Canon(fiction) what is this??

[Blueknight78]

hi guys i'm new here, first sorry for not so good english or a "engrish" i will try using google translator and sometimes he also not too much "perfect as i wanted".

well going to topic:

sometimes watching some forums and others sources i aways find that discuss a bit weird and somehow mislead, when the topic is about "canon"

I would like to start a good debate about the canon term what really is it?

because nowadays I see it being used very bad especially in animes and mangas or novels, only the famous manga or novel is canon and not the anime.

first let's start from good sources:

wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28fiction%29

Spoiler:

This article is about the concept of a canon that defines the world of a particular fictional series or franchise. For influential works of fiction, see literary canon.

In fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual fictional universe. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The term "canon" can be used either as a noun, referring to "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows,"[1] or as an adjective to describe whether or not certain elements are accepted as authoritative parts of the fictional universe.[2] Fan-fiction would be described as "non-canon," while an event from the official source material would be "canon." The alternative terms mythology and continuity are often used, with the former being especially to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history).

Origin

The use of the word "canon" in reference to a set of texts derives from Biblical canon, the set of books regarded as scripture, as contrasted with non-canonical Apocrypha.[3] The term was first used by analogy in the context of fiction to refer to the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels, written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Ronald Knox used the term in a 1911 essay "Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes" to distinguish Doyle's works from subsequent pastiches by other authors.[4][5] It has subsequently been applied to many media franchises. Among these are science fiction and fantasy franchises such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Halo, Fallout, The Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, BioShock, Doctor Who, Middle-Earth, A Song of Ice and Fire, the Narnia series, the The Dark Tower books, and Dinotopia, in which many stories have been told in different media, some of which may contradict or appear to contradict each other.[5]

When there are multiple "official" works or original media, the question of what is and what is not canonical can be unclear. This is resolved either by explicitly excluding certain media from the status of canon (as in the case of Star Trek), by assigning different levels of canonicity to different media (as in the case of Star Wars), by considering different but licensed media treatments official within their own continuities but not across them (as with Battlestar Galactica), or not resolved at all. The use of canon is of particular importance with regard to reboots or re-imaginings of established franchises, such as the 2009 Star Trek film, because of the ways in which it influences the viewer experience.[6]

The official Star Trek website describes Star Trek canon as "the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies" (that is, the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the Star Trek motion pictures).[7] Events, characters and story lines from tie-in novels, comic books, video games and Star Trek: The Animated Series are explicitly excluded from the Star Trek canon, but the site notes that elements from these sources have been subsequently introduced into the television series, and says that "canon is not something set in stone."[7] One example of a non-canonical element that later became canonical in the Star Trek universe was the name "Tiberius" becoming the official middle name of Enterprise captain James T. Kirk. The name was introduced in the Star Trek animated series, and was later added into the official biography of the character by its mention in the live-action film Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

The Star Wars canon originally existed on several levels. The highest level was the original Star Wars films, and statements by George Lucas; tie-in fiction from the Expanded Universe had a different level of canonicity.[5] The complex system is maintained by Leland Chee, a Lucasfilm employee.[5] The makers of Doctor Who have generally avoided making pronouncements about canonicity, with Russell T Davies explaining that he does not think about the concept for the Doctor Who TV series or its spin-offs.

]

tv troopers:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Canon

Spoiler:

That which counts, in terms of continuity.

Canon, as it applies to television series, is substantially different from its literary counterpart. For example, there is no question of which Sherlock Holmes stories (the first literary works to which the term was applied) are canonical: those written by Doyle are, everything else isn't.

Television canon works much differently, as there are many authors involved. Works not officially sanctioned are generally outside of canon, but what remains inside is more nebulous. Officially licensed material, novelizations and tie-in novels are not usually considered canon. Even broadcast material can be excluded from the canon when decreed by Word of God.

