The originals... ok, not exactly, but the original named "The TransFormers" anyway. Take THAT, Diaclone! Generation 1, Generation 2 - Removable fists? Check. Unlicensed vehicle modes? Check. Kickass tape deck robot with transforming cassette minions? DOUBLE CHECK!!!
andersonh1 wrote:The question is, has the term penetrated the larger societal lexicon?
I'd say it has. Although most sites seem to refer to it as "fanon" (itself a portmanteau of "fan" and "canon") as apposed to "personal canon" but it both terms essentially cover the same meanings.
I know it's made its way throughout various fandoms, but that's a relatively small subset of society at large. I'm still not sure it's anything more than a niche term used by a niche audience here and there.
I'll grant you that. If I were to say "personal canon" here at work, people would think I had a rocket launcher.
Also, I love the Wii. But it's not a system that was designed for "platform gamers". Sure there are some platformers like myself that will enjoy it, but it's not really for that. There are adapters you can get that allow you to hold it like a regular controller (presumably for some of the downloadable old Nintendo games).
andersonh1 wrote:I know it's made its way throughout various fandoms, but that's a relatively small subset of society at large. I'm still not sure it's anything more than a niche term used by a niche audience here and there.
Various fandoms like Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, Marvel Comics and so on are a "relatively small subset"? I don't see that at all. We're talking about millions of people in those fandoms. I'm sure it's a much more widely used term than you realize.
Shockwave wrote:Also, I love the Wii. But it's not a system that was designed for "platform gamers". Sure there are some platformers like myself that will enjoy it, but it's not really for that. There are adapters you can get that allow you to hold it like a regular controller (presumably for some of the downloadable old Nintendo games).
I wouldn't say the Wii isn't really for platformers. Have you played games like New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Metroid Other M? Those are platforming games, and you use the Wiimote like a regular controller for them.
Sparky Prime wrote:Various fandoms like Star Wars, Star Trek, Transformers, Marvel Comics and so on are a "relatively small subset"? I don't see that at all. We're talking about millions of people in those fandoms. I'm sure it's a much more widely used term than you realize.
I doubt it. At best, I would list it at the same level as a term thrown about on the internet, like ROTFLMAO and really, it's probably less well known than that. As popular as geek culture is right now, the geeks themselves (ie: us. No offense to anyone here and understand I very much fall into that as well) are still in the minority compared to the entire population of the country. And since we're on the internet that can actually span several countries. Gomess for example is in England. I think I'm going to test this, I'll start using the term conversationally and see if it's understood and I'll report back and let everyone know. Feel free to conduct your own experiments, might be fun to compare notes.
Sparky Prime wrote:
Shockwave wrote:Also, I love the Wii. But it's not a system that was designed for "platform gamers". Sure there are some platformers like myself that will enjoy it, but it's not really for that. There are adapters you can get that allow you to hold it like a regular controller (presumably for some of the downloadable old Nintendo games).
I wouldn't say the Wii isn't really for platformers. Have you played games like New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Metroid Other M? Those are platforming games, and you use the Wiimote like a regular controller for them.
Now that you mention it I have played Super Mario Wii and it was still fun. I like motion control games. Especially the bowling on the wii, it's like Holodeck bowling. Y'know, except that there's no Holodeck and well, it's probably about as close as we can get right now.
Shockwave wrote:I doubt it. At best, I would list it at the same level as a term thrown about on the internet, like ROTFLMAO and really, it's probably less well known than that.
I dunno about that...Even if there aren't that many people aware of the terms "personal canon" or "fanon" I'd think it's still a pretty common concept that many people would have to some degree. "Text speak", as one of my professors called it, on the other hand is a relatively new and wildly popular among younger tech savvy generations form of communication. I think it's a bit difficult to make an accurate comparison between the two really...
Conceptually, the idea of personal canon is probably known and understood, if only because so many people are self-indulgent in their reading/viewing. But, saying that out loud will probably just make Anderson mad.
Dom
-thinks text speak is lazy and that Wii jokes are far too tempting....
