Oh our fandom will never agree on these issues. I don't think our fandom has ever agreed about anything. Well apart from trying to save Angel from cancellation. That was a nice unifying moment but apart from that, well never the twain shall meet. If we could take away the dreadful earnestness that plagues fandom and the "I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS SO WRONG" capslock angst as well then we would have a calmer, slightly boringer (yes it is a word) fandom.

As for canon, fanon etc. Well you can't lead a horse to water. So why force your views down other fans' throats. You're never going to change people's minds. Agree to disagree.

Simon | December 29, 19:12 CET

Interesting. But calling it "personal canon" is legitimizing it too much, I think. Someone could theoretically say that Frasier Crane got a sex change operation the day after the Cheers finale, then died in a tragic ball-bearing factory fire, therefore the entire run of the show Frasier never happened. Is that "personal canon" or just being a weirdo?

dingoes8 | December 29, 19:15 CET

The pull-quote here is a little misleading, because the article isn't saying that the author has nothing to do with what is canon. What they're saying is that things the author intended to put into a given work but didn't get the chance to (for example), aren't canon, because they're defining canon as being the actual produced or published work of the creator(s) in question.

theonetruebix | December 29, 19:20 CET

I enjoyed that article. I pretty much agreed until...



Couldn't agree with that less. What the author says IS canon, as it is their universe and their story. If Joss were to come out and say that, in "Chosen," Spike and Buffy DID (or did not, for that matter) have sex after that fade-out scene, then that would be canon. Season Eight is only canon because he says it is. The author's word being canon is an even bigger deal in the Harry Potter fandom, as JKR has done many interviews post-Harry Potter that changed the story as we know it. "Dumbledore is gay," for instance. That's canon. It was never (explictly) established in the 'source material,' but now it *has* to be accepted as canon.

Bad choice of words, because canon isn't about acceptance. It simply *is*. People can ignore it, but they don't have to accept it and they can't *reject* it, because canon--for me anyway--is the source material as well as the author's intent and anything they might have to add to the source material.

dingoes8, I agree about the "personal canon" thing. That's a whopper of a name to give fanon.

patxshand | December 29, 19:25 CET

So according to this author, Dumbledore isn't gay?

ETA: Whoops, didn't notice that I'd been beaten to that issue.

[ edited by jclemens on 2007-12-29 20:05 ]

jclemens | December 29, 20:04 CET

I think there's a fine line between "I really hated it that Joss killed off Wesley" and "I'm rejecting Wesley's death. He was really there with them in the alley at the end of NFA."

I can enjoy discussions with the first sort of people. The second create a two pronged reaction in me: 1) "What gives you the right to overrule the author?" and 2) "You do know it's just fiction, right?" The second sort of people, in any fandom--not just here--tend to be the ones who put off the uninitiated with their zealotry. I've seen such folks steer conversations about shows *with non-viewers* into their pet issue. Never had that done to me with any Joss shows, but the 'rabid' fandom put me off of B5 for quite a while.

jclemens | December 29, 20:18 CET

It is true that Wesley's death is hard to argue about, but I know people online who will insist to this day that Spike never intended to get his soul back (I'm not sure if they resented being 'fooled' by the bait & switch story telling, or they just can't believe that Spike could seek his soul). Obviously (oh God, I hope it is obvious) I'm not trying to reopen THAT debate here, but just saying that something can be in the produced shows that many viewers missed or refuse to see. Personally I thought that it was wicked obvious (in the final book)that Dumbledor was Gay.

embers | December 29, 20:31 CET

I think I agree with that article almost completely...

deird | December 29, 20:44 CET

I can see the difficulty in deeming that every word out of the author's mouth is "canon," as the writer articulates, when the author subsequently changes her mind. Nevertheless, I think certain strong statements - Dumbledore is the obvious example - have to be accepted, to avoid dissonance (for want of a better term).

Additionally, the conflict between the book canon and the movie canon is problematic - as a traditionalist, I maintain that Glorfindel helped Frodo at the Ford, and that no elves showed up at Helms Deep, but the movies now say otherwise. Unlike in the law, we don't have an obvious rule to tell us which version prevails.

A carefully written and interesting piece (that could itself be described as "personal canon," if we want to be mean. ;-)) "Simon says agree to disagree."

SoddingNancyTribe | December 29, 20:53 CET

I agree with with the author intent not being canon to an extent. It seems to me, if it's published, like it with Tolkien's appendix then it becomes canon. There are however exceptions, like with Dumbledore. I think there's no true clear cut answer.

geekerjoy34 | December 29, 21:00 CET

Dumbledore is gay," for instance. That's canon. It was never (explictly) established in the 'source material,' but now it *has* to be accepted as canon.

I have to agree with the author of this article: It wasn't stated in the books, so it is not canon. What the author says is not canon unless it is stated in the source material.

[Sidenote: Because Dumbledore's sexuality isn't addressed in the books, is doesn't mean the character isn't gay, or, for that matter, isn't straight/bi/etc. It means it doesn't matter.]

However, if there's something that can be interpreted in several ways, or something that wasn't fully revealed in the source material (e.g., what the letter Buffy left for Spike said in "Touched"), then that can be considered to be a "canonical interpretation," which still isn't the same thing as canon.

The big question with canon is always "What comprises the source material?" For the Buffy: Season 8 comic book series, we have Joss's word that it's canon, which most people seem to accept (and rightfully so). But things can be more tricky. Take the last few years of Doctor Who, for instance. The regular television episodes are obviously canon, and the books obviously are not. But what about the Attack of the Graske interactive mini-episode? The TARDISodes? The Inifinite Quest animated serialized story?

Invisible Green | December 29, 21:04 CET

Can't believe i'm getting into this one again ... OK, having met me, I kind of can ;).

What the author says IS canon, as it is their universe and their story. If Joss were to come out and say that, in "Chosen," Spike and Buffy DID (or did not, for that matter) have sex after that fade-out scene, then that would be canon.

It's a fine line but to me, what the author shows is canon, not what they say about what they show if you see what I mean. If Joss wrote a flashback issue of the comic that showed Buffy and Spike having sex then that's now canon, if he just says it (e.g. at a convention or whatever) then it's not. If he shows it and then says "Because Buffy felt sorry for him" (and there's no other evidence - e.g. dialogue, gestures etc. - to support that) then I think it's still just as valid to believe that it's e.g. because she loved him (even if that's not my own opinion).

In 'The Gift' Buffy makes a noble sacrifice (which is canon, it definitely happened), some people see that as partly her fulfilling the previously mentioned subconscious Slayer death wish but Joss (apparently) says it was purely altruistic. Well, why she did it is "only" his opinion I reckon, not necessarily definitive, what we're shown is consistent with both viewpoints (likewise Spike and the soul thing).

Dumbledore being gay is a tough one but I still think a reader is free to read it as him not being gay and not be being unreasonable. Personally i'll go with Jo Rowling since I think it's consistent with the text, adds an interesting dimension to his character (e.g. his, as it turned out, love affair with Grindelwald) and might be a positive role model (but I really wish she'd been more explicit about it within the books themselves).

Canon, basically, is the set of events depicted, everything else is personal opinion and interpretation (and doesn't, IMO, need any made up words - because we already made some up earlier ;).

Saje | December 29, 21:07 CET

Wait a minute.... Spike intended to get his soul back?

;o)

curlymynci | December 29, 21:10 CET

One More Term...
As readers of whedonverse fanfic, my friends and I have coined our own term, which we jokingly apply to any fanfic concept that is so contrary to canon, we wish we'd never come across it. We call it "Banon".

skreechowl | December 29, 21:24 CET

Nevertheless, I think certain strong statements - Dumbledore is the obvious example - have to be accepted, to avoid dissonance (for want of a better term).

Authorial intent is to canon as Ben is to Glory?

theonetruebix | December 29, 21:28 CET

There is the absolute truth and then there is interpretation.

I'm sorry for those so stubborn that they can't accept story decisions they don't like, but the author's word is final. It is their story. Emotional investment alone does not mean you, as a fan, have ownership of a story in any way, shape or form. The author wrote it. They wrote it to convey a message of their own shaping and of their own intention. Personal interpretation is one thing, but to discount the author's intentions is to discount the story itself. Personal interpretation may not discount its impact, mind you, but it does discount the intended meaning of the author.

It is the author's story, not yours. That they make it for you to enjoy is to your benefit, but that does not make it yours.

