"Best of Megatron" compilation

[andersonh1]

There are several ways to definite "canon", not all of which means that that it is established by a governing authority. In today's more general terms, canon has come to mean "the body of literature and art which is considered to define [a] civilization by widespread consensus". Towards the more specific, in body of fiction it generally refers to the "interpretation of characters and events", in other words, the events that are recognized to "count" as separated by the events that do not. Granted this is normally established by an official authority.

When I go look up "canon" at dictionary.com, I get the following definitions:

–noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.
6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.
7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic: There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon. Compare apocrypha ( def. 3 ) .
10. a catalog or list, as of the saints acknowledged by the Church.
11. Liturgy . the part of the Mass between the Sanctus and the Communion.
12. Eastern Church . a liturgical sequence sung at matins, usually consisting of nine odes arranged in a fixed pattern.
13. Music . consistent, note-for-note imitation of one melodic line by another, in which the second line starts after the first.
14. Printing . a 48-point type.

Now, as I said a few posts back, the term is largely religious in nature, which wouldn't apply to a body of fiction like Transformers. Regardless, as I look through all those ways to define canon, not one allows for individual determination of what is or is not canon. Canon is determined by some authoritative body or group, or by general societal consensus.

And it's important to determine how this happens. It's not just a case of an individual saying "I think this counts and this does not," and someone else doing the same, with society ultimately coming down to some sort of consensus based on these opinions. Canon is built on fact and historical evidence. The canon of scripture was ratified based on historical evidence of what was authentic and what was not. The same is true of Shakespeare's plays. Both of these are referred to in the definitions above. Canon is not determined by "I like this and don't like this, therefore only what I like counts".

There is no such thing as "personal canon". The term "canon" is being misused when paired with "personal". The correct way to express it would personal preference.

See, I can't agree with that. By definition, this isn't inherently wrong. It simply refers to a fan's personal interpretations in place of a "governing authority" as you put it.

A fan's personal interpretations can never be canon. Not within any accepted definition of the word. Language changes over time, certainly, but we have not reached the point where canon is synonymous with preference.

[Onslaught Six]

Personal canon:

"If I were Hasbro/IDW/whoever, this is what I would say is canon."

That's what it is.

[Dominic]

Of course Paramount as the owner of the franchise has the right to change who runs the show if they saw it as necessary, but that isn't the case or point here. It wasn't just a courtesy that Roddenberry had authority. Again, he was Star Trek with full control over the show. I recall even Berman commenting in an interview, Paramount pretty much left them alone when it came to running the shows.

Ah, but that is the point. Paramount, not Rodenberry, owns(ed) "Star Trek". Paramount delegated authority to Berman and the others because it made sense. But, Paramount always had the practival and moral right to declare one thing or another canon or otherwise. Given Rodenberry, or anyone else that right, is a courtesy and/or smart business move.

Lee's contributions are over-rated. Kirby is known to have plotted/written many issues of FF that Lee was credited with. And, the fact that Lee has not been able to sell a book (aside from an occassional, and damned well unreadable, one-shot) since the 60s shows how well his writing compares in the eyes of readers who have other options. Guys like Lee or Fox were lucky to be in the field at a time when there was low competition and lower expectations.

Now, as I said a few posts back, the term is largely religious in nature, which wouldn't apply to a body of fiction like Transformers. Regardless, as I look through all those ways to define canon, not one allows for individual determination of what is or is not canon. Canon is determined by some authoritative body or group, or by general societal consensus.

Ah, but if the term now has an understood meaning, (limited to the short-hand we are discussing), why ignore that understood meaning? The whole point of short-hand is that it makes concepts easier to understand and describe. Trying to replace short-hand with a new term is ultimately self-defeating.

I am not arguing that we should dispose of the old definition. And, accepting the understood meaning of "canon" in terms of the phrase "personal canon" is not endorsing the self-indulgence often implied by personal canon or fanfic in general. It is accepting an understood term for the purposes of a conversation. (In other words, I can accept the definition of a term without endorsing the morality of putting that concept into practice.)


Dom
-has a personal canon that disallows fanfic....

[Sparky Prime]

Regardless, as I look through all those ways to define canon, not one allows for individual determination of what is or is not canon. Canon is determined by some authoritative body or group, or by general societal consensus.

