I agree with the bit about Buffy. If Joss said it happened, then it's canon. Even when he's retconned himself, as in the case of Buffy/Immortal, ahem.

Rogue Slayer | February 12, 16:20 CET

Personally I think that there is a sizeable minority who don't see the series as canon (for whatever reason). So I would suspect that our fandom is closer to the Doctor Who fandom than the writer might think.

Simon | February 12, 16:23 CET

Yep, you're right there Simon. For example I'm one those who's in two minds whether to accept these comics as cannon or not, even though Joss has penned them, weird as that may seem, and judging by a few on lj I'm not the only one.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2007-02-12 17:28 ]

sueworld2003 | February 12, 16:26 CET

When I told friends and family about Buffy being continued in a comicbook format, the superfans were thrilled that there would be more stories from the man himself. The casual fans of the show said it sounded interesting but that they probably will read my copy if I lend it to them.

This leads me to believe that if you know who Joss is, you can accept this as cannon. If you dont know who he is, you probably can't imagine how a comic can compare to a show with favorite actors.

I assume most folks that have found this board know who Joss is and what it means for him to say what is and isn't cannon.

alexreager | February 12, 16:39 CET

Even when he's retconned himself, as in the case of Buffy/Immortal, ahem.

In fairness to Joss, he actually posted about that very issue here a month or two back. In his opinion (I think), that one isn't retcon. Unless I'm, you know, wrong.

My view on this one is quite simple: Buffy The Vampire Slayer is Joss Whedon's world, which we party in occasionally.

[ edited by gossi on 2007-02-12 17:50 ]

gossi | February 12, 16:48 CET

It's strange to me. I don't really understand how the original creator's decision as to whether the comics are canon isn't enough for some folk. Presumably their issue is with the characters not being portrayed by the actors but what happens if Joss gets the chance to make some direct to DVD films which rely on plots and ideas originated in the comics ? Will the 'non-canon section' of the fandom judge those films to be non-canon too (because surely anything derived from non-canonical works must also be non-canon whether the actors are involved or not) ? Or will the comics suddenly become retroactively canonical when the films exist to 'validate' them ?

To be brutally honest I do wonder if this isn't just a case of our old friend anti-comics snobbery raising its head in some instances (though certainly not all).

Saje | February 12, 16:57 CET

I'm kinda confused about the retcon charge towards the Immortal/Buffy hookup. In the episode, we (along with Angel and Spike) heard information from Andrew and saw a blonde girl dancing from behind. That's it. The new information fits that exactly; there was no proof that must be explained away or scenes from Buffy's point of view that must be ignored.

And, since that relationship always bugged the heck out of me anyway, I read the new version with barely controlled glee...

Joss wrote it. I believe it. That settles it.

C. A. Bridges | February 12, 16:58 CET

It's canon to me since Joss said it is. For better or worse. So far it's for the better (Buffy/Immortal) but things can happen to my favorite characters that I wouldn't like and I'll accept it since it's canon.

But there are definitely fans out there that aren't open to the comics being canon (which is sort of understandable), and for some, if they don't like the direction the story takes they wouldn't consider it canon. There's all different views out there. Personally, the creator's say so means it's canon and a format change to comics doesn't affect my view of story's canon-ness.

[ edited by maje on 2007-02-12 18:04 ]

maje | February 12, 17:00 CET

At this point I really don't think the comic book will ever really compare to the series, just because of the obvious limitations. But just because that's true doesn't mean the comics aren't canon. It's Joss' world and it doesn't really matter whether you like the comic situation (or what is happening in it) or not. If Joss says they are canon, they are. End of story. I don't even see this as something to be debated.

mikejer | February 12, 17:02 CET

I'm not particularly fond of comics, but if the creator of the story says its part of the big story then there you go.

wouldestous | February 12, 17:15 CET

To back up C.A. Bridges, not just a blonde girl, but a blonde girl that we knew perfectly well was not Buffy (well, not SMG). So yeah, no retcon. Just cleverness.

jcs | February 12, 17:27 CET

Trouble is (and I know I haven't read an issue yet, I may love it for all I know) but to be honest most of the info and artworks that have been leaked so far I've positively disliked and to my mind seem far removed from what Buffy the TV series was actually about.

Some of us old fuddy duddy's may not like this new world full of armed up to the teeth 'baby slayers' and the story that they may bring with them. But we'll see, as I said it may be great.

And yes, in all fairness it is 'canon, as it was Joss's creation, but we as fans don't have to go along with this new view of the show if we don't want to. Fanfic is evidence of that fact.

Also, at the end of the day, those who either hate comics (which strangely enough as a long time comic collector I don't) won't buy them, whilst others may not even bee aware of them in the first place and so won't know anything of these new stories.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2007-02-12 19:12 ]

sueworld2003 | February 12, 17:51 CET

Our fandom has only spoken with one voice in the last few years and that was in regards to the campaign to get a sixth season for Angel. I love my Buffyverse fandom dearly but it is fractured and trying to get a consensus on anything is a sodding miracle. So I just accept it as it is. It's full of diverse opinions and groupings.

If some people see the comics as canon then that's great. Joss says it's canon and I go along with what the creator says. If others don't, well that's their decision and I got to respect it (even though I disagree with it). As long as we don't resort to nasty words and fisticuffs before dawn, I think we should be fine.

Simon | February 12, 18:02 CET

Words and fisticuffs before Dawn
might just lead to getting stepped on.

Lady Brick | February 12, 18:09 CET

Poor old Dawn.....:) *runs off before Simon can belt me*

sueworld2003 | February 12, 18:14 CET

Nah, there's no way i'm getting up that early, especially for fisticuffs.

... but we as fans don't have to go along with this new view of the show if we don't want to. Fanfic is evidence of that fact.

Well, you don't have to like it obviously but, to me at least, there's not a lot of choice about going along with it. Canon is canon. If canonical events conflict with fan-fic then surely the fan-fic is 'wrong' ?

For example, much as I might desperately want Wash to still be alive* (and I do) just thinking 'well, i'm not gonna go along with that bit' isn't going to get me very far. Worse luck ;(.


* in the entirely un-alive made up sense ;)

Saje | February 12, 18:22 CET

Oh lord, all sorts of fandoms run with the original source material and end up adapting it to fit their own views and needs. They then in turn protect those ideas and won't step away from them, whatever the creator says or does. That's how fandom works out there on the web.

But as I said it's easy to ignore the comics by just not reading them if someone so wishes.

At the end of the day the comic is just a comic, which most people out there who aren't 'hard core' fans won't know a jot about. They will have only heard about TV series, and that's about it.

After saying all this, I will of course be buying them! :)

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2007-02-12 19:36 ]

sueworld2003 | February 12, 18:34 CET

As Paul Cornell notes, the question of "canon" is all about authority. There is no canon without an authority to say what's in it, and what's not. If there is a canon, there's really no one but Joss to say what it's composed of.
I you want to decide what to include in your own "Buffy" universe, no one will stop you. But that universe isn't "canon", unless there's some authority I don't know about.

toast | February 12, 18:40 CET

Generally speaking, I see canon this way: There's canon, community canon, and personal canon.

(I get that technically this doesn't make sense, because really canon shuold be an "official" concept, but breaking it down this way helps discussing the question, I think.)

As an example, when Joss made Simon the personal rescuer of River in the movie, it contradicted what Simon told the crew in the series. Many fans adopted a sort of community canon that said Simon wasn't telling the crew the fully-true story because he had just met them. Later, Joss said he had adopted the same "fanwank", thereby making it official canon, not merely community canon.

Ultimately, people will pick and choose what branch of the storytelling makes personal or collective sense for them. That part I get.

The only part I have never gotten is when people try to argue that something is or isn't OFFICIAL canon, when it's usually pretty easy to determine that one.

theonetruebix | February 12, 18:42 CET

Y'know, I have always had trouble with the use of words such as "creator" when discussing Joss or other show nabobs, because the word has overtones suggesting that one cannot question a creator, or The Creator. This is my own thing, though. BUt when we refer to Joss as the creator, it makes it harder for anyone to question what he does. Just saying.

And having said that, when we speak of the comic as canon, I think what we are really saying is that the comic is supposed to be set in the same world as the series and will operate using the agreed upon history that we watched over 7 seasons. By calling it canon, we give it more power, when all it is is a code to let people know it is set in the world we are already familiar with and the characters are designed to be as we remember them. And then, of course, we are free to accept or not accept this new "canon." Entire worlds exist to serve the needs of the fans, from sites such as the Kittenboard, to Soulful Spike, Shadows and Light, Buffy Lives, etc. Yes, the fans on each have appropriated the characters for their own needs, but I see nothing wrong with that, nor do I see anything wrong with agreeing that the comic is canon or not agreeing that it is. It will be what it will be to each reader, and will serve different needs in each. For me, it will be a way to see how Joss envisioned these characters post-Chosen, and for that I am interested, as much as I am to see whether or not characters I love, such as Tara Maclay, may appear- even as we believe that canon says she cannot (or at least as the book series has made clear).