The absolute truth is whatever they say it is. Some authors wisely leave everything up to interpretation, and still others will say "here's how it is, but enjoy it how you like." I like that as much as the next fan, but the author's word is final nonetheless. It doesn't matter how much you love soulless Spike or how much you hate Wesley dying, it is not your story. You didn't write it. You have no say. You have only an interpretation that may please you, but may also be inaccurate. As Joss once said (paraphrase):

"I don't want to make a show people want to see, I want to make a show people need to see."

Ryan-RB | December 29, 21:33 CET

The phrase "personal canon" gives me hives. And that's all I'll say on that. Unless I think of something else to say.

Lady Brick | December 29, 21:33 CET

Oh Lord. Not this again. I agree with Simon. It's better to agree to disagree (especially when I'm right and you're all so wrong). :)

And wow, there's wank? And LJ scandel?

Color me shocked.

menomegirl | December 29, 21:38 CET

The important feature here is time. The longer we sit with a concept, the more it becomes a part of us - we come into possession of it. For the author, he/she comes into possession of it through the act of hashing-out/writing the piece. Fans feel that same affinity for a body of work. It speaks to them as if it were their own. Affinity overshoots appreciation into ownership. Great writing speaks to people on this level... hence the zealousness. The longer we sit with a story-thread the less likely we are to be accepting of new additions and alterations to the plot.

I think it's important to remember that we are all here because we support and believe in the work of one guy. This same guy stuck his neck out and put something really special out there. If we divide ourselves into camps and place restrictions on what Joss is or is not permitted to do with the story-lines, we are not being faithful to the spirit in which these works were originally created. It is a journey and yes we are all a part of it, but I name Joss the leader. Who's with me?

worldwithoutshrimp | December 29, 21:41 CET

Emotional investment alone does not mean you, as a fan, have ownership of a story in any way, shape or form.

I think this might be straying too far into different territory. The power of a work doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in that space between artist and audience. That space is created, in ways, by both parties.

(I mean, I do actually get your point, and it's a fair one. It just, I think, runs the risk of being viewed too broadly.)

theonetruebix | December 29, 21:41 CET

Well, I think we're really talking about the things left unsaid, the play in the joints, rather than disagreements with things said.

Saje, your take has the benefit of a clear line. It also has the benefit of supporting my own interpretation of Buffy's sacrifice in The Gift . . . what interests me about Dumbledore is whether Michael Gambon will choose in the final 2 movies to play the role subtly differently given what JKR has said or, more dramatically, whether the final 2 screenplays will incorporate Dumbledore's gayness in some fashion, thus making it movie canon.

I can't even begin to address b!x's comment and keep a straight face. Oh, and Banon is bloody brilliant, if you want my opinion. :-)

SoddingNancyTribe | December 29, 21:41 CET

I agree that "authorial intent" should be canon. The hurdle is that, as the article writer said, authors change their minds. If it hasn't appeared in the medium/media itself/themselves anything can happen in the next interview.

"Personal canon" is a bit silly as a general rule, except for fans who write AU fics and maintain an internal continuity, and who realize that's only their version. (stops typing to pat himself on the back with both hands since he does two universes) The other plausible meaning for it is "missing scene" stuff; none of us know for sure, and Joss hasn't said, whether Willow and Tara went all the way the first time before "New Moon Rising," at the end when the flame goes out, or possibly just before Tara runs into Oz in the hallway. Or where Harmony's maternal grandmother grew up. "Personal canon" = "my version of unspecifed backstory" is not particularly insane or arrogant, I'd say. But as kinda-sorta specified in the article, as someone who denies what was on screen, I agree is freaky.

DaddyCatALSO | December 29, 21:52 CET

Unless the long established meaning of the word "canon" is to be totally disregarded, it involves designation by an accepted authority. You can argue all you want about who that authority is, but what the author/ultimate decider releases to the public seems the logical choice, usually, for "canon" to me. Sometimes figuring out who that is is complex or impossible, sometimes not.

Doesn't mean you have to like it. But if folks need to have a "personal canon" which has any significance to anyone other than themselves, seems like they should go create something. Or give some sort of reason why their particular authority should be accepted. Otherwise, "personal canon" just means "I like this, and not that." Explaining why they like it, even very, very well, doesn't do the trick, because it's not about why they are authorities on the topic.

Oh why does this always get me?

[ edited by toast on 2007-12-29 22:02 ]

toast | December 29, 22:01 CET

I saw Daniel Radcliffe on 'Parkinson' SNT and he said that after Rowling's comments Gambon was camping it up on the set something terrible ;). Presumably off camera, as a joke but it'll be interesting to see if his choices change at all (or if, as you say, Rowling or the scriptwriter decide to make it clearer about e.g. Grindelwald).

I'm sorry for those so stubborn that they can't accept story decisions they don't like, but the author's word is final.

Yeah but here's the thing: if it doesn't appear in the story then it's not part of the story. If everything that does appear in the story is consistent with more than one viewpoint then those viewpoints are equally valid.

Art's a dialogue not a monologue, it's about creating something and then seeing what people make of it and interpretation is part of that process, part of the "creation" of art. Or in other words, if someone says something funny then it's funny, it doesn't matter if they intended it to be funny, they can't wave an "unfunny" wand and change reality.

Saje | December 29, 22:02 CET

What Simon said in the very first post. It's a fool's game and even here in the black there have been folks who made my blood pressure start to shoot through the roof because they thought their fanon was all that mattered.

The author's intent not being canon quote irked me too patxshand. Equally irksome was, Fans of comics have my sympathies. Oh ~~ sigh ~~ whatever. Silver-haired, in my rocking chair, someday in the distant future, I will still have lovely memories of how Joss' stories continued, thrived, and enriched my life, and the genre in which they did that won't matter a damn to me, and doesn't right now.

Tonya J | December 29, 22:10 CET

I agree 100% with Saje. (It would be great to have a "funny" wand, though, instead of an "unfunny" wand. TV would be so much better.)
But I can't believe I clicked on a thread with "canon" in the title. Jan. 1st is coming--I will be stronger in 2008, I will...

jcs | December 29, 22:22 CET

"I'm sorry for those so stubborn that they can't accept story decisions they don't like, but the author's word is final. It is their story. Emotional investment alone does not mean you, as a fan, have ownership of a story in any way, shape or form. The author wrote it. They wrote it to convey a message of their own shaping and of their own intention. Personal interpretation is one thing, but to discount the author's intentions is to discount the story itself. Personal interpretation may not discount its impact, mind you, but it does discount the intended meaning of the author.

It is the author's story, not yours. That they make it for you to enjoy is to your benefit, but that does not make it yours."

Oh, please. I can read the story any way I want, and the author can do nothing at all about it. I am so tired of the "author is artiste" argument. Just because they meant it to mean something does not mean I have to agree in my reading. That would imply only a single meaning to the entire Buffy arc; there would be no reason at all to discuss anything about the show because the only meaning the show could possible have is the meaning given to it by the various authors of the episodes- if they even have a specific meaning they are giving to it. Literary criticism as an academic discipline would not exist, because we could only read exactly what the author meant. There would only ever be ONE interpretation, end of the story. In fact, end of all stories. Deconstruction as a means of literary analysis would cease to exist, because there would no possible way to tease out binaries from the text, because those binaries were never intended by the author.

It is not that simple. I tend to agree with the blogger here. Canon is what we know from teh existing text. Authorial intent is what we glean from the author about that text. This would imply that Faith's last name is derived from authorial intent, because Lehane does not appear in the series. And really, who cares in this case. But in the case, say, of Tara's death, what Joss might have meant and how people interpreted it differ radically, and if we follow the argument above, we would have to tell everyone who felt that this was an invocation of the dead lesbian cliche that they are simply wrong- even though the evidence is there in front of their eyes, in that one lesbian died and the other went evil. Even though I do not believe Joss meant to invoke it, I cannot deny others the right to read the text in that way.

Well, this will get the focus off the "Emma Caulfield" thread in a big way! :-)

Dana5140 | December 29, 22:27 CET

That couldn't be less true. The point was that IF the author were to come out and say "this means ____" then THAT is canon. However, most authors leave a lot of their work open to interpretation. There is where discussion, debate, and literary analysis comes in. There will always be room for all of that because no author will take a work and say "this is what this means" for every single scene. However, when an author speaks on a certain aspect of their work to clear up or add to the meaning ("Spike MEANT to get his soul, end of story" / "Dumbledore is gay"), then that is--of course--canon. I don't see how any of that would put an end to analysis or debate.

patxshand | December 29, 22:36 CET

CorrolaryPlus we can't rule out the possibiltiy Joss could have fumbled into something he didn't mean.
I'm not sure if Lehane has appeared in the S-8 comics, or just in the RPG. (Regardless; I psoted a story before he announced that where I called her "Wyrofski" so by my own rules I'm stuck with it.)