I do not see that they are all so restrictive that they do not allow for some individual determination. I mean, look a definition 5.
"Canons of taste"? Taste refers to "human ability to judge" and is largely based on personal preferences. So whose standard is that definition referring to? Seems to me it can be interpreted as either individual or a larger societal body.

A fan's personal interpretations can never be canon. Not within any accepted definition of the word. Language changes over time, certainly, but we have not reached the point where canon is synonymous with preference.

I don't agree in the least.

Ah, but that is the point.

No, no it is not. The point was Roddenberry was an influential authoritative figure over Star Trek, especially as its creator regardless of who owns the franchise. Granted, Paramount as the owner holds the final say, but that's not the point.

Lee's contributions are over-rated.

That's your opinion. Again, there is a reason why the artists are co-credited, but as I pointed out with Spider-Man, his contributions are hardly over rated. He helped make Marvel Comics one of the most successful comic book companies in the world.

And, the fact that Lee has not been able to sell a book (aside from an occassional, and damned well unreadable, one-shot) since the 60s shows how well his writing compares in the eyes of readers who have other options.

Stan Lee wrote for (the very successful) Amazing Spider-Man (among other titles) into the 70's Dom. In fact, he and Ditko held the record for longest consecutive run of a writer/artist team with Amazing Spider-Man until Bendis and Bagley broke it with their run on Ultimate Spider-Man. Stan Lee is not the terrible writer you portray him as.

[138 Scourge]

Lee's contributions are over-rated.

That's your opinion. Again, there is a reason why the artists are co-credited, but as I pointed out with Spider-Man, his contributions are hardly over rated. He helped make Marvel Comics one of the most successful comic book companies in the world.

I used to agree with you on that one, Dom, but after reading most of Lee and Kirby's FF, and most of Lee and Ditko's Spider-Man, I gotta disagree. Lee's writing is kind of crude at points, but it's got a charm about it. Particularly the kind of hucksterish rap he gets going on. That inimitable Stan Lee style that lets the readers know that they've signed on for another round of madness in the merry Marvel style. See, I can't do it, but that kind of thing. That stuff, I have no doubt it's part of what got Marvel where it is. Plus when you figure in that adding an Archie Comics-esque social scene to a superhero comic was an amazing idea at that point, to say nothing of the other kinds of characters that Lee and Kirby made happen...

Yeah, dude, Lee's got some chops. He may not be able to repeat those successes, but he'd hardly be the only artist that wasn't on top of his game forever.

Jesus, what these threads turn into around here.

[Shockwave]

Ok, forget "canon". The term sucks and several of us hate it anyway. I now motion that we start saying "official continuity" in place of "canon". Besides, the issue of a fan's interpretation being "official" is a possibility as stated in my Constructicon example 2 pages ago (and actually, that example has TWO fans' interpretations being official). No one has come up with an answer to that conundrum yet.

Star Trek: The buck stops with Paramount. Period. It only stopped with Roddenberry because Paramount said so.

Stan Lee: I like him, but I'm horribly unfamiliar with his work, if not his influence.

[Onslaught Six]

Ok, forget "canon". The term sucks and several of us hate it anyway. I now motion that we start saying "official continuity" in place of "canon". Besides, the issue of a fan's interpretation being "official" is a possibility as stated in my Constructicon example 2 pages ago (and actually, that example has TWO fans' interpretations being official). No one has come up with an answer to that conundrum yet.

I came up with an answer, it just got lost in this weird Stan Lee argument.

[Sparky Prime]

Star Trek: The buck stops with Paramount. Period. It only stopped with Roddenberry because Paramount said so.

It's hardly "period" if it stops with someone else what-so-ever...

I came up with an answer, it just got lost in this weird Stan Lee argument.

Not lost... Side stepped perhaps. At any rate, it seems that most of us are of the opinion there is such a thing as "personal canon".

[Shockwave]

Star Trek: The buck stops with Paramount. Period. It only stopped with Roddenberry because Paramount said so.

It's hardly "period" if it stops with someone else what-so-ever...

Yeah, ok, good point. Y'know if you're gonna go all logical or whatever

[andersonh1]

Not lost... Side stepped perhaps. At any rate, it seems that most of us are of the opinion there is such a thing as "personal canon".

From now on I'm going to insist that the sky is green. Because it's my own "personal green" which may or may not be the same as your personal green.