Whatever it is, it will be an interesting ride. :-)

Dana5140 | February 12, 18:46 CET

Joss Whedon is to Buffy/Angel/Firefly as George Lucas is to Star Wars as Gene Roddenberry is to Star Trek. When all is said and done what they (or their estate) say goes. As much as I might like some Star Wars games or books or what-have you George Lucas says it's not cannon so it's not. I don't like the "new" Star Wars movies but he says they are cannon so they are.

This has happened before in the other direction kind of. Bendis writes Ultimate Spider-Man. He also wrote the Ultimate Spider-Man game which is considered to be cannon, so I have to take it into account.

With Dr Who there is no one single creator I can think of which complicates the matter. Some places refuse to think of the 1996 TV movie Doctor as cannon and think the current Doctor is therefor #9 not #10.

war_machine | February 12, 18:50 CET

Does the word "canon" have any meaning outside of "official canon"? That's, you know, what the word means, no? If you start making any other kinds of rules about what's in and out, it's sort of like an attempt to limit peoples' imaginative use of the created world, isn't it?

toast | February 12, 18:55 CET

IMNSHO - You can question the creator all you want, but he's still the creator and if he says its canon its canon. You can certainly choose to believe things that aren't canon or choose to ignore things that are. Regardless, they are still (or still aren't) canon and in either case you are free to believe as you want, unshackled by what that bastard Joe Sweden (kidding, big purple) decides. And lets be clear, its not that the word creator that has overtones of no-questioning, that's a subtext that you bring or don't bring based on your pov. Or at least I don't view it as having those overtones, which is proof enough to me :)

zeitgeist | February 12, 19:00 CET

I think the canon issue is really split.I've seen all types of opinions.Everything from it's not canon since the actors aren't playing the roles to it's only canon if things happen in it that I like or agree with.I know some felt that if Angel and Spike don't have a big role or if they didn't appear at all,it can't be canon.I'm sure some feel that the IDW Angel line should be canon and are going to consider that canon.

Because it's a comic and not actually on-screen,people can create for themselves some more wiggle room on accepting what Joss does here and denying what they don't like.On-screen makes it seem more real.My opinion is pretty much what maje feels.Joss says this is canon so for better or worse,whatever happens here is canon to me.Thankfully so far,it's been for the better starting with Buffy/The Immortal.Just like with the shows though,if a plotline goes in a direction I don't like,I will still consider it canon.

As for The Immortal and Andrew stuff,I go back to the interview that Scott Allie did recently in the official Buffy magazine.



In this case,he's not really contradicting things but adding a new wrinkle to what we knew or rather what we thought we knew.Andrew still told Angel and Spike what he did in Damage and TGIQ.Angel and Spike still saw what they saw in TGIQ.It's just now we have this new piece of information from the BTVS side of the things.This new wrinkle.Andrew still told Angel and Spike what he did in Damage and TGIQ,BUT it wasn't 100% truthful.Angel and Spike still saw what they saw in TGIQ,BUT it wasn't really Buffy that they saw with The Immortal.It was a double.

[ edited by Buffyfantic on 2007-02-12 20:23 ]

Buffyfantic | February 12, 19:17 CET

What I'm looking forward to, is when, years down the line, people who became fans of the comic book start arguing that the TV series aren't canon.

WilliamTheB | February 12, 19:18 CET

To elaborate:

Also, the "what the creator says goes" argument falls into holes. I know we all want to disregard Star Trek V, but it got made, and Gene Roddenberry's calling it apocryphal doesn't convince me otherwise. Besides, Roddenberry stopped being the sole voice for Star Trek a long time before his death; it's not like Lucas or Whedon for Trek. If Roddenberry's estate suddenly declared that "Enterprise" is awful and so wasn't canon, well, too bad. The studio owns it now. It's not pretty, but monetary ownership may be the only way to determine canonity in an "official" manner.

I am going with the "creator" argument for "Buffy" because he has always been clearly *the* primary creative voice behind it, which falls aart in the "Trek" case, and I think it applies; it's still sort of a judgment call. Anyway, interpreting something as canon doesn't mean you have to like it, or accept it into your "personal canon," an even MORE fluid concept.

Discussion question: is Scarlett, the 1991 sequel to Gone With the Wind, which was "authorized" (I'm not sure by whom, but Wikipedia *says*...), canon, even though it came out more than 40 years after Margaret Mitchell died? And what are the differences between this and (again) "Enterprise," if any, that allow us to differentiate them?

I'd like responses also filled out in triplicate.


And also: (I can't shut up today) Joss' changing Buffy's story counts as a retcon, just as (as he himself said) making Spike be in love with Buffy from the start. Both are legitimate as far as I'm concerned in terms of canonity; they both make clear what the "real" story is. Of course, that doesn't address whether they're dramatically sound. Spike being in love with Buffy from the start fits so well with what has been previously established that it is. Buffy not being with the Immortal feels like a cheap way of getting out of the implications of her being with him. I don't mind all that much, and it's certainly not on the level of "It's okay that Superman destroyed the world, because it wasn't him!"

[ edited by WilliamTheB on 2007-02-12 20:31 ]

[ edited by WilliamTheB on 2007-02-12 20:33 ]

WilliamTheB | February 12, 19:29 CET

Re: Retcon...it's my understanding Joss initially meant for Buffy to be with the Immortal, then changed his mind. And he twisted it in a creative way so that it works. Therefore...retroactive continuity. Nothing bad about it, I happen to prefer the 'new' version.

From Wikipedia, the source of infinite knowledge: Retroactive continuity or retcon is the adding of new information to "historical" material, or deliberately changing previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.

I say that Joss' stuff fits the 'adding of new information to historical material'. Happens in comics all the time, from what I understand. "Oh, even though Jean Grey died, it wasn't the *real* Jean Grey, so it's all good."

[ edited by Rogue Slayer on 2007-02-12 20:32 ]

Rogue Slayer | February 12, 19:29 CET

This main issue I have with canon is that most fans seem to accept statements made by characters as canon, whereas I do not. For example, in Firefly, is it canon that there is a planet where the principle form of entertainment is juggling geese? or is it only canon that Wash claims there is such a planet? If a character says it, and it isn't contradicted, is it gospel, or is it only gospel that they said it?

I take the narrower view, recognising that in real life you cannot generally accept what people say at face value. And I am frankly flabbergasted that this outlook is in the minority.

Hence, I don't see any retcon or fanwank in Simon's rescue of River. And to give an other example, in the Matrix I have no problem with Morpheus giving Neo the highly implausible explanation about people being used as batteries, as Morpheus could have been misinformed or concealing the truth.

I just don't understand why fans are so gosh-darn trusting - especially in a Joss-verse, where nothing is what it seems.

AlanD | February 12, 19:39 CET

zg, I guess my point, which apparently did not come across well, is that even if Joss says it is canon, it only is if you want it to be. I'm not trying to state the obvious here, only trying to wrap my arms around the idea that this fictional universe is "real," a point brought up in the article we are commenting on. What makes it real? I guess this is why I like the idea of community canon versus authorial canon- yes, I do agree, if Joss says it's canon, well, by golly there is no one better to state that. But I also think that simply because he does, one is not obligated to accept that, whatever that non-acceptance means. To the kittens, for example, there is no Buffy after S5- whatever that means. I bring them up only as an extreme example, for they have no problem with the canon up to S6. At S6, they reject Joss's canon and substitute their own. But I can't really get my arms around this idea, about what it means and whether it is important. I just want good story telling personally. :-)

As to my comment about "creator," what I meant is that words have meaning and then they can have meta-meaning, and politicians, for example, use this all the time. We can change the terms of the debate simply by choosing the words we use. I meant no more than that and was mainly trying to raise a broader issue, not one specifically directed at this debate.

As to Buffy and The Immortal, I don't see that as a retcon, because we never really saw her in the scene and thus it might not be what it immediately seemed to be, as we are in process of finding out.

Dana5140 | February 12, 19:41 CET

I think if something is still actively going the what's on screen is canon, comics and books are nice, and if they fit in that's all nice and dandy, but it doesn't add anything to the show and is just a little extra for fans.