DaddyCatALSO | December 29, 22:36 CET

That would imply only a single meaning to the entire Buffy arc; there would be no reason at all to discuss anything about the show because the only meaning the show could possible have is the meaning given to it by the various authors of the episodes

I don't think we're talking about meaning. We're talking about (to use yet another awkward term) fictional fact. "Tara died" is fact. What that death means might be a discussion, but it's not my impression that this is what is at issue here.

theonetruebix | December 29, 22:43 CET

Oh Dear. What a ....mess. :)

1) I really think you have to differentiate between Authorial
Intent and Canon. If you change something Canonical on screen,
in print, etc., you either generate a retcon or a flat out
contradiction. Not so with Authorial Intent. If that changes
there are no real consequences to canon (at least imnsho).
Call authorial intent a lesser canon if you will but it is
undeniably different.

2) I have no problem with a "personal canon" that does not
contradict things but seeks to add backstory, answer the "why"
questions" and so forth. So,imo, there needs to a different name
for cases of canon denial. And maybe a derogatory term; how
about apostate canon denier?

3) "The author's intent is final." Do you all who hold to this
mean that the author can't violate his or her own canon ? See
#1 above. Violating canon should always generate consequences,
bad ones!

JDL | December 29, 22:45 CET

Well the author is only human. We should give them some leeway.

Simon | December 29, 22:54 CET

I'm not sure if Lehane has appeared in the S-8 comics ...

I can't remember DaddyCatALSO but Lyonne, the pseudonym she uses in 'No Future for You' is just a posher, slightly enFrenchened version of Lehane (so it's nearly canon in my sense ;).

However, most authors leave a lot of their work open to interpretation. There is where discussion, debate, and literary analysis comes in.

True but the point is, it's all purely talking for the sake of talking if there's a single version that's "just true" out there (even if it's hard to get at in practice). It's like writing learned speculations about the digits of Pi.

What that death means might be a discussion, but it's not my impression that this is what is at issue here.

Nah bix, as patxshand said "The point was that IF the author were to come out and say "this means ____" then THAT is canon." so in other words the author's opinion about interpretation of events is also definitive (in his opinion).

Another thing to ponder, do all the writers know every previous writer's intent for every scene when they write scripts following on in the show's run ? Or do they merely write based on their own interpretation of those scenes ? And if so, what does that say about the (rightly) lauded character development in Buffy and Angel ? That it's built on lies and misreadings of "reality" ?

Saje | December 29, 23:09 CET

Tonya J said:



Tonya, I think you are misreading what the author said. I don't think she was saying that comics don't matter. She was simply pointing out how much harder it is for comic fans to decide on canon. Superman has been around for a very long time, and even if we ignore movies and tv shows and focus only on comics, I'm sure there are many stories that contradict each other. So fans of Superman comics aren't going to be coming to a canon consensus anytime soon. In comparison, Buffy fans have it easy. And we still can't agree.

theclynn | December 29, 23:15 CET

patxshand- that is not what Ryan-RB said that I quoted. Here is the key statement that was made: "The author wrote it. They wrote it to convey a message of their own shaping and of their own intention. Personal interpretation is one thing, but to discount the author's intentions is to discount the story itself."

The authors's "message" IS the interpretation, as I read what Ryan said. And I cannot disagree more. How we interpret, say, Moby Dick 150 years removed from the time it was written is going to radically differ from whatever message Melville might have intended. That is, after all, the entire point of reader-response theory, and we all know where I stand on that issue. :-) To me, authorial intent only goes so far. There is no text without a reader.

And bix, you know, Joss said that he killed Tara to create the Dark Willow character. He said that if Willow had been with Oz, it would have been Oz who died, but she was with Tara, so it was Tara. So, by his own admission, he went into this story arc- in advance!- intending to kill one lesbian to drive the other one evil. Which is, by definition, the evil-dead lesbian cliche, even though he says he never intended to invoke it- which simply seems contradictory, since that is specifically what the trope is and what it does. Neither he nor Marti Noxon should have been surprised by the outcry, since they basically admitted they planned it, even if not intended.

Dana5140 | December 29, 23:17 CET

I have no problem with this article. And anyone who reads comics understands "personal canon." Recent Spider-Man comics? Loved the "Aunt May finds out" sequence, hated the "Gwen and Norman Osbourne had secret kids" storyline, kinda liked him revealing his identity, flatly despise the upcoming "change reality so Pete and MJ never met" storyline. All by the same author, although apparently this last bit was under duress because Joe Quesada hates the married Peter Parker.

I like Spider-Man. I don't pretend that parts of his history never happened, or aren't canon. I just flatly ignore them, because in my personal opinion they lessen the total story. I treasure the high points, and try to forget that the clone of Gwen Stacy is still walking around. I don't force that opinion on anyone else or think that me version is any way official. Personal canon is just that. Personal.

C. A. Bridges | December 29, 23:22 CET

Wait Dana5140, you just admitted that Joss always intended to have Willow go evil, even when she was with Oz. Therefore he never intended to invoke anything regarding lesbians, he only intended the story line to affect Willow: sure she was a lesbian by that time, but you could just as easily say he was evoking the stereotype of all redheads have crazy short fuses and bad tempers.

And did I miss something? There is an Emma Caulfield thread?

embers | December 29, 23:33 CET

She was simply pointing out how much harder it is for comic fans to decide on canon.

Actually, in some ways comics canon is simpler - it just changes all the time. See ? Simple ;). Up until 1986 for instance, Superman could move frikkin' planets, John Byrne changed that. From 2003-2007 Clark Kent knew Lex Luthor in Smallville when they were young (as per 'Birthright') and also performed superheroic feats (largely abroad and anonymously) as himself, before he puts on the cape and tights. Since 'Infinite Crisis' that's all up in the air and (AFAIK) we currently don't really know much about Supes origins or early life (canonically) because they haven't written the new version yet.

Personally, i'm surprised it's taken film-makers so long to start "rebooting" film "franchises" (blerghhh, hate that word) because comics have been doing it for decades (it might be significant that it's mostly happened with movies adapted from comics though).

Anyway, all this is beating around the really important question on everyone's mind - is Deckard a replicant ?

*runs ;)*

Saje | December 29, 23:44 CET

I am with the "author's word is law" thing unless they say otherwise (again their word – retcon or not) ala "Angelus sired Spike" oh no "it was Drusilla", Angelus just sired him the mental way. Before this was established I was a solid member of Angelus Sire Spike Club (it had a better name, I'm sure of it!) *flashes her Spangel button* but that didn't ruin it much for us fans when Dru bit William… so much room for interpretation after that happened, I don't need to brandish the fanfics to prove it.

Season three of Gargoyles is not canon. Because Greg – the creator – says so… and makes sense seeing as they booted him and ran their own storyline (which sucked mud boots!) Only two guys had me reading Comics: Joss Whedon and Greg Weisman with their captivating storytelling and unique developing characters. Whedon is lucky to get the good artists… Weisman is slowly catching up.

Also, about Gargoyles, even before the comics came out, Greg was answering fan questions online. The questions he deemed okay to answer were taken as canon – and he hadn't put them to paper yet. So unless Lexington marries a female gargoyles in the following issues, canon via Greg's Mouth states that the little one is gay. *shrug* It's really not hard. I for one always suspected Dumbledore long ago… I do wish there was money involved in that bet I had with my brother *pout*

IMO, if something is stated plainly then that's it. If it's left for interpretation (I mean, did Jayne's parents really expect a boy? Did they run out of manly names? *g*) then I would be the first person to "analyze this"! (speaking of things unsaid, what really happened to Willy the Snitch? He should make an appearance…) again, that's my –little moi- opinion.

But hey, when fans disagree with the creators/writers, or feel there is something unsaid, that's where fan fiction comes in! ;) Besides, we all know when something provokes heated discussion then it's worth discussing which leads to the fact that it's really interesting and thought provoking. If I were an author, I would be giddy to see people this invested in something I've created – even if they wanted to negate me regarding it.

*is out of breath* Man, typing takes a toll... I've been out of practice.

Mirage | December 29, 23:47 CET

Is Deckard a replicant?

::Glares balefully at the stinking kettle of fish:: ... Didn't Ridley Scott just recently ... No, I will not stir. However, I've read compelling arguments on both sides of that fish kettle.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2007-12-29 23:52 ]

Tonya J | December 29, 23:51 CET

My point, embers, and I have one, is that no matter what Joss intended, it was read differently by a whole lot of people, and in that reading Joss admits to exactly what they claim, despite the fact that this was not how he wanted them to read it. It was still there, just waiting to be read by those who read it in that fashion- and Joss basically says that it was indeed there. Put another way, it does not matter what he intended; it was, quite obviously, read very different from what he intended. And that reading cannot simply be dismissed. "Hey, you readers, that pain you feel? Well, Joss didn't mean it!" Not gonna fly.

