse that actually chucks out a whole heap of previous canon at regular intervals...
Canon is that information which, if you did not know it, your core audience would point at you and laugh.
It is canon that the Doctor is a Time Lord of Gallifrey, with two hearts, and the ability to regenerate. He's old. Don't ask how old, it's up and down like a yo yo. He travels in a TARDIS, which is quite often a big blue police box, but always much bigger on the inside. His enemies include whole species - Daleks, Cybermen, and Sontarans, - as well as individuals of his own species - The Master.
If you mess up any of that, point-and-laugh be very likely.
If you don't happen to know that there's been two space rhino races then that's a bit less likely to be socially awkward.
Same with Wonder Woman - you might not know what she said in Justice League Task Force (seeing as if anyone read it it presumably would have lasted longer), but you better know she's an Amazon Princess. And Death of the Endless met several of the Justice League, which we know from the Sandman early issues, but if you don't know the Endless turned up in Captain Atom, it's not so very much a surprise.
When the Endless turn out to still be canon in the main DCU after their home title got spun off into Vertigo, that was a surprise.
So, you know, canon?
Not so much a yes or no deal.
More a balance of probability thing.
Personally I figure if I can cite my sources everyone can figure it out for themselves.
They won't agree with me. But that's okay.
And none of this gets into the differences in interpretation that are essential parts of the reading process. Sure, we can say Jack and Ianto were in a particular episode, and we can say if they were kissing, but saying how they feel about it? Even if they say it with words, is it canon they feel that way, or just canon they said it? And I've seen different people's transcripts - we aren't even hearing the same words. Or reading them - subtitle files are also multiple in their interpretations.
Canon: Fuzzy.
... I'm now getting visions of fun fur covered magenta seige weapons...
*sigh*
I made a comment with my personal hierarchy in:
Canon isn't a set thing. There's a hierarchy within canon sources, even on screen canon. Specially when they contradict.
Like, both Mary in dialogue and the Hub computers in graphics give Toshiko's birth date, only they give them very different. Which one is 'canon'?
Also, what is the point of canon, to you?
Is it data that most people could be expected to know, giving you a common foundation for debate?
Or is it data that the producers of the source text are most likely to refer to again later?
My rule of thumb hierarchy for canon, where higher up likely trumps lower down, goes:
We see it happen in an episode
Regular character in an episode says it
Guest character in an episode says it
Artwork / graphics / files on screens in an episode says it
Subtitles says it (yes, this goes lower down, because different companies make the subtitles than makes the rest of the episode, and sometimes subtitles disagree with other versions of subtitles)
Then there's a pretty big gap, before you get to
We see it happen on a webisode
Regular character in a webisode says it
Guest character in a webisode says it
Artwork/graphics/files on screen in a webisode say it
Webisode subtitles say it
and another gap to
Website supplemental text files say it
Website supplemental graphics files say it
which may or may not be higher than
Official tie in novels say it
which may or may not be higher than
Official tie in magazine says it in a factual article
or
Official tie in magazine says it in a fiction, say a short story.
Then there's commentaries. On the one hand, people involved in making the show hold the opinions expressed in the commentary, and those people might make shows based on that opinion at a later date.
On the other hand, characters within the show wouldn't necessarily know those things.
And within the show, the opinions of the actors may or may not influence the opinions of the writers, and there's a whole hierarchy of who has more control over what ends up in future episodes.
Canon is not a singular entity, it's a... well, big splodgy fuzzy thing, really.
Oh, and I left out comics, and audio adventures.
In Torchwood there's not enough of them for them to significantly diverge yet, but in Doctor Who the official comics and the official audios went off in different mutually contradictory directions, as did the books. Three 'verses, all some degree closer to canon than us on the internet making fanfic.
Comics, novels, and audio adventures are all likely to refer back to the TV episodes, as are webisodes and web pages.
Episodes are unlikely to refer to any of those other sources... with the possible exception of when the same authors are involved.
I think the s in authors is a big part of where the question goes fuzzy. I mean, in a single author 'verse, if they write it, then it's canon. If they write it as an interview or opinion then it's probably less canon than a finished fiction, but if that's their opinion and they're going to write based on that opinion, that's a pretty fine distinction.
But in a multi creator 'verse, who gets the final say on anything?
And when the final say person keeps changing... then what?
I think people who start off in a 'verse with a limited creator-pool and only a few seasons (and I'm counting Buffy and Angel as 'only a few', which says something about perspective shift), you can get the idea that canon has edges.