Of course some pieces just say "bugger that" and focus instead on writing a good story, regardless of continuity eg. Spike & Dru, if Spike had killed another slayer, we would have heard about it. Again I remember being puzzled about 7/8 years ago when I read a Star Trek novel, think it was "Federation" and it goes on about this noble, visionary Zephram Cochrane, before my Dad explained that at least in the Star Trek universe, TV/Movies = canon, books = not canon, and that's pretty much where I continue to stand on most things, unless we've been told otherwise.

It always impresses me how the Star Wars novels, despite all being written by various authors, have managed to build up this huge continuity that they all work within, but it seems that when the day comes that Lucas is desperate for a bit more cash and decides to do Episodes VII - IX, that'll all be thrown away, as he's apparently said he doesn't consider them canon.

When somethings been off the air or out of production for a while (like Star Wars, Buffy, Doctor Who) and then starts up again it becomes difficult, as they know full well that not everyone will have read all the other various bits that have been produced in the mean time, and it's much simpler for the sake of the majority of the audience to just carry on from where they last left off. It becomes more difficult the longer the show is off the air, as more and more officially licensed, yet possibly not officially canon material is published, the characters grow and develop through many more adventures, and yet when the show returns they're supposed to forget all of that, and go back to where they last left the characters on the TV. Though I do believe that should Joss ever get to produce more live action Buffy it'd probably be set after the upcoming comics, but I don't think this would be the same for other shows.

Still amazes me that even the canon of some of the stuff on the TV is contested, like how Spike went to Africa to get his soul, which has been confirmed by the actor, writers, creator, cameraman, and yet people still insist he went for a chipectomy, even so far as to that being included as the reason for his visit in the official episode guide.

Sorry for the long and ramblyness, but I think there's a point (or possibly points!) in there somewhere.



Despte the fact that this is one of the places where it's canonocity has been cleared up, as both the BBC and Russel T. Davies have said that the new episodes of Doctor Who carry on from the original 26 seasons and the TV movie.

It's the half human thing that does it I think, but as long as it's never mentioned again we can just assume it was specific to that regeneration, or that it's just something that is, and we don't need to go on about it, he considers himself more Time Lord than human.

Ghost Spike | February 12, 19:57 CET

Not got a problem with questioning Joss as creator (nor with calling him 'creator', that's a label I apply to people who, err, create things ;). But then i'm into questioning creators in general ;-).

By calling it canon, we give it more power, when all it is is a code to let people know it is set in the world we are already familiar with and the characters are designed to be as we remember them.

True, but for me 'canon' is also about what could happen afterwards. If the comics are canon then what that's really saying to me is that anything after the comics (in whichever medium) will have to continue as if the events as shown in the comics occurred (which is why although it's true the comics are 'just comics' it's also true that they're an official continuation of the story so that missing them is the same as missing part of a season as far as any future projects are concerned. It's up to the individual what they watch or read but they can't then say "Yeah, but that doesn't make sense" if the events make perfect sense given that you've read the comics).

That said, I reckon I find myself in a slightly inconsistent position since i've argued in the past that the creator's opinion isn't definitive regarding the interpretation of their work. Does deciding what's canon and what's not count as interpretation ? Or does the creator get definitive choice over which events can be said to have occurred in their work but not over how those events can be interpreted ?

(and yeah, AlanD, to me, if a character says it it's still just hearsay, otherwise we couldn't have nifty stuff like unreliable narrators but if we're actually shown an event directly - i.e. not as it's being related by a character - then it has actually happened and would need a true 'retcon' to undo. Or in other words, juggling geese, not certain. Crappy town where Jayne's a hero - no-matter how weird that may seem ;) - certain)

Saje | February 12, 19:58 CET

I'd say what is or isn't canon is up to the creator. Which really applies well to stories that have a single (main) creator. Then again, as a reader you can always choose for yourself what to ignore and what to accept. Just don't start claiming that your opinion is a true one that others should adhere to. For instance, I fully accept that 'Hannibal Rising' is technically canon, but personally I choose to complete ignore any aspect of it as having anything to do with 'Silence of the Lambs' Hannibal. But I know Thomas Harris wouldn't agree.

As for retcon, since when is it an ugly word? And why do people continue to make up new definitions for such terms? (I still can't believe what some people make of tems like 'deus ex machina' or 'jumping the shark') If this Immortal/Buffy thing isn't a retcon, then nothing ever is a retcon!

If a character dies and you bring them back to life, it's not a retcon. If a character dies and you write it so they never really died, then it's a retcon. (Like Joss retconned the crap out of Colossus' death on the X-Men. And since I never liked how Peter's death was handled, I was happy he did it!)

How good an idea a retcon is, and if people will like it are entirely separate issues. People were pissed at Marvel because the resurrection of Jean lessened the classic tragic ending of The Dark Phoenix Saga. But it was technically a 'good' retcon in that it retroactively fit continuity. (But clearly not the idea at the time of the original story!)

If Joss suddenly started writing that Dawn is really Buffy's sister and that she was never the Key, that wouldn't be a retcon, it would simply be a crude and illogical disonnect from continuity. (At Marvel and DC they're masters at this by now)

If Joss had intended at the time that the TGiQ Buffy wasn't really her, and clearly showed that to the viewer somehow, this wouldn't be a retcon, because this was always the idea.

But it WASN'T the idea at the time. He changed his mind recently, and it's technically a good fit with what was seen, (re: it doesn't counter it, it just re-exaplins it to be something different than we thought) so it's the perfect example of a retcon. And what's wrong with that? A retcon by itself is neither good nor bad. That depends entirely on what is done and how. This is well done, and most fans will enjoy it to boot.

[ edited by EdDantes on 2007-02-12 21:05 ]

EdDantes | February 12, 20:03 CET

OH, it's that quite simple but also quite complex subject of canonity again.

I hate to discuss canonity. Some canonity discussions can get even dirtier that shipping subjects, with some scary passionate fans around it.

I'll always stick with my take that there's always multiple takes on canonity. There's one that the general rule, most people (I said most, not all) accept as the canon. This "official" canon is what will appear in any basic handbook, though it got enough flaws and holes that is always open for discussion. And there's your personal canon, from whatever sources you'd like to take in. That personal take is the one that you're most satisfied with, that you even take in information that you might not agree with, give your own spin into it. It might even be sorta close to the "official" canon, but there's always a personal take into things.

After all, at the end of the day being a fan of something like Buffy, Angel, Star Trek, etc. is a very personal experience. It's so personal, that we take upon ourselves a certain amount ownership over the product, the story and characters, that we can be so passionate to say "be not" to something that the main creator of it said "be". That becomes even more complicated when you face multiple authorship like in Dr. Who's case delved in the blog post from this thread.

The change of medium do cause a lot of stress into this matter, because for some fans it is not only important who's telling the story, but also how this story is being told. And definetely live action to live action is a lot easier to accept than just printed paper, a lot of because the print, although in some ways, ambiguous, make it less real, less palpable.

Joss has been talking very clearly that this is going to be different, the Buffy we'll see in seaon 8 is and isn't the same we knew before, and the change of medium is a huge part of it. And as a result, part of tbe fandom will feel frustated, is not like everybody thinks the same way.

Numfar PTB | February 12, 20:06 CET

Re: Personal canon... I agree that pretty much every single fan in any fandom will have a slightly different view of the "truth" of the events in any series of work. I've always been a strong believer in Reader-response theory. Authorial intent can only go so far when your work is being read by someone who brings an entirely different perspective/set of beliefs and life experiences to the table. In fact, as long as it doesn't degenerate into shipping wars and canon firing, I've always loved seeing/participating in debates about different perspectives of a creative work.

But at the same time, it DOES annoy me when people get so wrapped up in their own view of a fictional world that they'll disregard something that is blatantly official canon, just because they don't agree with it. I think it's fine to disagree with the direction a creator chooses to steer their creation (see Star Wars prequels) but if your solution is to close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum the Sesame Street theme in an attempt to pretend it doesn't exist, you're delving a bit too close to delusion, IMO.

As much as these fictional worlds can mean to us, if we can't accept the fact that they have flaws and love them in spite (or even because) of them, or that some stories work best when they are fluid rather than set in stone for all of history, we're doing them and their creators a disservice.

[ edited by Lady Brick on 2007-02-12 21:42 ]

Lady Brick | February 12, 20:38 CET

Thank you Saje. This crystalized nicely my thoughts on canon.
And coming from a Catholic background, the thought of choosing whether to accept something as canon, when the creater says it is, boggles my mind a little. Even if I'm lapsed now.

Lioness | February 12, 20:38 CET

For me, it's simple. canon is whatever Joss says it is. The Buffyverse is his creation and what happens within it is up to him. Be that on television, in movies or in comic form. If Joss says that this is how the story actually goes then I'm not going to question.