And yes, the Emma thread is about 150 posts long now, over the past day or so. Go read and get het up. :-)

Dana5140 | December 29, 23:59 CET

If there's a conflict between the "text" (oh noes, I'm using litcrit words, someone stop me) and authorial intent, I go with the text. If the author meant to do something, but it didn't make it to the text, then that's in some way a shortcoming. "I meant to use some more cheerful colors but I seem to be all out of yellow. Trust me, the painting is cheerful." Once that text is made, you've lost control of it. Which is sad, but it's also one of those things that made Big Bill so great - so many ways to read those plays. Sometimes the revelation of authorial intent can bring new meaning or enlighten mysteries, but I draw the line at actual conflicts.

And I've always had one argument against Deckard being a replicant - he was kind of a creampuff compared to all of the other replicants. Roy Batty, sure, designed to be tough. But even the basic pleasure model would have wiped the walls with him had he been disarmed and she hadn't been in a mood to show off. Were Deckard really a replicant designed to think he's just a cop who "retires skinjobs," I'd expect him to be at least as durable as Roy. Instead, he is nearly dead by the end of the film. And had Roy not reached his expiration date, Deckard would have been toast. That's a spot where the revealed authorial intent bothers me - I can't make it jibe with what would be a reasonable thing to do, make a replicant-hunting replicant strong enough to do the job. Enough scrapes and scuffs so that it wouldn't suspect what it really was, but certainly not anything as fragile as a human.

Ocular | December 30, 00:14 CET

Mirage, well, in my just-this-instant-created fanon, Jayne's parents were big John Wayne fans (the old movies now exist as holograms) and couldn't decide between John or Wayne, thought middle names were for fancy folks, and decided to name him both: J(ohn-W)ayne! :)

I stand open to being corrected by anybody who worked on "Firefly," including office temps :)

Shapenew | December 30, 00:20 CET

Well, let me say this. That's quite an excellent argument, Ocular, and similar to one of my friend's against the Deckard as Replicant thesis. It just seems extremely odd that now, or whenever it was I read it recently, that Ridley comes out what, 25 years after the fact, saying "that's what I always meant him to be." ? Sorry, it just doesn't hold water with me. I don't mind surmising, arguing, theorizing over things, comparing notes, but when the name-calling starts ("Oh! It should be so obvious he was a replicant [implied message: you idiot]), that like Saje, I just want to "run" and also hide and never encounter any fandom, anywhere, ever again. It starts to kill the pleasure that I had in a particular piece of art.

[ edited by Tonya J on 2007-12-30 00:35 ]

Tonya J | December 30, 00:34 CET

Tonya- does your argument also apply to Roqwling letting everyone know she saw Dumbledore as gay, after the book series was already complete?

Dana5140 | December 30, 00:38 CET

Honestly? I must not have read the last book the way other people did and I consider myself to be pretty intuitive. While I found the Harry Potter series delightful, I got no sense of the teachers as being particularly sexual beings at all, the stories there more to serve Harry's journey. The parents and relatives seemed to open up in the last few books to include the fact that Harry and his friends were fast growing up, but I guess Dumbledore simply remained Harry's father figure and I read no more into his backstory than one of dedicated teacher to children because of what he'd done himself in the past, mistakes he'd made. Does it bother me? Not really. Do I consider it canon? If she says so. But I'm not invested that much in HP, not like a film that means as much to me as Blade Runner does.

It's pretty jarring to have that fact come out so much later in BR's history. That puts me in the position of being a hypocrite, which I don't like, because I do believe in authorial intent (in BR's case though, it doesn't make narrative sense. I think even Mr. Spock would agree it's illogical). But I think someone upstream said creators can change their minds. And maybe they just do it for effect, as well. I don't know.

ETA: Here's the Wired interview with Ridley Scott if anyone wants to read it: Q & A

[ edited by Tonya J on 2007-12-30 01:26 ]

Tonya J | December 30, 00:52 CET

"Tonya- does your argument also apply to Rowling letting everyone know she saw Dumbledore as gay, after the book series was already complete?"

In this case, I'd say that a) I think Dumbledore's sexuality is not canon, but b) that doesn't mean he's straight in the books or movies, either. It was never established either way, and wasn't relevant to the events. It may be relevant to your perception of his motivations, but that's not canon, either.
In this case I'd say that authorial intent carries the weight of canon and I'll think of him as gay forever more, but if it ain't in the text it ain't canon to me. I'd also say I don't worry about it too much, and worries about canon don't affect my enjoyment of material.

[ edited by C. A. Bridges on 2007-12-30 01:45 ]

C. A. Bridges | December 30, 01:45 CET

Well, if it helps anyone's mind to rest easier, no one agrees about what's officially included, or authorial intent of Canon in the big C meaning of the word either.

barboo | December 30, 01:45 CET

Okay, this is starting to crack me up! When did we ever misunderstood one another? Yeah, another issue tossed in the mix. Just another issue.

Madhatter | December 30, 02:07 CET

THe whole canon in comics issue is what stops me from reading some of the bigger titles. With Angel,Buffy and Firefly...we have canon. We have there on screen and now in print exactly what happened. No alternate canon ways that Liam got vamped into Angelus. No alternate canon ways that Faith and Buffy met. No alternate canon ways that Mal and Zoe were there at the Battle of Serenity.

I honestly don't know how comic readers do it. How many alternate origin stories *are* there now for Batman,Superman,Spiderman etc. When does it just become a joke in that regard?I prefer a story that has a clear Beginning - Middle and End. No:
"oh crap Peter Parker would be 59 now if we keep telling stories....what can we do...hmmm...lets go back and tell *another* version of how he became Spiderman."

Yawn.

I dearly dearly hope that never happens to Angel or Buffy.

angeliclestat | December 30, 02:21 CET

I'd never thought that Ridley Scott had read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. After reading the linked interview - thanks, TonyaJ - I don't think he read the first 32 pages, either. Maybe he read some coverage. I love Blade Runner, but it's not the same story at all. Scott's, IMO, ret-conning of the movie story makes me wonder about a lot of things.

If we're going to discuss movie canon v. comics or prose fiction canon, should the director necessarily be considered the author of the movie?

dreamlogic | December 30, 02:37 CET

The true author of BR was Philip K Dick who wrote the story "Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sleep". Ridley Scott wasn't even the
Screenwriter of the movie and he's canon ? ::Snort::

JDL | December 30, 03:04 CET

I am firmly in the 'author's intent is the word of law' camp. I used to get 'Jossed' all the time when tiny nuances of the story were later revealed as 'canon'. That didn't make fanfic versions of the story real, not even those I'd written myself. (And yes, my writing probably COULD be described as 'Banon'!)

Sage asked
That would be impossible! But I think that the story breaking process for Buffy/Angel was pretty comprehensive, and since Joss had final script approval for his shows he would often tweak lines as needed.
I doubt this is the case on a lot of other shows, though. Hence the glaring plot holes and character inconsistencies that, thankfully, were very few and far between in the Jossverse.

And just for you all to ponder- if someone with no net, no TV and no knowledge of any JK Rowling interviews picks up a copy of a 'Harry Potter' book, is Dumbledore still gay to them?

missb | December 30, 03:16 CET

Buffy didn't jump no shark. And if a shark was leapt, then it was promptly leapt back again. I'm not even sure I understand what that term means, even after visiting the reference point for all truth: Wikipedia.

I wouldn't have thought "canon" upset anyone until hinted at by some in this thread. I guess this is my first instance of rubbing up against it in a conscious kind of way.

I think pieces of art are open to interpretation by audience and creator. But such a statement is ill. It seems to me "canon" is, as noted earlier, that facts of the fiction. Interpretation by author or audience is not fact. And I'm glad its not. I quite enjoy a good debate - why would it cause strife?

Will I accept Scott's interpretation of Deckard if he pushes for a rigid solution to whether Deckard's a replicant? I won't. It doesn't match what I saw. He can make a new film if he likes and that film will be canon unto itself. It will be a different artistic creation. He has license to do that. It won't be one of my favorite films but that's okay.

