Repeating What I've Been Saying Forever, Again

[alixtii]

Context: What is Canon?

So, what is canon? Or, to phrase it differently (and, IMHO, better) what does the term "canon" mean?

None of the traditional definitions of "canon" apply: it's not a bunch of books considered (by people) to be Holy Writ (as in the Bible canon), or a bunch of books written by one person (Shakespeare's canon), or belonging to an era (the Modernist canon).

There is only one definition that makes any sense to describe Buffy: a bunch of works assumed by fanfic writers and other fans to include information about a fictional universe [or else, and I prefer this usage, the actual set of facts about the fictional world, but its clear in this discussion that canon=text]. It's us (we, if you want to get prescriptivist) who are doing the assuming. It's a term that makes absolutely no sense outside the context of the fanfiction community, or at least outside the context of people who like to imagine a coherent fictional world (which is basically the same thing, except maybe not written down), to play "How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?" (Admittedly, Joss falls into the category of people who(m?) we would want to think of the Buffyverse as a coherent fictional world, and he has every right to have his own opinions of what he thinks is canon or not.)

As such, the question of "what is canon?" using canon in this fanfic sense falls very clearly into the hands of the relevant interpretative community, i.e. fanfic writers and other Buffy fans, to be negotiated among them.

X-posted to whedonesque.

*

What I conveniently neglected to mention at whedonesque is that in the canon negotiation process going on within an interpretative community, "What Joss says, is canon" is a perfectly legitimate rule to adopt, because there is (after all) no wrong way to respond to a text. That said, I don't like that particular response and am glad there's no real worry that this corner of Buffy fandom (i.e. my flist) is going to adopt it, regardless of what scores of whedonesque posters might think.

But, argghhh! The queer metaphysics (and in philosophy, unfortunately, "queer" isn't a good thing) of some of the "Joss said it" people is really approaching Platonism in its absurdity. Buffy is inside his head screaming to get out. Yes, she is also in mine but not because she lives there rather because Mr. Whedon put her there? I mean, really. This idea that there is One True Buffyverse (O imagine it sort of floating pristinely in the Platonic Heaven, maybe all compact like the Bottle-City of Kandor?) and only Joss Whedon has access to it . . . well, can anyone convince me that it's not utterly absurd?

And that's what it comes down to, I guess. I'm a post-structuralist, so it makes sense to me that canon would be infinitely constructable. But I suppose I should fear pity for those folks who have to have their One True Meaning.

*thinks about how this world has been frakked up by fundamentalists*

No, I really shouldn't.

*

ETA: I never said that fanfic fell within the category of canon (although of course there's no theoretical reason why it couldn't), nor do I think most people would say that. (Well, actually, I do include annakovsky's "Umad Learns Sumerian" in my personal canon, but I recognize the idiosyncracy.)

I just don't see anything intrinsic in the concept of "canon" that priveleges the author. (The author-function, maybe, but that's as far as I'll go.)

Something can be part of the "official body of stories that make up a work" without being true in the fictional universe the work describes. The West Wing episode "Isaac and Ishmael" is "canon" in the sense of being part of the official series--but not in my sense, because it's not set within the normal continuity of the show.

Which implies to me that the whedonesque posters and I are just using different definitions of the word canon. I just wonder why anyone would care about the "official body" definition; what I care about is not whether the comics are official but whether they "really" happened in the Buffyverse, and since the Buffyverse is a fictional world, there's no reason why anyone else should be more competent than me to tell me the answer.

Comments

[amyheartssiroc.livejournal.com]

I really like your definition of canon. In general it's one of those words that I know it when I see it, but I find it very hard to explain.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I prefer to use "canon" to only mean the set of facts which are true in a fictional world (Character X said Y at point Z), and to use "source text" for the texts themselves from which said facts are derived, but that usage is idiosyncratic, as using "canon" to refer to a body of works, as in this debate, has a long and venerable history pretty much starting with the Sherlockians, the first to use "canon" in our sense--and its so ubiquitous that I often use that usage even when I don't realize it.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

For one essay, I tried to distinguish between canon proper (i.e., the bare-boned facts) and "interpreted canon," i.e., everything the interpretive community decides, weights, filters....