I think sometimes the viewer gets such an emotional connection to a story or character that they start to blur the line of what their role in the storytelling process is. It's up to Joss to decide what is canon and what is not, as well as in what format the story should be told. All we have to do is sit back, watch and enjoy.

Now, we are free to stop watching (or reading, as the case may be). Nobody is forcing any of us to read these new stories. If we so choose we can let the story of Buffy end at the point the show went off the air. By the same logic, if you want to, you can also decide that you will only ever watch Buffy up to season five and pretend that the final two years and the Angel spinoff never happened. It's totally up to the individual viewer what part of the story they choose to enjoy.

So you can absolutely decide what part of the canon you will observe. What you can't do, as a fan, is decide what actually is canon. That is entirely in the hands of Joss. ;)

Demon-X | February 12, 20:38 CET

Hence, I don't see any retcon or fanwank in Simon's rescue of River.

Except that Joss himself stated, originally, that he simply contradicted the series when he wrote the opening of the movie. Only later did he decide the fanwank (a word he used) made it all work together after all.

So, if canon is what the authority says it is, then originally Joss outright said it was a contradiction, and then came to decide it didn't have to be.

So, in reality, there was a retcon/fanwank here.

theonetruebix | February 12, 20:38 CET

Wow this page got deep fast.
Season 8 is canon, as stated by Joss.Other writers from the show are onboard.It is canon.

The issue of canon is very weird, i remember reading an interview about an early stargate episode, that is not considered by the writers as canon, yet introduced a character that "returns" in a later episode.But if it wasn't canon, then surley the return of the character is the first time SG1 actually met said character.

[ edited by feigenbaum7 on 2007-02-12 21:42 ]

feigenbaum7 | February 12, 20:40 CET

"So, in reality, there was a retcon/fanwank here."

So would that be a fancon or a retwank?

Demon-X | February 12, 20:41 CET

I think sometimes the viewer gets such an emotional connection to a story or character that they start to blur the line of what their role in the storytelling process is.

Of course, there's also the fact that there is no set idea of what the reader's/viewer's role in the storytelling process IS. That's been debated in academic and critical circles for years. And everyone knows that those people are even crazier than fandoms.

EDIT: I really can't type today...

[ edited by Lady Brick on 2007-02-12 21:51 ]

Lady Brick | February 12, 20:50 CET

Roxtar, you and I reached essentially the same conclusion even though we ended up disagreeing with each other. :-) I am not sure it matters, given your argument, if we call it canon or not, if we are free to disregard it. If it is totally up to us to decide what to watch or not, that is, in essence, our canon. AS it is for the kittens up to S5 and then after, right? Who cares how we name that, canon or not? Man, I hope I am making sense here, because I know what I am trying to say but am not sure it is coming across well.

"I think sometimes the viewer gets such an emotional connection to a story or character that they start to blur the line of what their role in the storytelling process is." Um, what IS my role in the storytelling process? Is it to be a passive participant and interpret the story only in the way the writer intended? Or, linking to reader response theory, a la Lady Brick, do my own experiences, expectations, and interpretations mean nothing? If Joss says Buffy S7 was not a comment on the Bush adnministration and I read it that way, am I wrong? And what has this to do with canon anyway? :-)

Actually, I think there is a comment above that gets to the heart of this. It is canon vs. continuity. Are we really talking about canon, or are we really referring to the show having continuity? It makes more pragmatic sense to look at this as a continuity issue- the characters and the storylines are harmonius with their original tellings. Canon is just a word that we have given power to mean something, though I am not sure we know exactly what we mean when we use it. Canon is, apparently by definition, whatever Joss says it is- but what does Joss say it is, actually? Maybe if we can figure that out, we'll know better, because right now, all canon is, is the tale Joss tells minus our interpretation of it. Boy, my mind is getting warped with this discussion; someone, help me! :-)

Dana5140 | February 12, 20:54 CET

Or perhaps a retfanwankcon?

[ edited by feigenbaum7 on 2007-02-12 21:55 ]

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2007-02-12 22:10 ]

feigenbaum7 | February 12, 20:55 CET

Lady Brick, in a way, I see your point, but in this specific debate I think the viewer's role is very much an open and shut case.

We are watching the story. Joss is writing and creating the story. In my mind that leaves absolutely no doubt as to which party is allowed to decide how the story should go.

Again, we can choose what part of the canon story we want to enjoy, and ignore any part of it we don't especially enjoy. Only Joss can truly decide what the canon story is in the first place. Our choice is only in what we observe personally, not what is canon.

Demon-X | February 12, 21:02 CET

If Joss says its canon, its canon. Certainly there is also community canon or personal canon, but lets not muddy the waters too much. They are different beasts than canon itself. Canon (with no other words modifying it) is any story in any form that falls into official continuity, and that is whatever Joss says it is and only what Joss says it is. Personal and/or community canon are separate concepts. You can't argue with whether something is canon or not - you can choose not to accept it, which is different. In any case I think we actually agree for the most part and I wish I had more time to dive into a discussion on metatextuality and all manner of fun semantic-ness :) Always enjoy batting words about with you!

[ edited by zeitgeist on 2007-02-12 22:13 ]

zeitgeist | February 12, 21:07 CET

I'd say canon supersedes continuity (continuity in the comic book sense), since events in canon can alter continuity and different characters can have personal continuities. For example, in the first season of Angel, the events of "I Will Remember You" were erased from history, though Angel retained his memories of them. So they'd be part of Angel's continuity but not Buffy's, since for her they never happened.

(Of course, my interpretation of the word continuity might be off.)

ETA: Roxtar, I meant the role of the reader as interpreting what the events mean rather than what events actually happened... stuff like the "half-human" bit in the Doctor Who TV movie that was definitely said but was never explained and has thus been interpreted different ways.

[ edited by Lady Brick on 2007-02-12 22:16 ]

Lady Brick | February 12, 21:11 CET

Ed Dantes, I'm very confused. If Joss decides Dawn was never the Key that's not a retcon, but deciding the girl in TGIQ wasn't Buffy is? Wouldn't making Dawn not the Key be changing original intent as well?

And Saje, I think we can differentiate between what's canon and interpretation. I think until we see the planet of the geese jugglers we can't be sure there is one. Why? Because Wash said so and Wash is (was--damn you, Whedon!) a smart-ass. It makes perfect sense to interpret it as Wash being funny. It also makes sense to interpret it as an example of how absurd the 'verse is. It's just a matter of how it strikes the individual. But it's canon that Wash said it.

batmarlowe | February 12, 21:26 CET

Ed Dantes, I'm very confused. If Joss decides Dawn was never the Key that's not a retcon, but deciding the girl in TGIQ wasn't Buffy is? Wouldn't making Dawn not the Key be changing original intent as well?

I think, and Ed is free to correct me as he often does, that he meant if Joss started writing Dawn as though she was never the key, with no further explanation of the past, that would not be a retcon, it would be bad continuity. Like if he started writing Spike as a human, and writing as if he had been human the entire show. Not a retcon, just poor (atrocious, awful,etc) continuity.

Rogue Slayer | February 12, 21:55 CET

Hey, is Dawn canon, retcon or continuity? :-) Have fun! LOL.

ZG, indeed, I enjoy the discussion immensely; I only wish I had the language to describe my thoughts, but I'm in clinical research, not critical theory, more's the pity. I want to be one of those really dense academics areguing about hegemony, binaries, liminality, The Other, opppositions, deconstruction and whatnot. :-)

Anyway, a question. You say "You can't argue with whether something is canon or not - you can choose not to accept it, which is different." But if I don't accept it as canon, how is it still canon? If we cannot agree on a defintion of canon? (And listen, I'm a chiropractor, and we have this problem with this thing called subluxation- it is at the root of what we do, and we can't agree on a definition for it!).

Now, it might still be canon to you and to anyone who thinks that what Joss writes is canon, but if I say it is not canon, who is right? And, does this question make any sense at all? But maybe, you can describe what that difference you mention in the statement I quote above is.

Lady Brick, I've never been able to get my mind around the Oracles changing the world and taking back that day. If the day never happened, how could Angel have a memory of it? It never happened! I'm not sure this is a continuity issue, unless at some later point Buffy remembers it when she should nor be able to, etc...

Dana5140 | February 12, 21:57 CET

A reader saying "I don't think _____ is canon" is like a person saying "Pluto really IS a planet." They can say it all they want. The can even believe it. But they aren't the authority that has been established to make such decisions.

As for continuity after timeline alterations, there seems to be a difference between actual changes in the timeline (the Oracles erasing a day, Anyanka creating the Wishverse, Illyria slaughtering Team Angel in her time jumps) versus perceived changes due to altered memories and such (the monks creating Dawn, Cyvus Vail changing Conner's history.)