I mean, I wrote off "Highlander Two: Whateveritwascalled" because it attempted to destroy a piece of artwork I rather liked. The canon of the sequel is canon unto itself. It can't be viral and retrofit the canon of the first one, unless I accept that it does. But I won't because in this arbitrary land (of canonizing) I can draw the line in the sand where it best suits me. It suits me to draw it thus and so I do. Highlander and Highlander2 are different pieces of art and I can clearly point to it and say "that's a different piece of art." So I'm free to enjoy one canon and not another.

I seem to say "thanks" a lot but I'm not going to stop. Thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts.

RhaegarTargaryen | December 30, 03:19 CET

I think that's venturing into the category this blogger referred to as "personal canon." As far as actual Canon, viewer/reader acceptance is irrelevant. Canon is canon is canon. It is, as you said, the fact of the universe. For instance, one can say that "Serenity" is a separate canon from "Firefly" and that Wash is, "in real life" still kickin' and hanging around with Mal. But it doesn't change the fact that Serenity IS canon in the Firefly universe and that Wash is dead.

Someone can choose to ignore a work, but to say "I don't consider this canon because I don't like it" goes against what canon IS.

patxshand | December 30, 03:34 CET

JDL, good point about Scott. I think it's because he presents himself as the authority on that particular project. And this opens up yet another doorway into canonical thinking: When a studio buys (edit) book rights and then a resulting screenplay, doesn't the director then fashion the film from their own vision of what it ultimately will be? Meaning they can use or not use what pieces of the screenplay they wish or give it what meaning they wish to fit their directorial vision? Like RhaegarTargaryen points out, "it doesn't match what I saw."

[ edited by Tonya J on 2007-12-30 04:17 ]

[ edited by Tonya J on 2007-12-30 04:21 ]

Tonya J | December 30, 03:39 CET

Well said, Patxshand. I don't claim to be able to tell Orson Scott Card, Frank Herbert, or Roger Zelazny what to do with their works, which would be especially hard with two of them dead, but I DO tell people "X is an excellent work, but I wished I would have never read Y (the sequel)" where X { Ender's Game, Dune, Nine Princes in Amber } and Y { Xenocide, God Emperor of Dune, Trumps of Doom }

Just because a work of fiction is a follow-on to something else I've experienced and enjoyed, doesn't mean it adds to the enjoyment.

jclemens | December 30, 03:44 CET

CA Bridges, you say: "In this case, I'd say that a) I think Dumbledore's sexuality is not canon." Therefore, I assume you must agree that it is not canon that Faith's last name is Lehane. Because it ain't in the text.

Tonya, you say: "Do I consider it canon? If she says so. But I'm not invested that much in HP." Which is to the issue at hand. In your case, it does not matter; you did not read him that way when you read the book and/or saw the movie- but hey, there was authorial intent about his sexuality that was later revealed. It's there, despite the fact that you pay no attention to it.

I am not savvy on Blade Runner. But what comes to mind to me is the revisionist movie version of The Scarlet Letter, the one that starred Demi Moore. The one which showed Hester Prynne masturbating in the bath. That is not in the book, of course, and it is not authorial intent, since Hawthorne has no such scene in the book. It is a directorial decision by the modern filmmaker. So I see this as a corollary to the arguments people are debating about Ridley Scott's comment about whether Dekker was a replicant, and what we can draw from Dick's novel.

Dana5140 | December 30, 03:49 CET

missb, I can only repeat that when I read the last book I thought it was very clear that Dumbledor was Gay, and when I was finished reading I went online to find a friend in Greece joking about how Dumbledor loved Grimwald. We were only surprised that JKR came out with a public announcement, not at all surprised by what she said.

But obviously not everyone reads the book (or any views any source material) the same way. Dumbledor's infatuation and single minded devotion would have made him suspect to anyone who knew him at the time (IMO), but then there were people watching Willow and Tara fall in love in BtVS S4 who didn't want to believe that Willow was Gay either.

embers | December 30, 03:57 CET

Dana, it's a sticky wicket in many ways, I admit. I have long railed against film versions that dramatically alter a novel's "canon." But I have also had to come to see that they are two different entities. And in fairness to Philip Dick, I don't remember whether Deckard was a replicant in the book; not alluded to, spelled out as part of the narrative. That would be very different than Scott in the interview I linked, pointing out all the details now, that support the assertion he says he always had that many of us did not read the film as being about.

Tonya J | December 30, 04:05 CET

This canon talk is so post-modern, it's annoying.
Author intent is canon, but then again it's not because everything is up to the viewer/reader to interpret anyway they want. This is true up to a point, but then this crap just seems to go around in circles.
I suppose it is subjective, but to me I consider canon as being something Joss admits as being so... otherwise the stories wouldn't loose their shinyness. Plus we'd have a lot of crap Buffy books and other comics I'd cringe at, (well some of them anyway).
Oi and the shark jumping crap is just another subjective thing. :p Sometimes I think the best ever Buffy moment was in Becoming, but it changes a lot... Buffy is always 'becoming' something else.

alexa | December 30, 04:18 CET

At the end of the day, it's all make-believe. Nothing in fiction actually happens. But when you allow yourself to be entertained by a story, you accept this fictional world. If you're reading a novel and want to stop halfway through, then the story is over for you and you never have to re-enter the world. No one will stop you. But that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the story of that world exists, as the author wrote it, and is in that book. The novel didn't end when you stopped reading it... you just didn't finish it.

So if someone wanted to stop following the story of Buffy after season 5, that's totally within their rights. But that doesn't change the fact that, in this fictional world, Buffy comes back to life, Spike gets his soul, Tara dies, slayers get empowered, etc. That stuff happened in the fictional world, so it is canon. If a person didn't like it and doesn't want to ever watch those seasons again, I'm not going to make them. But for them to say "That stuff never happened" doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't create a personal canon or anything. It's just wrong, because it did happen. I don't understand why they can't leave it at "I don't like those seasons and don't want to watch them again".

I hated the movie Sideways, but I'm not going to be like, "That movie Sideways? Yeah, it never happened."

dingoes8 | December 30, 04:32 CET

Surely it is only the text that can be canon. Intent cannot be fully known, even by the author. If there is something unstated and open to interpretation, there is always room for discussion. Of course, the author may have a lot of light to shed on that discussion, if s/he chooses to discuss it.

But where there is one clear authority on what comprises the text, then we can say what the canon is. That is the authorized text, and what happened in it. Not what some character in it said happened, but what the viewer can observe. Cause characters can, of course, lie or be self-deceived.

Luckily, for the most part in the Whedonverses, we have one obvious person to tell us comprises the canonical text. So we can get right down to our business of appreciating, interpreting and evaluating all that great stuff.

toast | December 30, 04:38 CET

Gwen and Norman Osborne had secret kids?

I'm a Doctor Who fan. Canon is a timey whimey stuff kinda thing to me.

I do think that different media have their own canon. In Buffy for example, there's the movie canon that is similar but different from the TV show canon. I think there's a separate canon in the comics, which I just don't accept as part of the series canon, cause it ain't TV. I do accept the official 'season eight' and 'season five' as the comic book canon (as opposed to the old Darkhorse comics).

Authorial intent becomes a little wobblier when you aren't talking about a book, because the author's vision isn't the only one on screen. There's also the director's interpretion and the actors' interpretations, all of which go to creating the finished product.

But we're talking about fiction here, anyway, not the history of Julius Caesar. Discussing canon is fun (and apparently somewhat devisive) but it isn't exactly 'real'. It's a little easier to discuss the concept in a series with an auteur showrunner (like Joss, or Chris Carter). Doctor Who had a myriad of showrunners, and writers, and contradictions. Fans of The Doctor still get their knickers in a twist over canon. Perhaps that's one thing that makes us fans, and not just viewers.

redeem147 | December 30, 04:43 CET

I should add that whether something is canon or not doesn't matter that much to me. I do get annoyed when an author makes a choice (or worse, flatly contradicts something previously stated) that, to me, lessens the story, but I wouldn't say it's not canon. I can't; I'm not the authority.

I can, however, make the choice to continue reading/watching/whatever, or what to personally accept. So I skip big chunks of Spider-Man. So I forget the fact that the Star Wars prequels ever happened or that Han ever shot second. So I try to accept that Simon rescued river personally, even though it seemed pretty clear to me in the series that he did not. I understand why Joss made that choice and it was right for the movie, for the drama, but his rescue -- and his new knowledge of her psychic abilities -- makes many of his actions in the show seem odd or criminally stupid. Still canon, wouldn't argue that it isn't. But it's one reason I watch the shows over and over and only occasionally watch the movie.

That's where the personal canon fits in.

(Faith's last name? No clue. Haven't followed the controversy, don't much care.)