In common usage, the two conflate, which is my canon and your canon can make sense, i guess.

Really, doing RPS canon really highlighted the constructed nature of "canon" to me, sincewe quite purposefully as a community privilege one sentence/scene/gesture while ignoring a dozen others. So, yes, it's canon...but on some level, it's always already interpreted...

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But even before the community decides, weighs, and filters the bare-boned facts ("We see them in bed together--is it canonical they had sex?"), the community has to decide what the bare-boned facts are, what texts to look to to find out the facts. Which, even though it by necessity antedates the act of interpretation, is still a hermeneutic function, and thus falls squarely in the provinces of the readers.

So I have my canon and you have your canon not because we interpret the facts differently, but we're starting with completely different facts in the first place. The argument is whether that's okay, or whether there is one clearly "right" set of facts, and I'd think we come from the same place on that one.

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're saying anything different...I mean, I bring in RPS exactly because there the very facts are already chosen. Otoh, I'd still maintain that the images of the source text, the words on the page, the fact that Harry in the text is a wizard and Buffy's parents are divorced is something we can put in the facts category without having to debate what the bare boned facts are (i.e., x number of hours of tv show; 6 books and counting, etc.)

Now, I was gonna say that Buffy's a vampire slayer, but there was that canonical ep.... :-)

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I'd still maintain that the images of the source text, the words on the page, the fact that Harry in the text is a wizard and Buffy's parents are divorced is something we can put in the facts category without having to debate what the bare boned facts are (i.e., x number of hours of tv show; 6 books and counting, etc.)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. JKR's written something like 8 books about the universe of Harry Potter, with 6 of them so far being about Potter's epic journey. Without debating which of these books are canonical, how can we agree what the words on the page are? (Because the question remains, which pages?)

OTOH, if you want to argue that in the blurry field of canonicity, there are some things more central than others (Harry will always be a wizard no matter what we choose to make canon), that makes sense to my Wittgensteinian self...but that centrality is still the result of a set of discursive practices, and able to be changed!

Buffy's parents are together in "Normal Again," too.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

It's us (we, if you want to get prescriptivist)

Surely the prescriptivists don't say that, because it's just wrong. *pictures sending Faith against grammarian forces of darkness*

I have nothing to say to the actual content of your post, except to feel reassured that I'm not the only one who thinks selection of canonical texts isn't based on some universal principle -- for example, I reject the SW prequel trilogy and Greedo-shoots-first changes even though these are official and stem from the original creator. I have frequent arguments over whether my choice of SW facts to respect or ignore can validly be called a canon.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

The prescriptivists most certainly do say that. Is is a linking verb, so it doesn't take an object in object case (to simplify the grammar involved to a talk of cases). Instead, it links a subject (in subject case, obviously) to a predicate nominative, which is also "supposed to be" in subject case.

It's a case where some prescriptivists will concede that the "rule" is completely out of step with actual usage, but the rule is in many, many grammar books.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

Methinks it's one of the holdovers (like the rule against split infinitives) from when writing was primarily in Latin, because it doesn't seem to apply to English. Frankly, I'd be interested in seeing if it ever did -- and if it did, when that began to change.

I guess that means no Faith, seeing as sifting through Old and Middle English grammars (I'm convinced it goes back that far) just doesn't seem like her style. :(

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

My guess is that I don't think it ever did apply to English, and I wouldn't call it exactly a "holdover" from Latin, but it'd be classed along with split infinitives and stranded prepositions and singular they and all the so-called errors that have been a feature of the language for longer than it has been in existence.

Like those other "errors," most of the supposed rules against them were formulated when the "scientific" study of language, couple with the prescriptive solidification of "proper" English, was just beginning, and the theorists for no good reason anyone can see turned to Latin for their models--but well after Middle English had given way to Early Modern. I know (from languagelog that Dryden is to be blamed for the stranded preposition "rule," and I'd suppose that this one is roughly contemporaneous.