The first case seems to result in altered continuity where events cease to exist or are relegated to an alternate universe, though some characters (especially Angel) sometimes remember that they did in fact occur at one point. The second has an odd doubling effect where the original continuity is known and understood by the characters once the truth is revealed, yet the existence of the "false" continuity still has an effect on events (Dawn knowing Angel even though she was actually created after he left town, Conner's thankfully permanent personality change.)

EDIT: I really do know who the characters on these shows are...

[ edited by Lady Brick on 2007-02-12 23:19 ]

Lady Brick | February 12, 22:13 CET

Bingo, Lady Brick. It is so much more interesting (and to the point) to discuss these issues than it is to debate whether something is "canon" or not. Canon is what it is, and everything about that canon is entirely open to discussion.

toast | February 12, 22:27 CET

But but but, Lady Brick! Pluto is not a planet only by definition, not as a result of some set of facts per se. I mean, it was a planet, and then someone changed the definition and now it is not. But a lot of people still feel it is a planet, one being ascendant at present, so who's right? There are TWO competing authorities here, you know? So, maybe bad analogy, though I take your point. I am back to wondering who decides it is canon.

And again, if the Oracles changed things so that his day with Buffy never happened, it, uh, never happened. Never. No one should have any memory because it never occurred. Oh boy, I feel like I have fallen into a chronosynclastic infundibulum!

Dana5140 | February 12, 22:29 CET

When it comes to canon we should just be glad we're not Battlestar Galactica fandom!

technovamp | February 12, 22:31 CET

Dana-The very definition of canon includes it having been selected by an "authority". If there is a canon, the only conceivable authority to select it in this instance, is Joss.
If you don't want to accept his authority on this issue, then there just isn't a canon. Fine, no problem. But there's not some other thing that's a "canon" out there. You are, of course, free to pick and chose what you like, and criticize what you don't, or ignore it or whatever.

toast | February 12, 22:37 CET

Lady Brick - "ETA: Roxtar, I meant the role of the reader as interpreting what the events mean rather than what events actually happened... stuff like the "half-human" bit in the Doctor Who TV movie that was definitely said but was never explained and has thus been interpreted different ways."

I can't speak to the specifics of the example you gave because my knowledge of Doctor Who is pretty much limited to the fact he travels in time, lives in the TARDIS and that Billie Piper is hot. Beyond that, not a clue. Generally speaking however, I think you are talking more about interpretation of facts and assumptions of unknowns, rather than questioning what is canon or not.

To try and use your example to demonstrate my point, if the issue of whether or not the Doctor is half-human has been raised but left a mystery beyond that, then a fan is free to come up with his or her own theory as to what the truth is. They can agree or disagree with fellow fans, each with theories of their own, but all they are truly doing is creating their own ideas. They are not creating canon as they are not the ones who are in control of the destiny of the true Doctor Who storyline.

Now, if this half-human issue is ever clarified and the writers of the show clearly state what the facts are then that, and only that, will be canon. No matter how much a fan might like their own theories or storylines or how well they may fit the show continuity, that is all their ideas can be. Personal theory.

And Dana5140, Dawn is a canon retcon retroactively placed into continuity. ;)

Demon-X | February 12, 22:38 CET

This canon guy sure is raisin' a ruckus. C.A. Bridges said it best and with the fewest possible words.

"Joss wrote it. I believe it. That settles it. "

Can I get that on a bumper sticker?

skeezycheeses | February 12, 22:44 CET

I am sorry but I didn't read this whole discussion. I think if Joss says Buffy season 8 is canon than it is. I do have a question about something else:

Are the comic book Tales Of The Vampires and Tales Of The Slayers considered canon?

I know in most of the stories there it doesn't matter to us if they are canon, but some do, especially one that has Dracula and Xander in it.

urkonn | February 12, 22:44 CET

That probably is the case for some people, but I've been a huge comics fan all my life, and I won't consider the Season 8 comics canon. I may still enjoy them, the way I enjoy, say, the Doctor Who Big Finish audios (which I also don't consider canon, but for other reasons), but a big part of what I loved about Buffy was the cast, so I think something important is lost when you no longer have the actors' contribution to the finished product. Not to mention the music people, set designers, etc.

To use a different example, I don't have a problem accepting Greg Rucka's Queen and Country novels as part of Q&C canon, since the Q&C creative team is made up of Rucka and whatever artist is working on the comic at a given moment. But while Joss was the mastermind of Buffy, the show was the result of a huge collaborative process, and moving from a performing art to a medium without performers is a pretty major shift.

areacode212 | February 12, 22:45 CET

Dana5140: The International Astronomical Union is the official authority that decided that Pluto did not fit the specifications of a planet. If you don't agree with them, you aren't a "competing authority", you're just stubborn.

As for the Oracle thing, I've always looked at it this way. There is a universal timeline and a personal timeline. The universal timeline is a single set of linear events that is generally shown to be self-repairing (conflicting events erased or considered an "alternate universe") with the occasional instance of circular causality (as in the first Terminator movie.) A personal timeline is also a series of linear events as seen from the perspective of any particular person.

In the real world (and in most fiction), the universal and personal timelines are identical. When you get into stories involving time travel and alternate dimensions and such, the two timelines differ. The events the Oracles erased are no longer a part of the universal timeline or Buffy's timeline, but they are still a part of Angel's. To much of the universe, Angel may appear to be a certain age, but that doesn't take into account the time he spent in that hell dimension, his day with Buffy, his minutes or hours timejumping with Illyria, etc. In this case, his personal timeline from his birth to the present is quite a bit longer than the universe's for that same period of time.

Hope that makes sense!

Lady Brick | February 12, 22:53 CET

"That probably is the case for some people, but I've been a huge comics fan all my life, and I won't consider the Season 8 comics canon."

Again though, areacode212, and with all due respect, that isn't your call to make.

Joss has stated that this comic continues the story of the television show. He has made this comic canon. You can choose to ignore the comic, thereby ignoring this part of the canon story, but you can't decide whether or not it actually is canon.

It's like me suddenly deciding that black is white. I can tell myself all day that this is a fact and maybe eventually delude myself into truly believing it to be a fact, but it isn't a the truth and never will be. Telling yourself that the Buffy comics are not canon is the same deal, regardless of the fact that the change from television to comic format is an issue for you. It's simply not true.

Demon-X | February 12, 22:57 CET

I am firmly in the anything Joss says is canon is canon camp. If someone does not like Joss's story or chooses to ignore it than that is simply what they are doing. Finding similar examples from other shows or franchises are going to be difficult unless the creator of it is still alive and pretty much in control of it. (Did SG1 really air an episode of the regular series they say they don't consider canon? How very strange.)

"And again, if the Oracles changed things so that his day with Buffy never happened, it, uh, never happened. Never. No one should have any memory because it never occurred. Oh boy, I feel like I have fallen into a chronosynclastic infundibulum! "

My take is, if a bunch of monks can give 14 (?)years worth of memories about someone to everyone she would have ever come in contact with, those Oracles should be able to give Angel memories of one measly day that didn't happen. ;-)

"And Dana5140, Dawn is a canon retcon retroactively placed into continuity. ;)"

Hey! No she's not! ;-)

newcj | February 12, 23:05 CET

Wow, you guys are arguing 'original intent' like members of the Supreme Court discussing Congressional amendments to the Constitution (and BTW Congress usually intentionally leaves those vague in order to 1. get the bill passed 2. allow room for interpretation in the future). I'm not sure we can assume we know anyone's original intent. Okay, sure, Joss told us that he tried to write the comic (which hasn't even been published yet) so that Buffy had been dating the Immortal, but it wasn't working so he decided it would all work better with a retcon. But personally, from my POV, the weakest part of Angel's "The Girl in Question" was believing that that was Buffy, the girl who was dancing looked and moved nothing like Buffy. We only accepted that it was because Angel and Spike believed it. But they had lost their heads!
Oh, woe, now I'm doing it: arguing points that have been argued ad nauseum. Let me just say this: obviously saying 'canon', by definition, is recognition of an authority, and that authority is Joss. You can become a heretic and create your own canon but it is unlikely that anyone outside of your own sect will listen to you and follow you.

embers | February 12, 23:06 CET

I'm with Areacode. Buffy was a tv show, as such I regard the whole run as 'canon'. It's now going to be a comic and Joss himself has said that requires a different brand of storytelling. I personally don't much care for comics. I am therefore not planning to follow Buffy into that particular format. I suspect that the majority of viewers from the show will also not go the comic route. So when I consider what happened in the show I base it upon what I saw, not on things writers have said in interviews aimed to clarify what they meant to show and similarly not in comics. I shall continue to discuss the show I'm sure and I shall do that without following any of the comics and will regard any retcons with the same weight I did Joss interviews - interesting as far as intent goes - but they're not going to change my mind as to what I saw. My hope is that Joss will not feel the need to meddle with what already is out there so there aren't going to be a whole host of conflicts raised when people who have or haven't followed the comics try and discuss the show.