C. A. Bridges | December 30, 04:57 CET

There are obviously numerous gray areas here, but IMO to say that that "author intent is not canon" is insane troll logic. I agree to a certain extent with Saje that Art's a dialog, not a monologue ... but only to an extent. There has to be a base line of "author's intent" beyond which you can't mess with a story without subverting the author's creation beyond any degree of reasonable recognition.

For instance: if fans of Shakespeare decide they don't like the ending of Romeo and Juliet, they can't just say "oh, they didn't really die, the effects of the poison wore off soon enough to save the day" and give that point of view some sort of validity beyond "fan wank". A term that seems really weird when applied to Shakespeare, but it makes my point. You can discuss endlessly the circumstances that led to the tragedy, the social climate of the time and place, whether or not it still has relevance in the modern western world, etc. But you cannot arbitrarily state that they didn't die, simply because you didn't want them to. The author's intent was that they died. Therefore their deaths are canon, therefore canon = author's intent.

I agree with dingoes8 that the very term "personal canon, is legitimizing it too much". Personal interpretation, certainly, in areas that are open to interpretation. But not in areas where the author has clearly stared his/her intent.
For example, once Joss stated that Spike's intention was getting his soul back, that became canon. Even though there was a huge "mislead" in the episodes leading up to that happening, it is clearly stated as the author's intent. This doesn't mean that we can't endlessly discuss Spike's motivation. Was it only the obvious, the hope of wining Buffy's love? (or breaking down the barriers she'd put up because of her fear of her true feelings, even that is open to interpretation).
Or did Spike have ulterior motives (a desire to be as 'special' as Angel?, a more general desire to become something more than evil, as he'd acquired a taste for fighting in the side of good?),and so on. My point being, accepting authors intent as canon does not mean shutting down discussion of interpretation.
My two cents, for the moment :)

Shey | December 30, 05:00 CET

But what I really wanna know is... are Nina's boobs canon now or not?

(oh I'm going straight to hell I know, but I couldn't help it... sorry.)

In all seriousness though, I agree 150% with just about every word Saje said above. Ta.

Haunt | December 30, 05:10 CET

Han Solo shot first in the original movie. Authorial intent and canon.
In the special edition, Han shoots second. The author made the change, clearly authorial intent. But fans refused to accept it as canon, even though the obvious authority stated it as such, because it changed the character (and the coolness of the scene).
In the last version, Han shoots at the same time as his opponent. Again, changed by the author in response to the fan outcry. This one is accepted by some fans, not accepted by others. Lucas prefers the second one.

So which one is canon? The third one, since later versions supercede the previous ones, but it's not perfectly satisfying to the fans or the author. So we have canon )he shot at the same time), authorial intent (he shot last) and personal canon (he shot first). And everyone is vaguely unsatisified.

C. A. Bridges | December 30, 05:12 CET

And in fairness to Philip Dick, I don't remember whether Deckard was a replicant in the book; not alluded to,

In fairness, you allow the novel to exist. Sorry if I sound a little pissy. But the novel is a much greater work. If you can't remember if Deckard was a replicant or not, you didn't read the book.

dreamlogic | December 30, 05:15 CET

Another point: I believe that when you're talking about a film adaptation of a book, it's a whole different discussion. It's an obvious fact that if you've read a book and loved it, they make a film of it and you go to see that film, you'd better go with an open mind, or you're going to cut yourself off from any possibility of enjoying the film.
You may love or hate the changes that are made, or see the changes as interesting enough that you can enjoy either version. But changes there will be, that's just a fact.

So in these cases, the "canon = author's intent" argument acquires a whole separate dimension. Because when an author sells the rights to a book to film makers, they accept the fact that there will be changes to their work, in the film version. If the author has enough clout, they may be able to have the contract drawn up in such a way that limits what changes can be made. Or as in the case of Phillip K. Dick, they may be too dead to have a say.
So then it becomes a matter of, do you accept the "author's intent as canon" argument as relevant only to the book, but give another definition of canon to the film version, which would be (in the case of Blade Runner), Ridley Scott's canon? Not saying that in all film adaptations, it's the director who calls these shots. But in this specific case, I think it's pretty clear that the guy calling the shots ;) was without a doubt Ridley Scott.
OK, any brains exploding yet? We on this marvelous board are what I think if as "stimulus junkies", which is why I love it so much.

Shey | December 30, 05:23 CET

There is a misunderstanding of what it means to be canon and what authorial intent is in both shey's post above, and alexa's a few posts above; They conflate canon with intent, and I think it is generally agreed that canon is the facts that can be seen in the reading- for example, that Tara was shot by Warren- and authorial intent is what the author reveals to us about what facts we see- that Faith, for example, has a last name and it is Lehane. It is incorrect to say that Shakespeare's authorial iontent was that Romoe and Juliet die; in fact, we know that this is canon, because it happened- but we do not know WHY WS wrote the play that way, what he intended by their deaths. And I amke this obvious point because I think we have to be clear on our definitions, which is where this thread started, in that the blogger actually made this distinction, and rather nicely said.

Shey says" "For example, once Joss stated that Spike's intention was getting his soul back, that became canon." Well, no. It is canon THAT Spike got his soul back, but it is not clear from the text that he meant to get his soul back. That is what remains open to our discussions. That Joss later says yes, he meant for Spike to get his soul back indicates his authorial intent. My reader-response to that is to say, I agree. But I could have equally said, I do not. Canon is the facts, ma'am, nothing but the facts.

But what happens when canon collides? I think specifically of Warren appearing in Buffy S8 comic, that Amy saved him just before he would have died; thus, it would be impossible for The First Evil to portray him back in S7. I know that Joss has admitted this as a mistake. But it still bothers me nonetheless, because it is canon and cannot be canon. What if Joss had not admitted the mistake? How could we possibly interpret what is impossible according to actual canon? What then?

Dana5140 | December 30, 05:23 CET

I read Dick's novel many, many, many years ago as a teenager. Until the movie came out I'd totally forgotten it, and the movie is my main reference point. And yes, it is a pissy way to react to an innocent statement on my part.

Tonya J | December 30, 05:24 CET

[This comment has SPOILERS for all of BTVS and ATS and the Battlestar Galactica movie "Razor."]

Dana5140 said,



I have to disagree. And fwiw I'm a lesbian. Joss regularly rips our hearts out; sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. I think Wesley's death was as traumatic and heartbreaking as Tara's, and we've seen other characters turn evil as a result of a romantic or sexual encounter--most notably Angel (who, IMO, is bi). I think Joss treated Willow and Tara's relationship marvelously throughout the series. He didn't make a big deal about them being lesbians. Willow's friends were unsurprisingly surprised at first, but then Willow and Tara were simply another couple among the group. I thought he created a really interesting chosen family with Buffy, her sister, her best friend and said best friend's lesbian lover living in the same house.

When Joss had Xander back out of his wedding in order to have Anya return to demonhood, what cliché was he evoking there? The evil heterosexual male and Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? What stereotype was he evoking when he killed Fred to give us Illyria? And it was heartbreaking again when he dies and we see how much Illyria is in love w/ him but can't express it unless she "lies" to him--takes on Fred's appearance, demeanor, and personality.

I think the evil lesbian cliché is much more evident in the recent Battlestar Galactica movie, "Razor." And Ron Moore talks about it in his commentary, and how he definitely was concerned about it and aware of it, but he thought it was necessary to help develop Cain's character and explain why, as we'd already seen on the series, her hatred of Gina is so intense and she ordered her rape and torture by her guards and interrogators. And it struck me as soon as I watched the movie that I wished he has at least included a positive portrayal of homosexuality. I understood why it was necessary for Cain's character, but isolated like that, it left a bad taste in my mouth. I wish he had balanced it.

Joss, OTOH, is constantly wrenching our hearts around and putting a character in an extreme situation to bring out some aspect of character development he wants to explore. Often that involves sex--like the effects of Buffy and Riley's unstoppable sexual energy in "Where the Wild Things Are."

In the Buffyverse relationships, love, and sex often lead to destructive effects whether the characters are straight or queer. Just b/c the evil, dead, f*cked up lesbian cliché exists, does that mean there can never be an evil, dead, and/or f*cked up lesbian in a movie or TV show while there are plenty of evil, dead, and/or f*cked up heterosexuals? Homosexuality is no guarantee of pureness. Some lesbians act in as cruel and callous ways as some straights when dumping a lover, for instance. Can we never show that happening in a movie or on TV b/c we're afraid of evoking the stereotypes about queers? Or can we just treat our characters as complex human beings regardless of sexual orientation? And sometimes you need a a really heavy-duty catalyst to bring out an aspect of a character. I cried when Tara died, just as I cried when Wes was dying and Illyria asks "Do you want me to lie to you now?" and declares her love for him in Fred's form. That's Joss. I see nothing wrong w/ how he handled Tara's death and Willow's over-the-top freak-out. We already saw how willing she was to use dark magick to bring Buffy back, and how much she pressured her friends when they expressed doubts, and how much info she w/held from them about the nature of the spell. If anything, the catalyst for Willow turning evil was Buffy's death. Tara's death just sent her completely over the edge that she had been approaching anyway.

