"Best of Megatron" compilation

[Onslaught Six]

Augh, Dom, you're doing that weird typing-in-boxes things you did years ago again. I assume you used Notepad but you probably have some weird word wrap setting on that screwed it up.

Anyway!

"Personal canon" isn't a misnomer--personal canon is when *you* are the governing force, the higher power for 'your own' interpretation of the universe. And Transformers, being a toyline, is almost 'designed' for that.

I'm guessing most of the problems we've had with IDW's continuity is different writers' personal canons not matching up with one another. McCarthy clearly saw the Decepticons as different than Furman saw them, and we got AHM.

[andersonh1]

There is no such thing as personal canon. The very word "canon" precludes personal preference. Words mean things, and canon cannot be twisted to mean "whatever the fan thinks is official is official".

This just galls me. If someone's own personal interpretation doesn't jibe with the official fiction, it's the fan that's wrong.

I'm guessing most of the problems we've had with IDW's continuity is different writers' personal canons not matching up with one another. McCarthy clearly saw the Decepticons as different than Furman saw them, and we got AHM.

Again, you're misusing the word canon here. You're talking about how any given writer "interprets" a character or a group of characters. And since these are professional writers, and their work has to be approved by Hasbro (the property owner) before going to print, what they write counts as official whether fans like it or not. As long as they stay generally true to the characters, then there's room for differing interpretations without violating established characteristics.

[Dominic]

I did indeed use notepad, but I was manually hitting "enter" for line breaks when I typed near the right edge of the window.

Let's see if I can avoid using notepad on this post!

There is no such thing as personal canon. The very word "canon" precludes personal preference. Words mean things, and canon cannot be twisted to mean "whatever the fan thinks is official is official".

I respectfully disagree good sir. The term is nicely defined by Mr. Onslaught 6, and describes a concept that is unique and distinct from what we shall refer to simply as "canon". While think we might well agree that personal canon is a mechanism of self-indulgence, as it applies strictly to an individual (and not as a way to define what is official or otherwise canonical), the term itself does have a clear definintion and it behooves us all to acknowledge it.


Even making allowances for TF being a toyline, there are still some limitations. Habro does define certain things pretty clearly. And, it gives certain parties license to define other things. The problem with IDW is, as O6 pointed out, very loose editorial controls. Even assuming reconciling McCarthy and Furman as Anderson did, we still have the (much less ambiguous to begin with) questions about character models. (I am 90% sure an editorial fiat discounted Figueroa's designs as canonical. But, that was after the fact and there was legitimate confusion for a time. And, those designs are still official.)


Dom
-woohoo, made it.

[andersonh1]

I respectfully disagree good sir. The term is nicely defined by Mr. Onslaught 6, and describes a concept that is unique and distinct from what we shall refer to simply as "canon".

Then another term needs to be found, because canon means what it means. "Personal canon" would be like me taking a red ball and saying it's my "personal blue". It wouldn't be blue, it would be red. We can't just take a word that means one thing and apply a totally contrary meaning to it. Canon means what it means, and trying to append "personal" to it renders the word meaningless.

While think we might well agree that personal canon is a mechanism of self-indulgence,

I agree.

as it applies strictly to an individual (and not as a way to define what is official or otherwise canonical), the term itself does have a clear definintion and it behooves us all to acknowledge it.

An individual can't claim to to determine canon, unless that individual is referring to his own intellectual property.

We're not going to agree on this, I can tell you now. This is a major gripe with me, and I've complained about it elsewhere, not just here. A term starts getting thrown around by someone who hasn't thought through what he or she is saying, and before you know it the fandom at large has adopted the use of something that's inaccurate and contradictory.

[Dominic]

Joking aside, I agree with you in principle.

But, we need a short-hand for "self-indulgent fandom trying to make everything about what they want".

So, we use the term "personal canon". For that fan, in their own mind, a certain way of looking at things is "canonical". That canon is not terribly meaningful beyond their own self-interested view. But, it is a canon of sorts. (Actualy, most canons lost meaning outside of a given group. It just happens that in this case, the groups is *very* limited.)

I also use "personal canon" as a short-hand for the ways we try to paper over various mistakes and such in an official source. (=See my example about the Constructicons. "Cyclonus the warrior, and his 'armada'" is another example of something one might need personal canon to sort though. In those cases, there is only vague author intent about a fairly important detail or set of details. (I consider this necessity to be a problem, not an invitation to self-indulgence.)

Of course, the real problem you are likely having is that many of the fans with "personal canon" have a hard time sorting what is official from what is theirs.


Dom
-not a fan of deconstructionist thought either.

[Onslaught Six]

There is no such thing as personal canon. The very word "canon" precludes personal preference. Words mean things, and canon cannot be twisted to mean "whatever the fan thinks is official is official".

This just galls me. If someone's own personal interpretation doesn't jibe with the official fiction, it's the fan that's wrong.

I have maintained that it is perfectly fine for anybody to be entirely and completely wrong as long as they are aware of that fact.