But you can be sure that it is a rule of prescriptive grammar, for what it's worth.

[thirdblindmouse.livejournal.com]

I know (from languagelog that Dryden is to be blamed for the stranded preposition "rule,"

There are individual people you can pin these on? Wow. I've never spent much time with the development of English post-Malory, and I'm clearly missing out on the true nutcases.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Here's the Language Log post with the Dryden story.

Well, I don't know offhand who is to blame for the "split infinitive" rule, but if we accept that these are rules that never described English as She is Spoke, then someone had to be to the first to come up with the nonsense.

. . . and I say that as a big fan of non-stranded prepositions.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I never said that fanfic fell within the category of canon

You have (presumably inadvertently) created a perfect illustration of the importance of context in interpreting a text. When I read your remarks here on your journal I instantly understood that It's a term that makes absolutely no sense outside the context of the fanfiction community, referred to the fanfic community interpreting rather than creating. But when I went and read exactly the same phrase on Whedonesque I read it as meaning you were claiming that fanfic was part of the created canon.

This is especially bizarre because I have very little familiarity with Whedonesque and thus presumably do not have anything approaching a typical absorption of their board culture, yet it seems from the responses to your post over there that I was interpreting it in the same way.

Of course it is just possible the wording is not identical on each post, which would explain the difference!



And in reply to the actual content of your post (this being you I should perhaps qualify that with a 'as I perceive it' ;o) - yes. thebratqueen once produced a list of what she considered canon, doubtful canon and fanon and the most obvious thing about it was how coloured the whole thing was with her own personal interpretations and knowledge, it was a perfect example of why one cannot achieve anything by such categorisation beyond the pleasure in the actual act of categorisation. Which is not to say people shouldn't do it just for that pleasure but if they think they are achieving anything beyond setting down their own personal interpretation they are deluding themselves. And certainly I have a big beef with anyone (I'm not accusing TBQ of this, incidentally, I have no idea if she does) who tries to impose their own interpretation of canon on others. Discuss the differences by all means but as soon as someone starts claiming a single interpretation is possible I am growling inside.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

thebratqueen once produced a list of what she considered canon, doubtful canon and fanon and the most obvious thing about it was how coloured the whole thing was with her own personal interpretations and knowledge, it was a perfect example of why one cannot achieve anything by such categorisation beyond the pleasure in the actual act of categorisation.

Well, such a categorization would be useful for fanfic writers if they can construct a coherent universe out of what they consider to be canon, similar to my trying to decide what month(s) "Chosen" and "Just Rewards" occurred in if they happened only 19 days apart despite being aired three months apart, even though my decision that "Chosen" happened in late July and "Just Rewards" in only August certainly isn't "true" by any means. And such a categorization be useful to others, both for the pleasure of watching the intellectual process as work and as a demonstration that the universe can be rendered coherent.

[coneyislandbaby]

Canon - everything shown and/or referred to in explicit terms on-screen/on-page (depending if it's a filmed fandom - movie or TV or animation - or a book fandom). RPS canon - reality.

Why do I say this?

Because this is the block the average viewer builds on.

I do not believe that things not everyone has (theoretical) access to should ever be considered canon. If 200 fans hear a writer say something is canon at a convention, what about the 2000 or more fans who didn't go?

[coneyislandbaby]

PS: Here via metafandom

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

It's easy to say that canon is what is on the page and/or on the screen. The question is--which pages, which screens? There has to be consensus that, say, both the live-action and animated series in some hypothetical fandom are canon (we look on-screen for canon there) but not the side novels or comic books (we don't look on the page there). The question is whether the decision of what texts we look to for canon rests in the hands of the Creator or (as I argue) with the fans.