[ edited by astarte59 on 2007-12-30 05:31 ]

astarte59 | December 30, 05:28 CET

Astarte59, nice post. I like your point about the initial catalyst for Willow turning evil being Buffy's death. It's certainly what pushes her strongly into dark magic. We'd already seen her willingness to approach that edge with helping Dawn along in bringing back Joyce after *her* death. Sure a lot of death in BtVS.

So, all, is it canon that Angel saw Buffy for the first time in the pilot ("I thought you'd be bigger" or whatever exactly it was that he said to her implied he'd never seen her before) or that he saw her at the point when she was called still at her old high school, holding her heart in her hands?

Is it canon that Simon hired the best people possible to rescue River, or that he went in himself like Zorro and spirited her away?

barboo | December 30, 06:07 CET

So many posts over this topic! Wow. I still don't get it.

TamaraC | December 30, 06:18 CET

Fire bad. Tree pretty.

SugarFalls | December 30, 06:21 CET

Dana5140 said,



I agree absolutely, and this is really well-put. In the case of Dumbledore, one could make the argument that she's clarifying something that was a very strong subtext in HP7. But, still, it was a subtext and open to interpretation regardless of what she said. For political reasons, I'm glad she said it, and in the public way she said it, but it ain't canon.

Sometimes I've read things authors have said about their own works that make no sense at all based on the words in the text itself. I think a lot of unconscious stuff goes on when someone is writing. I've had people point out things to me in my fanfic that I'd done, and I think, "Cool! I'm smarter than I thought I was." :-) Or I'll write a story w/ one main theme in mind and realize a few years later I was writing about something else altogether--sometimes working out an issue of my own w/out realizing it. Other times I deliberately write something to work out issues of my own. But that's really beside the point. Canon is the text and not what anyone says about it; that's interpretation, and authors can interpret or misinterpret their own work.

Now w/ TV and movies, intent becomes a really complicated issue b/c they're collaborative media. You have the writer, and the director, and the actors, and they may all have different subtexts, different canons in their heads. I once interviewed John de Lancie ("Q" on Star Trek: TNG, DS9, and VOY), and he said that the writers usually gave him crap (or something like that; he's pretty Q-like :-) ), and then he would "bend" it into his own reading of his character whom he was always trying to make more malevolent. FWIW given my Battlestar Galactica comment in my last post, JdL said that Ron Moore was the only writer who really understood Q's character, and he did write what I think was the best Q episode, "Tapestry." I was also lucky enough to be able to interview Moore, and he told me that all the writers "assumed that Q was in love with Picard and wanted him to become a Q," but never made that explicit in an episode. I think there was a very strong subtext of Q's attraction to Picard, and the actors' chemistry helped bring it out. Or having a direction in a script saying that Q will be sitting on Picard's bed, and the actors decide to play it w/ Q lying in bed w/ Picard. I would actually argue that Q's feelings about Picard are sooooooooo close to maintext canon in some episodes, it's a matter of just reading the lines literally, not interpreting them. In "Qpid," Q is in Picard's bedroom, and Picard is wearing the skimpiest, most open little shorty pj's. :-) Q is talking to him about his (Picard's) girlfriend Vash and says, "She's found a vulnerability in you, a vulnerability I've been looking for for years. If I'd known better, I would have appeared as a woman." So what Moore said was a subtextual assumption for the writers came out pretty explicitly in that episode; I don't know if that line was in the script, got rewritten during shooting, or was improvised by JdL. But now it's canon.

I remember the outcry about the infamous "Gabdrag" in the "Bitter Suite" episode of Xena Warrior Princess. Many, many fans argued that it was out of character for Xena. Still it's canon. The good thing about fanfic is that if you don't like where canon goes, you can write an alternate timeline or universe in which things you found "wrong" never happened. For me, fanfic is a form of interpretation of canon, but most readers of my stories would doubt that since my characters are almost always kinky and much darker than we see onscreen most of the time. But my own reading of what I see onscreen, like Giles' occasional Ripper eruptions, tell me that a possible reading of the character is very dark. He can be caring and paternal and tweedy and awkward, but I see an underlying streak of violence, cruelty, and ruthless competence.

My reading of Picard was that he was both kinky and a sub and that he would have had gay experiences in his wild college days (when I was teaching and came out to my students the first day of each term, I was always surprised at how many straight male students I got to know who eventually confessed that they had had gay experiences in the past). I was sure Picard would be a sub b/c he's a control freak, he has an unbelievable load of responsibility, he has to be "on" and in control whenever he's around his crew, and as a result he would find it hugely liberating to surrender control in the bedroom, but not to any of his crew, but to Q. That's interpretation, taking canon and extrapolating from it just as I'd interpret a poem. Other interpretations are equally valid and can make really interesting fic, and it's cool to think, "Oh, yeah, it does work to see the character that way."

In real life, there's a whole lot the people you work with have no clue about in your private life. There are things you do that many of your friends don't know about. Or some friends, but not others. Canon gives us a ton of material to work with, but we can play with it in our own interpretations and say well, this is how I see him when he gets home from the office.

And all that is groovy as long as we don't make the mistake of assuming or insisting that our particular reading is the "right" one. Even an author's extra-textual reading isn't necessarily the "right" one. It can be justified by canon, like when Joss said in the commentary of one of the ATS DVD's that of course Angel and Spike would have had sex in their past. To me that's a "Duh" comment; I assume the same. But another viewer could look at the same episodes, same transcripts, same direction, same performances and see something different. And I would disagree, but I wouldn't say that person was "wrong."

astarte59 | December 30, 06:33 CET

I read Dick's novel many, many, many years ago as a teenager. Until the movie came out I'd totally forgotten it, and the movie is my main reference point. And yes, it is a pissy way to react to an innocent statement on my part.

I'm sorry for that. When you get (even) older, you may find that the art works that have stuck with you through the stages of your life become even more meaningful when you've made fun of them. And then gone back and seen more meaning.

[ edited by dreamlogic on 2007-12-30 07:13 ]

dreamlogic | December 30, 06:34 CET

Of course if you WANT to believe in the creator's canon then you make excuses (or I do). I always figured that in Simon's presentation of the rescue of River he was being modest about his involvement, and he considered that the guys he hired get the credit for creating the plan and helping him to get in and out. Of course I also thought that Warren had actually died for a heartbeat (enough to allow the First to take his form) while Amy was able to grab him before he was totally brain dead (allowing her to keep him alive albeit skinless). Just because Joss admits to making a mistake is no reason for me to concede that he did (or is his saying he made a mistake canon now? He only said it in the letters to the editor section).

Willow going dark had been so beautifully foreshadowed in her resentment of Faith 'sharing her people', and her coming close to cursing Oz for cheating on her, that I expected her to lose it when she lost her true love. I really felt that this had been established as her individual personality, it had been earned over many seasons, and wasn't just some cheap way of turning her into the Big Bad for season six.

embers | December 30, 06:34 CET

My outcry to my husband in the kitchen as I have been reading this thread: "Oh, no, they are bringing the evil-dead lesbian cliché into the Canon/Fanon debate."

My Husband: "What does Bruce Campbell have to do with it?"

;)

Zannadoo | December 30, 07:21 CET

Just as all dimensions will collapse into one with the Key, so do all Whedonesque debates eventually fold into one. In addition to the two that Zannadoo references, we've also had Spike's soul, Ben and Glory, Han shooting first, and the dastardly jumping of the shark.

Just so long as it all remains copacetic.

SoddingNancyTribe | December 30, 07:43 CET

As long as River is made of chocolate . . .

Zannadoo | December 30, 07:53 CET

My take on canon has always been mercenary, which is to say: I only consider the distinction when I'm being paid to. And in every such case, the definition has been slightly different, usually informed by slightly different intent on the part of the rightsholder (and, when it comes down to brass tacks, the rightsholder has that right, among others ...)

I think the author of this particular article (which was very thought-provoking and readable, btw) has chosen his own "personal canon of what canon means," but that's about all there can ever be.