The primary issue is that canons for completed works (especially with a single author) are descriptive, whereas fans' attempts to define canon for ongoing works are prescriptive. If a fact is "canon", you are "not allowed" to contradict it.

The concept of canon is almost entirely an invention of fandom. The writers will ignore, include, or change whatever facts they damned well like. This is not to say that the writers totally lack a sense of continuity, but it is a much weaker concept than "canon" as presented by fan communities. Writers can tweak continuity quite a lot without actually breaking it by using Broad Strokes.

In fan communities based on very loose continuities, "canon" can sometimes boil down to "the bits we like". Fans will attempt to find any excuse to "de-canonize" facts that they personally find inconvenient.

A related term is Deuterocanon (known here on TV Tropes as Word of Dante), which in this context refers to those persons, places and/or events which are not explicitly shown on-screen, but which are considered "official" or close to it. For canon that comes not from the source material but from pronouncements by the creator, see Word of God. For the contrary idea that something is canon only if it appears in the source material (external opinions of the creator not included), see Death of the Author.

This concept is related to the literary term used to describe a body of work that is considered the foremost in quality and significance. For example, if one refers to the English-language literary canon, it is understood that one is speaking of books such as A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Moby-Dick by Herman Melville, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, and Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad—in other words, most of the books you read in High School are part of the English-language canon.

Canon should not be confused with Fanon, but everyone does it all the time. See Fanon Discontinuity for when people decide en masse to disregard actual canon, and Canon Discontinuity when the writers do it. Alternatively, see the Continuity Tropes index for all related concepts. Official Fan-Submitted Content is when the creators ask the fans to add to the canon.

http://pt.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Canon

Spoiler:

Another word for official. Used quite often in fan fiction to differentiate between the official storyline in which the fan fiction is based on.
"This fan fiction story is actually pretty close to being canon written by the original author."

i also asked a serious critics of television, film and comics here where i live about it and their asnwered:
canon is anything licensed/authorized/recognized by the owner of the franchise, this means who not "only the manga or novel or anime as long is recognized by the owner can be canon.

a good exemple of it could be kyouto animation, most of their anime adapatations are canon, because their also are the owner of the copyright of most of the novels who their work.

or in cases of "reboots" is a reference to know where that thing originally"come

as far i see in japan their pretty much follow that pattern of if the creater say is canon then is canon even if write by another person

good exemple is godzilla movia the 1998 version japaneses not acnowledge as canon, their even made another movie just to kill the stupid fake with the real one but the current one is being recognized as canon.

marvel and dc also pretty much follow that pattern with their reboots.

basically canon is what make difference between official work and fanmade, by official work dont necessary means only the manga or novel or anime, but all the franchise associated, spinoffs, anime.

come from this where come that "common sense" who only one thing is canon and none other is????, i aways see peoples advocace that but none never even give a good reason than "common sense" or like the tv trooper called:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

i see that rule happen a lot in western culture

a unknow force who give unknow rules where we must follow because someone unknow told it.

well for me canon is exactly what i learned and understood as long the time is anything officially recognized by the creator or owner of the franchise, or as long the owner support or say who this is canon then is canon.

a good exemple of this who i see that days could be fairy tail, part of the western culture love to say "anime is not canon only manga" or now with the release of the new spinoffs "licensed and recognized by mashima" and the novels peoples come and say "only manga is canon, that spinoffs are not canon and bla bla bla, i see that know with anothers adaptations of mangas, novels or even anime(when anime is the original then gain manga or novel version with spin offs)

some others exemples who i know, shakugan no shana his original source is a novel but afar i know anime is also considere canon, zero no tsukaima anime is also recognized by the creator as canon(anime even has ended before novel but the wirter confirmed who that wil be the end), Aishiteruze baby(where the mangaka died before manga end but give to anime team the script for the end, then the anime had the end).


if most of the sources who i looked say who canon is not that things some peoples "say"(only manga or novel is canon), why peoples keep saying that??? wha exactly is the true???, how something who was supposed to to distinguish offical source from fanfictions, turned in "only part of the official source being canon??

share your ideas.