If you start off in comics, or in Doctor Who, where the 'canon' has been created by god only knows how many people since before you were born... well, little bit more complicated.
If I was jumping in and writing new episodes of Doctor Who - er, no, lets say 'when', 'when' is a happy word - 'when' I write for Doctor Who, I will consider to be canon... everything the boss that hired me tells me specifically is canon. If they make a list of all classic Doctor Who and say I've got to write something consistent with all of it, I will hollow-laugh, and if they're serious I'll scream and run away. Because nobody was doing that when they were making it, so it don't fit together.
So what do you mean by 'canon'? Stuff that's out there with an official seal on it, ready to be seen and compared to? Or stuff that's true in a self-consistent 'verse that the stories are set in? Canon or continuity?
... there's a reason they called them books Discontinuity guides.
Once things get to comics level fuzzy-canon, with multiple titles by multiple authors all with slightly incompatible storylines that tie in every now and then to create a cyclically rebooting 'verse that actually chucks out a whole heap of previous canon at regular intervals...
Canon is that information which, if you did not know it, your core audience would point at you and laugh.
It is canon that the Doctor is a Time Lord of Gallifrey, with two hearts, and the ability to regenerate. He's old. Don't ask how old, it's up and down like a yo yo. He travels in a TARDIS, which is quite often a big blue police box, but always much bigger on the inside. His enemies include whole species - Daleks, Cybermen, and Sontarans, - as well as individuals of his own species - The Master.
If you mess up any of that, point-and-laugh be very likely.
If you don't happen to know that there's been two space rhino races then that's a bit less likely to be socially awkward.
Same with Wonder Woman - you might not know what she said in Justice League Task Force (seeing as if anyone read it it presumably would have lasted longer), but you better know she's an Amazon Princess. And Death of the Endless met several of the Justice League, which we know from the Sandman early issues, but if you don't know the Endless turned up in Captain Atom, it's not so very much a surprise.
When the Endless turn out to still be canon in the main DCU after their home title got spun off into Vertigo, that was a surprise.
So, you know, canon?
Not so much a yes or no deal.
More a balance of probability thing.
Personally I figure if I can cite my sources everyone can figure it out for themselves.
They won't agree with me. But that's okay.
And none of this gets into the differences in interpretation that are essential parts of the reading process. Sure, we can say Jack and Ianto were in a particular episode, and we can say if they were kissing, but saying how they feel about it? Even if they say it with words, is it canon they feel that way, or just canon they said it? And I've seen different people's transcripts - we aren't even hearing the same words. Or reading them - subtitle files are also multiple in their interpretations.
Canon: Fuzzy.
... I'm now getting visions of fun fur covered magenta seige weapons...
*sigh*
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 02:07 pm (UTC)And when the final say person keeps changing... then what?
Especially in the DW/TW universe~ We don't even really know what YEAR it is, let alone if their jumbly facts coincide with one another. I always felt that, while it was cool to let various writers have their hand at the show to get different feeling episodes (ie Blink vs Fires of Pompeii or Sleeper vs Meat) but on the other hand, I wonder if said writers actually sat down and talked -not only with our booming with grins and laughter Welsh overlord- with EACH OTHER. Especially in Torchwood there are sometimes where I feel like you have to take each episode literally on it's own (unless it makes a bold reference to a prior ep) cause even the characters can be so different that it causes a smidge of whiplash :D
And none of this gets into the differences in interpretation that are essential parts of the reading process. Sure, we can say Jack and Ianto were in a particular episode, and we can say if they were kissing, but saying how they feel about it? Even if they say it with words, is it canon they feel that way, or just canon they said it? And I've seen different people's transcripts - we aren't even hearing the same words. Or reading them - subtitle files are also multiple in their interpretations.
Oh seriously o.o That's probably a BAD sign when viewers/reviewers/SUBTITLES can't tell what's going on with your characters after two season~
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 03:10 pm (UTC)The subtitles thing is annoying. If the subtitlers got the script you'd think they could work from that and agree with each other. But no. The TV subtitles don't say the same thing as the DVD subtitles, sometimes at crucial moments (actually more likely at those moments, because emotion distorts). And because the TV and DVD subtitlers are two different companies, and different than the people that make the TV show, that's going to continue.
If the people who make TV shows would take subtitles as seriously as they do sound design, if they'd pay even as much attention as they do to commentary... but no. Specialist people do subtitles, sometimes people who have not only nothing to do with the show but apparently haven't watched it before. Sometimes you go a season with the DVDs spelling the names different every time.
Which is still better than the DVDs that can't be bothered to include a standard accessibility feature.