Dominic wrote:Conceptually, the idea of personal canon is probably known and understood, if only because so many people are self-indulgent in their reading/viewing. But, saying that out loud will probably just make Anderson mad.
Just kidding, of course!
But I tend to doubt that most people are familiar with the term. I've never seen or heard it anywhere except among various fanbases on the internet. Dom, I tend to think that most people simply don't put enough thought into their entertainment to even come up with the idea of a personal canon. They just watch what they watch, like it or not, and go on from there. It's a very 'fannish' habit to accept what one likes and toss out the rest and call what's accepted the only thing that counts.
I actually see quite a bit of that sort of thing actually, even if it is not as regidly defined outside of fandoms. "I feel...." or "for me this means" are very common phrases.
Dom
-notes that what something actually is rarely accompanies the above phrasing.
Depends on how one uses it I suppose, but it isn't necessarily lazy. Sometimes it can actually be quite complex.
andersonh1 wrote:But I tend to doubt that most people are familiar with the term. I've never seen or heard it anywhere except among various fanbases on the internet. Dom, I tend to think that most people simply don't put enough thought into their entertainment to even come up with the idea of a personal canon. They just watch what they watch, like it or not, and go on from there. It's a very 'fannish' habit to accept what one likes and toss out the rest and call what's accepted the only thing that counts.
I'd actually say that "watch what they watch, like it or not, and go from there" mentality is generally how many people form a personal canon. Take just for an example, someone who has never heard the term "personal canon" and isn't really much of fan of Star Trek, but they still enjoy watching the movies. Except for 5, which they prefer to ignore even exists. With out knowledge of the term and with out putting much thought into their entertainment, they've still created their own personal canon that is simply based on the premise of what they liked and want they didn't.
Sparky Prime wrote:I'd actually say that "watch what they watch, like it or not, and go from there" mentality is generally how many people form a personal canon. Take just for an example, someone who has never heard the term "personal canon" and isn't really much of fan of Star Trek, but they still enjoy watching the movies. Except for 5, which they prefer to ignore even exists. With out knowledge of the term and with out putting much thought into their entertainment, they've still created their own personal canon that is simply based on the premise of what they liked and want they didn't.
Except that I've never seen anyone except someone who is part of a fanbase actively say of an official movie/tv episode/comic/etc "this doesn't count" as opposed to "I don't like that and I'm not watching it again". There is a difference. I know of plenty of Trek fans who will tell me "I don't like DS9/Voyager/Enterprise", but I never hear any of them say that the show isn't part of Trek fiction. That would simply never occur to them.
It's a peculiar kind of fan "ownership" (for lack of a better or perhaps more offensive term) that causes them to declare what counts and what doesn't. The general viewing public just doesn't think that way. Like or dislike may be where it begins, but for the casual consumer of entertainment, that's where it ends as well.
andersonh1 wrote:Except that I've never seen anyone except someone who is part of a fanbase actively say of an official movie/tv episode/comic/etc "this doesn't count" as opposed to "I don't like that and I'm not watching it again". There is a difference.
The problem here is you're trying to compare how someone in the fanbase might phrase it to a more casual audience member. Of course they're not going to actively say it exactly the same way. You have to keep in mind they're going to have a different mentality towards the material given the fanbase obviously is going to be more invested in it. But that doesn't inherently mean their meanings are going to be that far off from each other.
I know of plenty of Trek fans who will tell me "I don't like DS9/Voyager/Enterprise", but I never hear any of them say that the show isn't part of Trek fiction. That would simply never occur to them.
I find that surprising. I've seen several fans say that they don't count Enterprise in-particular as part of the Trek fiction, largely due to continuity issues that show has to the other series.
It's a peculiar kind of fan "ownership" (for lack of a better or perhaps more offensive term) that causes them to declare what counts and what doesn't. The general viewing public just doesn't think that way. Like or dislike may be where it begins, but for the casual consumer of entertainment, that's where it ends as well.
Again, I just can't agree with that. The general audience does think like that, although they may not necessarily be (as) aware of doing it. Like, say someone preferring a movie adaptation over the original book. While they may not phrase it as such, they would essentially be "counting" one version of the story over the other.