[Jan-Poo]

Two points.

First: canon is not just a term that differentiate between fan made works and author made works. There are several examples of authors that create spin-off or one-shot alternative stories with their characters and settings and officially claim that "this is out of canon".
Another example is the marvel continuity where at one point the editors had to make sense out of the contradictory mess of all that they had published. They therefore decided what was canon and what was not in the "continuity" and then they created several alternative universes each with their own precise canon.

Second: When it comes to anime adaptions sometimes you get what is generally called a "original ending", which implies the anime follows a different story than the original source, often contradicting it. In such cases it makes more sense to differentiate between "anime canon", "manga canon", "light novel canon" and so on. They may all be "canon" in their own contexts but they are not the same canon. If an anime adaption shows "event x" it doesn't mean that "event x" is canon in the manga from which it was adapted.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Two points.

First: canon is not just a term that differentiate between fan made works and author made works. There are several examples of authors that create spin-off or one-shot alternative stories with their characters and settings and officially claim that "this is out of canon".
Another example is the marvel continuity where at one point the editors had to make sense out of the contradictory mess of all that they had published. They therefore decided what was canon and what was not in the "continuity" and then they created several alternative universes each with their own precise canon.

Second: When it comes to anime adaptions sometimes you get what is generally called a "original ending", which implies the anime follows a different story than the original source, often contradicting it. In such cases it makes more sense to differentiate between "anime canon", "manga canon", "light novel canon" and so on. They may all be "canon" in their own contexts but they are not the same canon. If an anime adaption shows "event x" it doesn't mean that "event x" is canon in the manga from which it was adapted.

1 - yeah i know that was why when i asked to the critic team their said that who "is anything licensed or recognized by the creator or owner of the franchise as part of the main storyline, like you told we can find non-canon material from the owner too, what is matter is when he say what is canon or no.


2 - yep is very common anime come with "anime original ending" and contradict the main source and we get 2 different "canons", but dont necessary means who the anime is noncanon or less canon than the source if i'm not wrong a good (at last for what i read who could be wrong)exemple is soul eater, the end in anime and manga are slight different(last fight) but the mangaka recognize both of then as "canon" and follow the "pick what you like more" ending.

like i old my big concern is about since when that rule of "only A is canon" become so oficial who i see a lot of peoples advocate over it even without know if her is true the famous "common sense", without really check the truthfulness of that "argument(as long someone agree is true...)

i know we have manga only fan, novel only fans or anime only fans which in most of the cases are the ones advocating that "rule" and aways fight over it but we aslo have peoples who like all (manga, anime or novel) and why that peoples are forced to accep that "rule" as the only truth even without any real reason than the personal desire of that peoples who advocate that rule.

like i read canon was something created just to fix some confusions created by the writer or make sure who only what the writer accept(not exactly only what he write) as part of the story timeline or universe.

that post is more like to make more clear about it, cuz sometimes i believe who most of the peoples say that are bad informed peoples, who just follow the things because that was the only thing their know and dont really try to check if it is really true.

[Jan-Poo]

Perhaps that confusion comes from how the term "canon" sometimes is applied to a franchise which encompasses several media.

For example let's take this excerpt from the wikipedia article that you quoted:

The official Star Trek website describes Star Trek canon as "the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies" (that is, the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the Star Trek motion pictures).[7] Events, characters and story lines from tie-in novels, comic books, video games and Star Trek: The Animated Series are explicitly excluded from the Star Trek canon, but the site notes that elements from these sources have been subsequently introduced into the television series, and says that "canon is not something set in stone."[7]

This is an example where a whole deal of official products related to a franchise are officially, by a general rule, labeled as non canon unless differently specified.

This a context where "canon" refers to the "canon" of a corpus of different works which makes sense in the case of a huge franchise such a Star Trek.
Each of the single works have their own canon but it's not necessarily part of the "Star Trek canon" which defines a way bigger continuity.