... er, /rant.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 05:43 pm (UTC)I see the contradiction, but I don't see any good way of setting 'which is right' objectively. My rule of thumb, when it comes to contradictions, is to choose what I prefer. If I have no preference, it's whim. Sometimes there's an unfoudned but exterior reason to pick one thing over another - for instance, in the case of birthdays, I might think "Tosh is more likely to be a Gemini than a Leo." (Note: that random example has nothing to do with dates given or my ignorance of astrology!)
what is the point of canon, to you?
Getting story points right, nothing more. I tend not to notice contradictions till they are pointed out to me (unless it's a matter of characterization), but I want to get it right so that it matches with the show.
I happen to think fan writers almost always choose their own canon and stick with it, and that's okay. For instance: Captain Jack said on screen that he didn't need to sleep. So I portray him as never sleeping. In "Small Worlds" we saw him apparently sleeping and dreaming, and he does have a bed - I take that as an indication that, though he doesn't sleep, he occasionally rests, or lies down to think in peace and quiet.
Every fan writer I've read portrays him as sleeping. With or without Ianto. Now, this doesn't bother me; the case can be made. But I think it's missing out on a rather interesting character point.
Is it data that most people could be expected to know, giving you a common foundation for debate?
No. Well, for discussion, maybe. I don't debate much. But I think that for my own satisfaction I want to know what is canon on the show - which just means, having a good basic knowledge of the programme and who the characters are. And a rationale for making judgement choices, sometimes.
My hierarchy of choices:
- the say it or show it on the show itself - and if there are contradictions, it depends generally on the nature of the contradiction - who says the information, or shows it, and in what circumstances. Verbal comments tend to take precedence over background details, unless there's another reason to think otherwise.
- if a guest character says it, it depends on who it is and why they say it.
- it's said by Russell T Davies. I give his comments more weight than other commentary.
- the TV show generally takes priority over the books, articles, interviews, comments by actors, etc. I don't count webisodes at all because I seldom get to see them.
Commentaries have fairly low priority for me. Unless they say something really cool.
Canon is not a singular entity, it's a... well, big splodgy fuzzy thing, really.
Splodgy. Yes.
Same with Wonder Woman - you might not know what she said in Justice League Task Force (seeing as if anyone read it it presumably would have lasted longer)
LOL - well said! And the analogy between comics and tv series is very apt. Both are written about a certian group of characters in a certain situation (the premise of the series) by a group of writers who don't necessarily know each other, overseen by a group of editors and producers who may themselves have differings ideas, and who don't spend a lot of time comparing notes of taking pains to get things right, for a variety of reasons, including that it matters less to them than to the fans. On the whole.
So we scratch our heads and fill in the cracks.
Ianto is a good example - we have so little information about him. And though we have motivation for some of his actions, we lack information about others - for instance, why did he tell Gwen about the island in "Adrift"?
I've seen different people's transcripts - we aren't even hearing the same words. Or reading them - subtitle files are also multiple in their interpretations.
So very true! I was just reading a couple of direct quotes from Torchwood episodes in which the quotes were not the words I hear on the screen.
A related question: I recently read a reference to Owen (in a fic) that referred to him as Welsh. I always interpreted him as English. Has it ever been stated where he came from?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-08 09:01 pm (UTC)Webisode's place in canon is a developing area. Some shows put actual plot in it, others background detail that you can live without. Most of course don't go there at all yet.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 01:08 am (UTC)LOL. I shake my head sadly. I'm pretty much hopeless with accents, but I can tell the difference between Wales and London accents.
To my ear, he's about as London as they come.
To mine as well. I had assumed that he was from London, but came to work in Cardiff - presumably at that hospital we saw in "Fragments". Yes, I liked the background given him in Another Life - pretty much what I'd imagined prior to that. (I wasn't sure whether I was misremembering the London background, because it was what I had imagined anyway.)
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 06:52 am (UTC)Who was Obi-Wan's Master? He tells Luke it was Yoda, but in the prequels - and the tie-in books - we see that it's Qui-Gon. Qui-Gon's Master was Yoda, unless it was Count Dooku, who Qui-Gon never, ever mentioned to Obi-Wan.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 01:09 pm (UTC)But Doctor Who has been around longer, had an entire seperate spin off 'verse for Daleks, didn't invent the protagonist's backstory until they were about a decade in, couldn't decide how many hearts he had, and indeed has some ambiguity as to his species. I still say Doctor Who wins at Most Confusing.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 12:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 03:41 pm (UTC)