[Shockwave]

An individual can't claim to to determine canon, unless that individual is referring to his own intellectual property.

We're not going to agree on this, I can tell you now. This is a major gripe with me, and I've complained about it elsewhere, not just here. A term starts getting thrown around by someone who hasn't thought through what he or she is saying, and before you know it the fandom at large has adopted the use of something that's inaccurate and contradictory.

A bit like the word ironic, which people throw about incorrectly more often than it's actual meaning. The song "ironic" by Alanis Morrissette is anything but. I agree with you completely. But Dom does raise a good point which comes back to the question I posed in this thread and Dom posed back on bwtf.

So the question now gets changed to this: In a situation like TF, where what is considered "canon" by the property holder is contradictory in and of itself, how do you reconcile that? Dom has a perfect example with the Constructicons. The G1 Cartoon is "Canon" according to Hasbro. However, there are at least two different origins for the Constructicons within that "canon". So which one is right? Both are official and both are canon, but both cannot be correct. This gets further convoluted when you consider the fact that the original Marvel comic is also canon, thus providing a third option for their origin.

I think what Anderson is saying is that there would have to be some sort of ad hoc explaination for the discrepancy while Dom, O6 and I are saying that we're essentially forced by the license holder (Hasbro) to make our own sense of it, thus creating the need for "fanon". This basically creates personal canon by virtue of the fact that one fan's interpretation of events as canon may differ from another with both being right because both are what's recognized by the license holder as canon.

For my part, I tend to regard the Marvel comic as G1's "canon" but regard the cartoon merely as "entertaining". Mind you, if the editors had done their jobs right to begin with and maintained some consistency, we would have this problem.

[Shockwave]

There is no such thing as personal canon. The very word "canon" precludes personal preference. Words mean things, and canon cannot be twisted to mean "whatever the fan thinks is official is official".

This just galls me. If someone's own personal interpretation doesn't jibe with the official fiction, it's the fan that's wrong.

I have maintained that it is perfectly fine for anybody to be entirely and completely wrong as long as they are aware of that fact.

It's true, it's a free country and we all have the right to be wrong.

[andersonh1]

So the question now gets changed to this: In a situation like TF, where what is considered "canon" by the property holder is contradictory in and of itself, how do you reconcile that?

Any way you like. I do the same thing myself, trying to work out inconsistencies. It doesn't make that explanation official though. Some fans think their solutions are official, which is astonishing to me.

Hasbro's solution is about as good as we're going to get. Each related set of lines is it's own continuity, and then that is further subdivided into the various comics, cartoons, tech specs, or whatever tell the story. With G1, we've got the Sunbow cartoon, the Marvel comic, the Dreamwave comics, and the IDW comics. At the least. All of them count, but they don't have to be consistent with each other, just internally consistent. Which of course, still isn't always the case, as you point out below...

Dom has a perfect example with the Constructicons. The G1 Cartoon is "Canon" according to Hasbro. However, there are at least two different origins for the Constructicons within that "canon". So which one is right? Both are official and both are canon, but both cannot be correct. This gets further convoluted when you consider the fact that the original Marvel comic is also canon, thus providing a third option for their origin.

The cartoon and the comic are separate, so the origin within the Marvel comics is correct for that continuity. With the cartoon, there is no official explanation for the discrepancy, so unless we're ever given one, we're left to reason things out for ourselves. In my opinion, given what we see later on in the cartoon, Megatron is clearly lying when he talks about building the Constructicons in the caves. But that's just my opinion. It's not official word from Hasbro, and I shouldn't act like it is or be offended if Hasbro overwrites it one day or if someone has a different opinion.

I think what Anderson is saying is that there would have to be some sort of ad hoc explaination for the discrepancy while Dom, O6 and I are saying that we're essentially forced by the license holder (Hasbro) to make our own sense of it, thus creating the need for "fanon".

I'm with you up to this point.

This basically creates personal canon by virtue of the fact that one fan's interpretation of events as canon may differ from another with both being right because both are what's recognized by the license holder as canon.

My problem here is that my opinion or your opinion don't constitute canon. Dom's right that we need some sort of shorthand, but the current "personal canon" shorthand is very inaccurate, which is why I dislike it so much.

Mind you, if the editors had done their jobs right to begin with and maintained some consistency, we would have this problem.

Yeah, no kidding!

[Onslaught Six]

But then we start getting into stuff like...well...

Okay. I released an album recently. (Go listen to it, by the way. Seriously.) I played it for my father and the greater concept of it (being a conceptual story album, not unlike The Wall or Operation: Mindcrime) completely went over his head, and he gave some...interesting interpretations for my songs, which were completely wrong.

But he's 'allowed' to make those, is he not? And if I put that music out there, and their interpretation means more to them than my own does to me...does that make them fundamentally wrong? Can I lambast them for that? I mean, as long as my music isn't being used in conjunction with hate crimes or anything (and hey, if they did it might give me free publicity) I'm pretty much okay with their interpretations.

It's the same with TF.

(Now here comes Dom, arguing about author intent and blah blah.)