Question. When George Lucas re-edited some of the Star Wars films did everyone just accept the new version and pretend the previous one hadn't ever existed or did they see it for what it was, a change after the fact in the story because that was now the story the creator wanted to tell?

helcat | February 12, 23:27 CET

Regarding the Stargate thing, newcj, I'm assuming that the episode in question is the season six episode The Other Guys, which was told partly from the perspective of a secondary character who may or may not have given an accurate account of the details.

It is canon in the sense that the episodes events happened within the show continuity, the only debate is how much of what we saw was entirely true and not just the character's (Jay Felger) warped view of his own importance, if you get what I mean.

Think of it in the same way as the X-Files vampire episode Bad Blood. where we saw the episode's events told from the differing perspectives of both Mulder and Scully and how the details were biased in their own favour. Similar kind of idea as that.

Demon-X | February 12, 23:31 CET

In my opinion, original intent can and sometimes should go out the window when writers are expanding or continuing projects/universes. Times change, people change, stories change. Personally, I prefer retcons and reimaginings to gaping plot holes, stilted stories trapped within the borders of previous continuity, or dated worlds that aren't really relevant or interesting to readers anymore. In the end, it should be about creating the best current project you can rather than preserving every tiny detail of the previous status quo, which may or may not actually work anymore.

Lady Brick | February 12, 23:34 CET

Areacode212, I understand your thought on this. The actors mostly certainly brought something vital to the story.
But what if, in some world not ours, the success of the comics brought about a movie, with the original actors, that took place after the events of the comics and referred to those events?
Would the comics become canon in your mind? If belief in the movie events depended upon accepting that such and such happened, then how would you deal with it?

Lioness | February 12, 23:38 CET

I've never seen the new versions of the Star Wars movies (I didn't like the old ones so a few extra added scenes and effects aren't going to change much for me) but I was under the impression that the change was superficial and the story itself was unchanged. Just with some extra details added in. To me that is no different than one of the current Lost writers creating a new flashback scene for one of the characters. If it fits into the established story then nothing has changed. Just more history told.

I believe all Lucas did was improve on what was already canon, rather than directly change any established fact. To the best of my knowledge that is all Joss intends to do as well. A retcon is not an issue for me as long as it fits into what is already there. If it was then entire storytelling method used on Lost would be a major problem for me. ;)

EDIT: Excellent point, Lioness.

[ edited by Roxtar on 2007-02-13 00:42 ]

Demon-X | February 12, 23:39 CET

"I believe all Lucas did was improve on what was already canon, rather than directly change any established fact. "

I daresay you'd get some disagreement on that one. Beware of people screaming "Han shot first." ;-)

newcj | February 12, 23:48 CET

Modern technologies blur the definition of canon. In movies, is director's cut canon? In Blade Runner, is Harrison Ford a human (regular version) or an android (director's cut)?

Moscow Watcher | February 12, 23:49 CET

I love the Pluto analogy.

The reason Pluto isn't a planet is because, essentially, any sensible definition of planet either excludes Pluto, or includes other planetoids that have not previously been planets. So they picked the definition whereby none of them were. Pluto isn't a planet. Boom.

The only reasons I can see for people wanting Pluto to remain a planet are an irrational attachment to the idea of Pluto as a planet (I mean, I learned it was a planet when I was a kid and it's hard not to feel affection for the little guy, all cold and lonely out there), or an unwillingness, or reticence to accept new information as being *as valid* as the status quo. The latter makes sense, because if the scientific consensus on "What's out there" indicates that they were once wrong, how can we know that they aren't wrong now? And that they won't change their mind again? How can we be sure that they are right about Pluto?

Ultimately, well, we can't. I'm in engineering physics, I do experiments, I have courses in general relativity and quantum theory. I admit that what I actually "know" is very little; you sort of have to defer to authority on everything. If not an external authority (the scientific community, uh, Joss), then you have to defer to your own brain to ensure that your own senses are correct. Here’s an example: how much do you weigh? (No lying.) If you measure your weight, you better gosh darned trust that the scale is operating properly. If you try calibrating it yourself, you still have to assume that what ever you're using to calibrate it is the weight it says it is. And so on. And assuming that somehow, you go back to the standard used of all weights and measures and calibrate the device perfectly and eliminate every possible problem with the measurement, and you read off “150 lb,” can you absolutely trust that you're not hallucinating it?

So we can't really know anything with certainty. Pluto's planet status is based on deference to authority, or canon; which means we depend on the authority of, first of all, ourselves on accurately remembering this information about Pluto, and on the scientific community and literature on the subject.

Similarly, Joss can make mistakes. He does, in fact, and he sometimes contradicts himself. Maybe he'll make this comic series and then decide that none of it happened, and then we'll have debates about whether or not his decanonization is valid. Maybe Joss will be displaced as the primary authority on the Buffyverse. Maybe he never was. In that idea-realm where the actual Buffy universe exists, we essentially have to trust that the cameras or art panels or whatever it is that relays information to us about what "actually" happens there, just like we have to trust that the scientific community is right about Pluto. Or, maybe we don't, but that's in defiance of canon, as in what the primary authority on the subject tells us.

So let’s take an example. While I adore “Normal Again,” I cannot accept that Buffy was in a mental hospital before coming to Sunnydale. Or, at the very least, from where I’m sitting, the argument I saw in “Becoming, Part 2” between Buffy and Joyce does not fit with the idea of Buffy being in the hospital before. If Joyce had hitherto known about Buffy being in the hospital, the entire argument would have taken a different course, or at least had a mention of her being in the hospital. This is based on my understanding of human interactions. So it doesn’t make sense to me at all. So either “Becoming, Part 2” is wrong, or “Normal Again” is wrong, or my interpretation is wrong. Joss is behind the first two, directly or indirectly, but he is not infallible. Also, I am not infallible, and I can’t really “know” how people would react in this situation. I am not them, nor do I know everything about these characters. So what do I trust? Well, I could reject that part of “Normal Again” as false, but that’s me. What about canon?

Well, canon states that both episodes are true. But how can we really define that truth? Seriously here. In this idea-universe, there are cameras or something beaming down information to our television screens. “Becoming, Part 2” is pretty literal; all evidence suggests that what happens on screen “actually” happened. But “Normal Again” shifts between Buffy’s fantasy (we have a camera in her brain now too) and reality. So we know that the camera doesn’t necessarily reflect the physical reality of the Buffyverse idea reality, but can also reflect the idea reality of Buffy, who is contained within the idea reality. So we have to take it on faith that every scene we see that isn’t clearly a dream sequence is “actually” (i.e. physically) happening within the Buffyverse. But of course, if Joss later says “Oh, yeah, that episode was a dream,” does that become canon?

It comes back, too, to what someone else said about trusting what characters say. Putting aside the dream question, and assuming that all the “real-life” scenes in the Buffyverse “really happened” (i.e. within that Buffyverse reality), then all we know is that Joyce and Buffy had an argument about her slayerness where the hospital didn’t come up, and that later Buffy told Willow that she was in a mental hospital. Here’s where the fanwanking comes in. This is what we saw, but we’re only getting part of the story. Maybe Buffy is lying. (To what end? Dunno.) Maybe Buffy is hallucinating the memory of the hospital, because she’s on frakking drugs. Maybe Buffy did go to the hospital, but then Joyce and Buffy forgot about it before their argument in “Becoming, Part 2,” which is why it didn’t come up. (Maybe there was a forgetting spell?) Or maybe it’s the monks’ fault; maybe there is some reason why inserting Dawn into Buffy’s memory necessitated having Buffy go to a mental hospital for a week, so that it never really happened but Buffy remembers it. Or, you know, maybe Joyce repressed it like she repressed everything else. And of course we come back to my original point about me: that my judgment of whether or not this would come up isn’t necessarily correct. I could be coming to a wrong conclusion about what Buffy and Joyce are like, or what humans are like, from only seeing bits and pieces of the story.