Ghalev | December 30, 08:04 CET

I think it's important to distinguish between the two kinds of authorial intent: what facts the author intended to place into the story which he never did (Faith's last name is Lehane) and what meaning the author intended there to be within the story (Buffy killed herself for purely noble reasons). If a distinction is to be made between the former and canon, it is only because the author can change his mind about such facts since he did not already write them within the story. As for the latter kind of authorial intent, my opinion is that it is in no way the same thing as canon. For a piece of work to have any artistic value, it cannot be defined by the singular intentions of the person who created it.

vampire dan | December 30, 09:06 CET

Wait a minute... they killed Willow for being an evil lesbian???

curlymynci | December 30, 10:04 CET

Wait a minute ... they killed Willow ? Those bastards !

(I knew that they deliberately killed Spike when they found out he didn't intend to get his soul back but doing that to Willow is just crossing the line)

And I've always had one argument against Deckard being a replicant - he was kind of a creampuff compared to all of the other replicants.

Exactly Ocular. Apart from being a stayer and having plenty of guts, Deckard is rubbish and breaks much too easily. Unless they've found a way to engineer "flukey bastards" artificially then he's completely unfit for purpose. That's a good fact-based argument BTW but for me the key is the emotional impact of the film being really reduced if he's not human (there's circumstantial evidence too like "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe ..." etc.).

'Bladerunner' makes clear the added conundrum where films/TV are concerned that you don't have where there's only one creator. In the book, he's human. Harrison Ford has said he always played him as human yet Ridley Scott says he's a replicant and that's supposedly that (i'd love to know what the screenwriters intended).

The problem is, only Scott has the power to actually change things so that he definitely is a replicant in later versions (got 'The Final Cut' but not seen it yet - from what I gather, it's even more explicit in this version than he made it in the Director's Cut). Likewise with Lucas. Which raises the point about "special" editions and whether they're any more canonical than original cuts. I'd say not necessarily - because special editions are basically "authorial intent" writ large, where the "author" is usually solely the director.

And well said Dana5140 about the seeming crossed wires. People are claiming that interpretation is just as clear-cut a question as which events are shown (and therefore are "facts" of the fictional world). The second is canon, the first is what makes it worth experiencing that canon.

Saje | December 30, 10:42 CET

There hasn't been a Joss show on the telly for ages so the fandom is left twiddling their thumbs. Don't get me wrong, I adore the new Buffy and Angel comic books but that's only about 40 odd pages of new material a month. Which really isn't enough to stimulate the fandom en masse. So when a weighty subject like canon comes along we go all out and debate like mad.

It'll be a different kettle of fish when Dollhouse airs. New debates, new arguments, new challenges.

Simon | December 30, 11:19 CET

I totaly agree with that article.

Hanselel | December 30, 13:55 CET

Good point, vampire dan. Simon, there will surely be new arguments, but this one will be back; it is always back. I still haven't figured out why I get in a twist over it.

toast | December 30, 15:29 CET

Simon, right on! I know I am sort of an obsessive over certain issues, so I am waiting for dollhouse to have new contexts and topics to debate. Until then, though... :-)

Anyway, astarte, first thank you for the second of your two contiguous posts. As to the first (well, thanks for that as well), I think you miss my point. I was not looking to debate the entire Tara death issue all over again- everyone knows where I stand there. Rather, I was making the point that what Joss meant, and how it was read, turned out to be very different- and in fact, even though Joss and marti both said that they had no intention of invoking the cliche, they in fact actually did. This has nothing to do with any other trope that might be applied to any other character (ie, the "groom gets cold feet" trope of Xander). It has only to do with the death of Tara. And my recollection is that later, when the outcry moved toward its peak, I think it was either Marti, or maybe it was Jane AEspenson, who said they could see how people could think that the cliche was invoked. This is why I am such a fan of reader-response. In fact, my personal belief is that Joss and Marti were so involved in their writing that they could only see what they intended- a sort of hubris, I think- that they missed how it might be read. Would they have done different if they did understand? I don't know, and given this is whedonesque, I think most people here would give them the benefit of the doubt and say they would have changed nothing. But this also begs the question of why Joss later tried to bring Amber Benson back- my won thought son this are that Joss is a man who knows, at times, years in advance where he wishes to take his story. If he had meant to bring Tara back in S7, why didn't he offer a contract to Amber much earlier? Why only later, when she already had found other work? I feel that was a response to the outcry- and Joss did admit to planning to bring her back with the "get out of jail" card. Anyway, that would be authorial intent, writ large, and unfortunately, not canon. :-)

I have to look at Blade Runner again. My only thought is that how could Dekker be a replicant, since he was pretty much a regular human when it came to having strength and speed, and if you were designing a replicant to catpure replicants, wouldn't you want to design one really competent at doing the job? But then, remember, it's been a while since I've seen the film- though I think I will have to go buy it today, since there seems to be fertile areas for debate. And then, I think, I will have to start watching Battlestar Galactica. :-)

Happy new year!

Dana5140 | December 30, 16:13 CET

One thing I have always wondered, are deleted scenes from movies and books canon?

For instance, there was that scene from "Lies My Parents Told Me" where Giles told Buffy that he killed Ben. That was cut for length and cause no one would have been interested (according to David Fury). So my question is, is it canon that Buffy knows Giles killed Ben even though it was never seen on screen.

Simon | December 30, 16:25 CET

Shey, you choose an interesting example: For instance: if fans of Shakespeare decide they don't like the ending of Romeo and Juliet, they can't just say "oh, they didn't really die, the effects of the poison wore off soon enough to save the day" and give that point of view some sort of validity beyond "fan wank". A term that seems really weird when applied to Shakespeare, but it makes my point. You can discuss endlessly the circumstances that led to the tragedy, the social climate of the time and place, whether or not it still has relevance in the modern western world, etc. But you cannot arbitrarily state that they didn't die, simply because you didn't want them to. - because for well over a century virtually every stage production of R&J did have Juliet waking up just in time – so for theatregoers as opposed to readers that was canon. The difference between comics and screen versions is not new!

I really like your consideration of the multiplicity of possible motives for Spike’s resouling – it’s arguable that neither Joss nor Spike was aware of all of them at any given time but could, on consideration, have accepted any or all of them as extra underlying motives. If Spike was, like, real, that is. Anyway, it’s canon that Spike said he got his soul on purpose, while Angelus was cursed with his. Doesn’t that count?

You are also so right about adaptations of books. Darcy never had a wet shirt according to Austen, but the world might well be a poorer place for many fangurls without that scene in the TV series!

And then there are things which can be supported by canon but really aren’t – not just whether Spike and Buffy had sex that last night, but also whether Cecily is Halfrek, and if so, when did she become a demon? One of the things I love about the Jossverse is the multilayering which allows interpretation – you try analysing Charmed in this way!

And wow for the length of this thread and the super-intelligent thoughtful comments above this (mundane, not s-i) comment!

Gill | December 30, 16:27 CET

Actually, they used to do exactly that. My education is failing me on the who and when, but at some point in English literary history, in the days before tv, they rewrote famous stories so they would have happy endings and to a generation (long gone) of play goers/readers, happy ending Romeo and Juliet is cannon, for that is all they knew.

theclynn | December 30, 16:28 CET

Simon-I don't think that the shooting scripts and/or deleted scenes counts as canon. As authorial intent perhaps but not canon.

[ edited by menomegirl on 2007-12-30 16:48 ]

menomegirl | December 30, 16:32 CET

GMTA, theclynn! It was mostly in the eighteenth century, but reworked Shakespeare carried on well into the nineteenth century too - it's quite possible that Drusilla as a child was taken to see Romeo and Juliet with a happy ending. (There's a hilarious version of that in the RSC production of Nicholas Nicleby, set during Dru's girlhood.) Young William, in the 1870s might even have seen King Lear with a happy ending - Nahum Tate's version was a crowd-puller for a very long time, and it would definitely have suited William's ideas of "beauty" in art, compared to the nasty sordid ending Shakespeare actually wrote.

Everything can be brought back to the Buffyverse with only a little effort.

Gill | December 30, 16:43 CET

Considering the end of the Faith run recently, that is a very interesting question. Is Giles still protecting Buffy from knowledge like this, or is he merely not making it so obvious that she feels she has to stop it.
I've always felt that he never did tell her. And practically speaking, the fact that that scene was deleted means that the writers could take the line that it did not happen.

Lioness | December 30, 17:37 CET

David Fury stated in the commentary to LMPTM that he wanted to put in a speech where Giles talked about killing Ben because he thought it was very important. He said he was convinced by others that nobody would care about that. I've always been keen to know who those others were, so that I could strangle them. But yeah, it is an inte