OTOH, I like playing with the ideal of "the average viewer," because, presumably, it is a discursive function (sort of like the "ideal Reader" that used to be in fashion in litcrit once upon a time). It focuses on how a text is read rather than written, which IMHO is a good thing.

I do not believe that things not everyone has (theoretical) access to should ever be considered canon.

This is one of my issues with a Creator's conception of canon being taken as normative once a work has switched mediums. Buffy and Angel broadcast on broadcast television for free. The Comic 8 comic books will, presumably, cost somewhere around $15 for a TPB. There simply isn't the same level of access, although there is theoretical access.

[coneyislandbaby]

It's easy to say that canon is what is on the page and/or on the screen. The question is--which pages, which screens?

*nod* My reference is that what is shown and/or directly referred to on a TV series/in a movie is canon. Anything in the novels or comics based on that TV series is not canon until/unless it is confirmed on screen by reference or actual sequence. That was my point and I did not say so as clearly as I'd meant to.

But in Harry Potter, only that which takes place in the books, on the page, whether by direct action or reference, is canon. IMO.

OTOH, I like playing with the ideal of "the average viewer," because, presumably, it is a discursive function (sort of like the "ideal Reader" that used to be in fashion in litcrit once upon a time). It focuses on how a text is read rather than written, which IMHO is a good thing.

Yes. To me the "average viewer" is the casual fan, the one who watches the show on TV but doesn't rearrange appointments if they happen to clash with the show, they might tape/DVR it if they are particularly caught up in the plot but won't watch over and over necessarily. To me, canon is what that type of viewer has access to. They don't generally have to make an effort to see it.

For HP/book fandoms, they might borrow the books from the library rather than buy them, or read them only once. Not quite sure there's a completely direct analogy there.

Buffy and Angel broadcast on broadcast television for free. The Comic 8 comic books will, presumably, cost somewhere around $15 for a TPB. There simply isn't the same level of access, although there is theoretical access.

Ah, I phrased that badly. What I meant was as I said above - the show is broadcast on TV for free. All the viewer has to do is sit down in front of the TV at the time the show is broadcasted and they have access to it. If there isn't a schedule change, or the TV reception goes screwy or any other problem out of the viewer's hands. Theoretically, anyone can sit down and watch the show and have access to that level of canon. That's why I think the show itself should be considered the definitive canon.

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Here through metafandom.

I agree with most of your points. Especially when it comes to TV fandoms, wherein I sometimes regard later seasons as fanfic because so often they render the fictional world incoherent and basically break it and kill suspension of disbelief. I just don't see the point in being a fan of everything ME decides to sell under the "Buffy" label, when it's clear that different visions and agendas dominate different seasons (without even getting into the tie-in novels and the comics), and so I don't really see any solid concepts tying it all together. And of course producers/networks are going to keep churning out material of whatever quality so long as they think they'll make something off of it; the story that results often has little to do with the creator's storytelling vision and everything to do with attempts to boost ratings. So why should that stuff necessarily be considered part of the "real story" when it's not even always authorial intent?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Especially when it comes to TV fandoms, wherein I sometimes regard later seasons as fanfic because so often they render the fictional world incoherent and basically break it and kill suspension of disbelief.

Yeah, although this depends I think on the fandom--in Buffy keeping a coherent universe is crucial (and possible) for me, in Who less so, and in RPF it's pretty much impossible.

So why should that stuff necessarily be considered part of the "real story" when it's not even always authorial intent?

Agreed, although you do bring up something of a straw man; I don't know anyone arguing that, for example, the Buffy novels are canon. The specific argument that prompted this post was tied to authorial intent; does Joss Whedon's vision solely count as canon?

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Yeah--I don't know much about Who or RPF, but I can imagine it would be difficult to manage.

I don't know anyone arguing that, for example, the Buffy novels are canon.

I don't either, and I wasn't saying that I did; my general point was that a lot of what gets considered "authorial intent" actually isn't necessarily the creator's intent. So even if you wanted to tie your definition of BtVS canon to Whedon's intent, you'd have some complicated issues to figure out.