Another quick one. Did Spike go to Africa to get his soul or his chip? Ignoring, for the sake of the argument, interviews, well, really, we don’t know. What we know is only what Spike said, and what the demon said, etc. So let’s have an even broader argument: how, pray tell, do we know that he got his soul anyway? We can’t “see” his soul, and we can’t rely, really, on what anyone “says,” nor can we rely on qualitative descriptions of how they act, absolutely. Or, more broadly, how do we even know that vampires are soulless, or that humans have souls? Because, uh, we’ve been told, and because they “act” like they have souls or don’t. But it comes down to how much we believe the characters, and how we interpret their actions. To my mind, there is nothing on screen, even (once again) ignoring the possibility that some of it could be a dream or a hallucination, to “prove” anything about vampires soullessness. Except maybe Joss saying so, if you’re willing to count that. Or is Joss really just another unreliable narrator?

P.S. I think the comics are *as canon* as canon can be. I also wasn't trying to start an argument about whether Spike went desiring a chip or a soul, mostly because it's been done before to death.

WilliamTheB | February 12, 23:52 CET

newcj, the episode from Stargate is "Hathor" from season 1.

feigenbaum7 | February 12, 23:58 CET

Oh man, Han totally shoots first ! ;-)

(the point stands though that Lucas actually altered facts that had previously been the case in the Star Wars universe. Kind of like Spielberg changing the guns in ET to walkie-talkies. TGiQ retcon only alters the perception of facts since we never know categorically that it's Buffy dancing and, coincidentally, since it wasn't actually SMG and didn't look much like her, the old appearance of the facts fits very nicely with the retcon)

To play Devil's advocate for a second Roxtar, I think Dana5140, areacode212 and others are saying that canon doesn't have any reality outside of people's acceptance of it (it is kind of circular in that Joss defines canon, which is whatever Joss defines ;).

It seems that the reason folk can get so worked up about this issue is that, daft as it sounds, it actually goes to the heart of people's fundamental attitude towards the world. Some see subjective experience as trumping objective, some see it the other way around. Broadly, if you see some (or all) concepts as having a reality outside of our perception of them, that there is an objective metric against which everything can (and should) be judged then you're gonna agree with the 'Joss defines canon' POV (canon is a real idea, with meaning, whether one 'believes' in it or not). If you think that some (or all) concepts only have the meaning we ascribe them then you're gonna be in the 'No-one gets to define canon for me, not even Joss, because why should his subjective experience be elevated above mine ?' camp.

To some, asking "But if I don't accept it as canon, how is it still canon ?" is a bit like asking "But if I don't accept it as a table, how is it still a table ?", to others there's a fundamental difference between things like tables and 'things' like the idea of canon.

It's kind of meaning of life stuff ;).

(I suspect, BTW, that the SG1 ep in question is 'Hathor' since some of the creators have said in interview they don't consider it to be canonical. Not sure exactly what it conflicts with later on - though I don't think hathor uses her pink 'men are putty in my hands' mist again, at least partly because it's a storytelling quagmire - and I sort of wonder if by 'non-canon' they just mean "We're embarrassed by how bad it was" ;)

Saje | February 12, 23:59 CET

Hmm. I think accepting canon is probably a leap of faith, faith in the writer/creator, as I think Gossi said above, and their world. While it's great to see so many good writers sparring with each, I think faith is getting lost in intellectual discussion. I can find no fault in Joss' world other than at times, okay, many times, he has upset my emotional applecart to the point I wanted to hunt him down and have some words. But ... I keep the faith. I'm not even a comics person, yet I will travel down the road that Joss sets out for me and I'll willingly call it canon. I trust him.

I haven't thought much about other shows, because what Joss has set forth in his world is so clear. It's certainly hard(er) to accept in other shows when new characters arrive that skew events and reality as you've come to know them or the actor who plays the lead changes. I certainly stopped accepting The X-Files plots as canon when Doggett and Reyes came on board, because that world just became absurd.

Tonya J | February 13, 00:00 CET

Roxtar- Re Dawn, canon, retcon and continuity: the simplest answer is always best. :-) Occams' razor and all that. with regard to authorial canon, who decided that there is a Western canon? What "authority" made the decision and who decided they were the authority? Now, I am just arguing the issue here, for in fact I am looking forward to the comic to see how "canon Joss" takes the tale, but I am hung up on the word- we sort have this agreement here that what Joss says is canon is canon, but you can disagree with it, eat it, play with it, or do whatever you want with it. So I keep getting hung up on what it means to be canon if we can do what we want with it. Seems a tautology in a way. Someone help me! :-)

Are Tales of the Vamps canon, and Tales of the Slayer? Well, by defintion here, only if Joss says they are. Now, what would be cool if Joss would stop writing Goners/Buffy/Runaways long enough to weight in on this... coughhintcough. Outside of the actual TV series, what is canon for Buffy?

LB, I know the IAU has redefined Pluto's status, but there are now dissident groups arguing the reverse. I guess if you have power, you can make the change in definition, for Pluto is the same as it ever was, to quote the Talking Heads. And time we redefine something we have to study its implication. I just taught a unit on the definition of death, which as you might imagine can be rather a significant defincition, and there are actually 4 definitons- heart/lung death, sould death, braind death, and neocortical death- and you can be dead in some of these definitions and not in others. So what is my point? Damned if I know! No, I think that we are trying to define canon here and because we lack consensus we are having this most interesting argument. And there comes the wife home and me to dinner. Back later.

Dana5140 | February 13, 00:03 CET

Because canon is not subjective, while personal or community canon are. Canon is objective and exists outside of how you choose to perceive it. The filters you put on canon are your personal canon, but canon itself is not changed. An object is not changed by the way you describe it, only the perception of that object is changed. Uh oh, I'm getting too far out there :) Canon does not depend on your thoughts/feelings to be canon. To put it another way:

"If there's no such thing as objective reality, why can't we quit our jobs and just imagine we won't have to pay the rent?"

zeitgeist | February 13, 00:09 CET

Just for the argument's sake: since Becoming, all the character's memories had been altered by monks who created Dawn. The new sets of memories include Buffy's being in mental hospital before.

Moscow Watcher | February 13, 00:13 CET

Still, in BtVS case canon is relative. BtVS has a mythical quality and all myths get tested by different interpretations.

We never read Homer's version of Iliad - we only know the text what had been put down on paper.

Imagine 100 years into the future after some global catastrophe all the modern technologies are gone and the only piece of Buffyverse that has survived is a printed copy of some fic (because it's on paper) describing BuffyWillowFaith threesome.

Moscow Watcher | February 13, 00:30 CET

Then we'd never know the actual Buffy canon. The point is though there would still be one (albeit one lost to time). It isn't relative, it is in fact exactly what Joss said it was (IMO ;). Note i'm not particularly talking about the interpretation of events in the Buffyverse (I don't think that's a necessary part of the Buffy canon) i'm only talking about the events themselves.

It's like saying "We can never truly know what happened during historical events". That may be the case but it doesn't mean there actually isn't a definitive version of those events, what happened did happen after all. It just means it's hard (or even impossible) to discover.

(also, only Buffy/Faith/Willow fan-fic survives ? Could be worse ;)

Saje | February 13, 00:43 CET

And if Joss changes his mind?

helcat | February 13, 00:47 CET

Then Pluto will be a planet again.

Lady Brick | February 13, 00:51 CET

Eurasia has always been the enemy.

Simon | February 13, 00:54 CET

I sidestep the issue by having "levels of canon." I put the show first, then then comics (if they were written by show writers), then the novels, etc. Things move up and down if I saw them on screen, or it was simply a character saying something. For example, in BtVS:S1E7, Angel says, "... I haven't fed on a living human being since that day." But, in other episodes, like Angel:S5E13, we see that Angel has not only fed on living human beings, he even made a new vampire. Well, people (living or undead) are metaphorical, they lie outright, they misremember. That's something to consider when pondering canon. I also tend to place less emphasis on what the author says about the work - the work speaks for itself.

And, yeah, somehow not hearing Hannigan's adorable nasal pout or Brendon's comedic timing will make the comics a lot less "real" to me. Anthony Head, subtly straightening up as he's about to deliver a rebuttal, watching Gellar set her face to "stony" when Buffy is about to take on a challenge, that's as much the show to me as the plot points and the dialogue.

[ edited by Ocular on 2007-02-13 02:04 ]

Ocular | February 13, 00:56 CET

Eurasia is on Pluto?

Lady Brick | February 13, 01:01 CET

Then we don't know the actual Iliad canon neither. Still we enjoy it. True mythology is created by people actively participating in the process.



Not exactly. Historical events are real. A comic, a TV show or a novel describe fictitious events. It's Joss vision vs somebody else's vision.

Maybe I have a different opinion on canon because the borders are more blurred in Russia. For decades Russian writers published censored versions of their novels. Then, after their deaths, the communist regime was over. New versions of the old novels emerged and were officially published. The authors can't approve or disprove them. Should we accept them as canon?