Whether this applies to anime and manga depends on whether you can talk about a franchise or not. That's not the case with most anime but there are some exceptions. If you can identify a continuity that encompasses and ties together several stories, then you can also have non-canon related stories whether they are fan made or not.

Anyway the question of canonicity should be brought up regarding different stories set in the same universe or portraying same characters. In case of adaptions it makes little sense. In case of adaptions I'd rather talk about whether they are faithful to the source material or not.

[Blueknight78]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Perhaps that confusion comes from how the term "canon" sometimes is applied to a franchise which encompasses several media.

For example let's take this excerpt from the wikipedia article that you quoted:



This is an example where a whole deal of official products related to a franchise are officially, by a general rule, labeled as non canon unless differently specified.

This a context where "canon" refers to the "canon" of a corpus of different works which makes sense in the case of a huge franchise such a Star Trek.
Each of the single works have their own canon but it's not necessarily part of the "Star Trek canon" which defines a way bigger continuity.

Whether this applies to anime and manga depends on whether you can talk about a franchise or not. That's not the case with most anime but there are some exceptions. If you can identify a continuity that encompasses and ties together several stories, then you can also have non-canon related stories whether they are fan made or not.

Anyway the question of canonicity should be brought up regarding different stories set in the same universe or portraying same characters. In case of adaptions it makes little sense. In case of adaptions I'd rather talk about whether they are faithful to the source material or not.

yeah good points that is why is important to take the owner words as priority, a case like that is a case of take things in grain and salt, like their said "somethings are not canon however this not a 100% statement and we can change over time.

i think the big problem about canon "lie" in that 2 words: faithful and fillers, many peoples use that words to discredit adaptations outside the main source the famous "if not happen in the manga" then not canon.

not being faithful or having fillers dont means "noncanon" just means
exemple when a fight or moment happen different in both sources peoples just jump and say not canon or when a scene looks bigger than the source or when we have the famous "fillers arcs", where the adaptation go on a own path and peoples just bitch about how boring and horrible is that filler(many times just because is a filler and not because is bad)if that arc dont happen in the source is not canon again another misslead, a good exemple come from fairy tail the starry arc which until today some peoples keep saying is not canon even when mashima make clear who what happened on that arc is part of the timeline.

and faithfull we have exemple of adaptations with multiple ends and all is canon a good exemple is fait stay night: novel have a ending anime have another and game another but all of then are considered canon just different iterations but all of then are valid as a ending.

[Triple_R]

My general approach to what is "Canon" is "Everything that is contained in the original version of the actual story".

Now, as it pertains to adaptations of the original story, my approach is more or less as follows...

1) If the adaptation departs drastically from the original story, then the adaptation is its own separate (and secondary) canon. In other words, an anime adaptation that departs drastically from the original story is its own "anime canon", but the original story is still what matters the most when you're talking about, say, the most definitive version of a character.

2) If the adaptation adheres strictly to the original story, then I view it as representing the original canon itself, except where there are points of contradiction (here the original story would be favored, of course). So let's say you had an anime named Super Star Shounen that was an adaptation off of a popular manga. If the SSS anime consistently adhered strictly to the manga, but had a "filler arc", I'd consider that filler arc canon itself insofar as it didn't outright contradict source material.


The idea of "canon", as applied to popular entertainment, is important for ensuring that fans are more or less on the same page when it comes to understanding a story and its characters. I think it's good for fans to have the same shared frame of reference here because its conducive to good discussion, and it makes popular franchises more accessible to new fans.

I mean, if people can't even agree on what counts as part of the actual story or narrative, then that would certainly hinder discussion. Differing interpretations are fine, of course, but they should be focused on the same plot points, plot events, character dialogue, etc... Otherwise, it's like trying to be a juror for a case where you don't know which pieces of evidence are admissible and which aren't.