Moscow Watcher | February 13, 01:15 CET

So much resistence to accepting the somewhat narrow actual meaning of the word "canon" is strange. "Canon" doesn't mean "that which is meaningful to the individual" or "that which has greatest artistic merit," or "that which comports with continuity."
It just means what the recognized authority (when there is one) designates as the content. Sometimes the question of whether there is an authority is tricky, Not here.
That doesn't make any of this other stuff unimportant. But it sure confuses all these issues when they are framed as "What is the canon?"

toast | February 13, 01:18 CET

I go away for an hour an come back to a load of really excellent posts and comments. Where to begin?

Regarding the Star Wars issue, as I previously said, I'm really not a fan and so I've got no idea what the whole "Han shot first" deal is about. However, obviously I was mistaken in believing that Lucas hadn't changed any actual details from the original movies and stand corrected. Why he would do that is beyond me. Why contradict anything from a movie that is so well loved in it's original form. Improve, maybe, but change? I wouldn't have done so.

My solution? Don't watch either version. Farscape is way better.

Regarding the Stargate thing. I'd never heard that about the Hathor episode. I've heard endless theories about how true The Other Guys actually is (which is why I'd assumed that was what was being discussed) but Hathor never occured to me.

I'm going to have to assume that the writers are talking with tongue firmly in cheek about this. The episode clearly is part of canon continuity but, as Saje says above, is really terrible. Probably the worst episode before the direness that was early season three, which ironically began with the final appearance of Hathor. ;)

Finally, back to the topic at hand...

Saje - "To play Devil's advocate for a second Roxtar, I think Dana5140, areacode212 and others are saying that canon doesn't have any reality outside of people's acceptance of it (it is kind of circular in that Joss defines canon, which is whatever Joss defines ;)."

I do see where they are coming from, Saje but, as I tried to point out earlier, nothing in existence has any reality outside of people's acceptance of it. If you don't accept that a cat is a cat then to you it's not a cat. To the rest of the world though, it's still purring. ;)

I have to absolutely agree with zeitgeist. True canon is not subjective. Personal or community canon are just fancy ways of saying "I'll believe whatever the hell I want to believe, regardless of the fact the guy who wrote it told me otherwise".

Demon-X | February 13, 01:29 CET

I am beginning to think that the real problem comes down to people who refuse to read a comic book, and I am really wondering why. I can easily accept that they would prefer a TV show (Joss himself said in an interview that he misses having the involvement of the actors et al) but why is it such a hardship to enjoy the pretty comic book? Was it some aversion instilled by one's parents (kind of like how I can't really enjoy chewing gum?)?

embers | February 13, 01:49 CET

Heck, there are folks who prefer to believe everything post The Gift is non-canon, 'cos they don't like the direction it took. For me, if Joss says it, it is. However inconvenient for fic writers and shippers!

Gill | February 13, 01:49 CET

Well, I guess the comic books are canon, but considering a lot of people aren't going to read them, I don't really put it at the same level as the TV show. I sort of view it in the same way that Buffy the movie is canon.

Because even though the creator says "this is what happens," if it's not in the same format as the original fandom, I'm not sure if that counts. I don't know, though. I just know I wasn't particularly planning to read the comic books unless I find them somewhere offline, so it doesn't really matter to me.

fortunateizzi | February 13, 01:49 CET

This is, at the end of the day, an old argument, which is authorial intent vs. Viewer interpretation. I tend to fall on the viewer side of the euqation, but then I have this thing about authority to begin with; I don't like being told what I have to believe or think (in general terms, not here, mind you!). And I think that our interpretation fo what we see is as important as the thought the creator puts into it. If all that meant anything was what the creator meant, we would have no need to have debates like this; there would only be one interpretation, that being teh one Joss wanted us to have.

But let me muddy the waters for a moment. Consider canon in Buffy. Okay, what is it? Now, consider canon in Lost. What is that? Much harder ot figure out, because interpretation is everything in Lost. We have the actual scenes, which I guess comprise canon, and then we have the interpretation of what those scenes mean. For Buffy, canon, in this definition, is simply the show as it was presented, minus our interpretation of what those scenes mean. I don't really hold to the atomistic, reductionistic view that Williamthe B presented- this is moving more toward a philosophical interpretation of what cconstitutes reality, and I think that moves too far away from the ideas we are exploring here- worthy of debate, but perhaps a bit outside this issue, as it delves into metaphysics. But WilliamtheB also brings that issue of "show reality" back up, which the fellow on the blog also discussed with regard to Dr. Who (which I have never seen but I agree that the female lead is really hot).

Dana5140 | February 13, 01:52 CET

Dana5140: But now you're talking about interpretation, not canon. Two different things.

Lady Brick | February 13, 02:11 CET

Dana5140, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your point but I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at when you compare Buffy canon to Lost canon. To me, in both cases it comes down to whatever the writers say is canon therefore is canon.

The only difference between Buffy and Lost is in how the story is being presented. Buffy was a straight forward story (for the most part) whereas Lost is being told as a mystery. That leaves Lost open to a lot more speculation and fan theory until the answers are given by the writers but ultimately it still boils down to the only true canon elements being what the writers have stipulated as being true. All the fan discussion and theorizing in the world will never be canon, just speculation.

Demon-X | February 13, 02:13 CET

And now I see that Lady Brick beat me to my point. :)

Demon-X | February 13, 02:14 CET

I am beginning to think that the real problem comes down to people who refuse to read a comic book, and I am really wondering why.

Because I don't enjoy reading comics? I read classic Marvel comics as a child but only when there was nothing else about. Same way as I rarely watch cartoons, I just don't find the form particularly appealing. I accept that others find much to enjoy in them, and I don't for a minute want to imply that they are a 'lesser' art form in any way. I just don't find them a satisfying form myself. However, this isn't primarily to do with the fact that the continuation is in comic form but more that the continuation is not in televised form so I'd feel the same if this was a planned book.

As I see it the comics will be official canon, and the fans who read them can try and explain to the rest of us what plot points become clarified within the comics. However, if most fans don't read them there being canonical is almost irrelevant as the majority of people who followed Buffy will be completely ignorant of them.

helcat | February 13, 02:14 CET

I think people are confusing canon and continuity in some posts.

Every episode of the TV series Buffy is canon. Within the canon there are retcons and also things that just don't make sense. This doesn't effect whether or not the 144 episodes are part of CANON - it just means the continuity isn't strictly adhered to.

crossoverman | February 13, 02:33 CET

Helcat wrote:
"However, if most fans don't read them there being canonical is almost irrelevant as the majority of people who followed Buffy will be completely ignorant of them."
That seems like quite an assumption, that since you don't enjoy reading them you are assuming that most Buffy fans won't enjoy reading them? It seems to me that the response of people here at Whedonesque shows that most of us have followed Joss to Astonishing X-men, are preparing follow him to Runaways, and wouldn't consider skipping a single issue of Buffy's Season 8! In fact I expect the fame of Buffy to grown among young people who will start reading the comic books and get into the series via DVD (and by older people who will say to themselves "Jeph Loeb is writing an issue of this series?!". Personally I expect the comics to make Buffy more famous than she has ever been before.

embers | February 13, 02:53 CET

This is how entire religions begin. *g* Which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually the origin of the word and concept in question. I must agree with those who have said that canon is what an accepted authority has decreed canon to be. I realize I'm probably treading on thin ice here, but hear me out. Much like any typical religion, or non-religion, an authority establishes what is and is not canon. Non-acceptance in a certain canon, does not mean that it isn't canon for that belief system. It means that you have a differing belief system that you have accepted.

And lets face it, what is being debated here isn't the definition of canon, but whether one can or can not accept what an authority has established as canon. That may seem like a very fine line, but a line none-the-less.

Irishrose | February 13, 02:59 CET

I accept that the comic book is canon. I agree with Saje about something being canon being different from how fans interpret that canon. I'm sure there will be just as many arguments about what we see in the comics as there was over what we saw on the screen.

Despite the fact Joss has publicly stated Spike intentionally sought out his soul and wasn't tricked by Lurky, some fans still insist that's not what they saw on screen and they have Joss's persmission to trust the story, not the storyteller, and bring their own subtext to their interpretation.

Reddygirl | February 13, 03:15 CET

That seems like quite an assumption, that since you don't enjoy reading them you are assuming that most Buffy fans won't enjoy reading them?

No, I'm assuming that the comics won't sell in anything like the numbers that even the less popular seasons of Buffy were viewed by. My understanding is that comics these days don't really sell in the millions that's all. I agree some fans will start with the comics and that will be their inroad to the Buffyverse which is great.

Personally for