In music, a canon is a piece in which one instrument starts a melody, and then another instrument starts the same melody a few measures later. A third may come in after that, and so on and so forth until the melody is layering over itself and providing many dimensions to the same song.
That's what I'd like to do with the next few columns. I'll be approaching the topic of ships and canon -- in its other definition, as something that's an established part of a world or continuity -- from a few different perspectives.
For example:
- What exactly is canon? Where can the lines be drawn? How much can reliably be counted on to be an accepted part of a show's continuity?
- How far can canon stretch to accept ships, and do ships depend on canon for their existence?
- Does the existence of ships, and the mainstream acknowledgment of them, change canon, or is there still room for a version of canon in which those ships don't exist?
- Does canon need to be the same for everyone? Can different fans with different visions of canon still interact and respect each other?
And all of that will build toward the Big Question, which has to do with whether ships should become canon and what would happen to TV writ large if that started to happen more often. But we're not there yet. First we have to figure out what canon is.
Since this column is less a column and more of an introduction, I'd like to ask a few questions for you to answer in comments. Answer the questions that apply to you and ignore the ones that don't.
- Do you have ships that you consider to be canon? Short of a couple kissing or having sex onscreen, what do you consider the proof that your ship is canon?
- Do you think a show's canon extends to comments by the creators or actors about their characters' motivations?
- When a show leaves a question unanswered, do you think there's an intended canon that's just not shown, or are the creators inviting viewers to construct their own canon?
- How much do your ships depend on what happens onscreen? Have there been ships that you stopped shipping because the characters' relationship onscreen changed? Or once a ship is set in your mind, is it there to stay?
- Do you ship characters who have never or seldom met onscreen?
- How much outside of what's explicitly shown onscreen is fair game for a discussion of a TV show? If you don't agree with shipping, is speculation of a character's motivations, past or secrets all right? Is it all right to posit theories?
- What do you think needs to be part of the discussion of canon that I haven't asked yet?
And please, remember to respect each other and each other's opinion. Most of you have done so, but I've seen some comments that cast aspersions on the intelligence, good intentions or sanity of those on the other side. If you feel the urge to mention "haters," "extreme" fans/shippers, or something more disparaging, do your best to find another way to say it.
Thank you all for participating in the conversation so far.
I think that the current generation of shippers nowadays is a little too concerned with trying to coerce or convince the show to make their ship canon. I don't understand why people can't enjoy shipping and fandom without all of the drama and fighting.
ReplyDeleteThat is certainly the big question - why do some shippers feel they should interact with showrunners, what does it accomplish and is it a valid part of fandom? But I'm trying not to get ahead of myself here. So I'd love, first, to know what you consider canon to be, and whether your ships (if you have any) depend and change based on what happens in canon.
ReplyDeleteRamona Jones has it right - it should be without drama - and people really do spend too much time trying to get their couples canon when its not based on anything except personal interest.
ReplyDeleteCanon is easy within TV - the characters have to have some sort of connection that you know is going to head towards something. Kissing, longing looks, angst these are all obvious things that have to happen. And sometimes shows make it harder to see and sometimes they make it easy. in Glee Finn and Rachel kissed in the second episode of the series - that's clearly the writers giving the viewers a guide to follow. Also Canon couples most of the time come from the writers, they write things for us to pick up on. You can have more then one Canon couples. The argument of Joey and Pacey or Joey and Dawson, Buffy/Angel or Buffy/Spike, Peyton/Lucas or Brooke/Lucas - when shows can give you more than one option then you know its done right.
But the biggest indicator that Canon is, when couples actually exist within the realm of the show. Just because someone thinks two actors/characters have chemistry on and off-screen that doesn't magically mean they are a canon couple. If its not in the show then its not real, its kind of that easy to understand.
Shipping also really steams from on screen and off. I know personally I have always shipped and still do Brooke and Lucas from OTH but after everything that happened with Sophia Bush and Chad off screen (he cheated on her after 5 months of marriage - real classy) it changed from me wanting the character to be with someone better but I know that I still will always love Brooke and Lucas over Peyton.
Also its impossible to talk about canon and shipping and not discuss the most obvious and heated discussion of Rachel and Quinn or Faberry. I know that personally I have always loved these two characters and from the beginning of the series I always wanted them to be friends but the further I got into the series the more I realized how contrived it became because of fandom. For me, from what i know, people use outside sources as a reason to think these two should be canon. They use Lea and Dianna's friendship to validate it. Some even go as far as to say they once dated - even though they are not gay because they both have publically dated men, Lea going as far back as to Spring Awakening days. Of course I can't 'prove' that she's not gay, just like no one can prove she is.
I don't think its wrong to ship any couples that people want - its free game. My issue comes when people 'try' and make a non existant couple canon, The same could be said for Sam and Dean on Supernatural.
i think a TV and the writers tell you exactly what's happening and why - unfortunatly in terms of Glee, the writers give too much freedom to the audience and we can sometimes dictate what is being said or what is being show, as show runnings that shouldn't be allowed and that's why this disccuion of canon is so heated within the Glee fandom.
But i stand by something really simple, ship who ever you want as much as you want, but respect what's being shown on the show, because that's real and that's happening.
So you think that on Glee, the writers leave too many holes in canon and invite the fans to fill in their own answers, whereas you prefer shows that are more tightly scripted and don't leave as much unanswered?
ReplyDeleteWhat you mention about the actors' personal lives affecting your ships is really interesting to me. I'm not familiar with OTH, but from what I glean, when the actor cheated on the actress you stopped wanting their characters to be together? Is that correct? Why should that affect how you view the characters? Do you see it as analogous to people enjoying the actors' closeness as part of shipping their characters?
The only ship I had that became canon is Fran Fine and Mr. Sheffield, from The Nanny. I was 8 years old. So yeah, it's been a while.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the creators intentions are truly important. I consider as canon when there's proof that they have romantic interest on each other, even if they never kiss or get together. If the creators say that they have romantic interest on each other, then that's it.
A great discussion would be the gay relationship of Sherlock and Watson, from BBC Sherlock. There are people who consider them canon, and there are people who will kill you if you say they are canon. Stephen Moffat said that they love each other, but he also said that John is not gay, while Sherlock is not interested on sex at all. But they love each other. They are a completely different relationship, with a completely different kind of feelings. So it's up to you to consider it canon or not.
It is possible, of course, to stop shipping a couple, but that's really difficult, I believe. I used to be a hardcore Jisbon (Jane/Lisbon - The Mentalist) shipper, and I just couldn't care less now, because I believe that their relationship was put aside in the show, and I just forgot about it.
I think it's alright to post theories about whatever you wanna post, because I believe that you're free to do whatever you want. Of course some theories are over the edge, but if there's people making them and people reading and enjoying them, let people do whatever they want, if it won't offend people.
I'll be talking a little about Sherlock and John from BBC Sherlock in next week's column. :)
ReplyDeleteOf course some people are offended by even mentioning theories, so I think "if it won't offend people" can be a difficult line to draw!
To answer your first question - the glee writers give the fans too much access to the show, as a fan of the show its both great and not. The writers allow the fans to comment on the progress of their ships and in some sense dictate that they want more or its unfair that they aren;t getting enough screen time or the couple they want to be canon isn't. I think a lot of the 'shipping wars' that consist within Glee comes from this, from wanting more for your ship regardless if they are canon or not. And at the same time, its not up to the fans to make that decision, but then on the other its the fans that are vocal that allows the writers too know which ships they love. Its the reason Finchel is so popular because the majority of fans have all expressed that they love them, its why Klaine fans are so passionate about the outcomes and why Brittana fans were so upset when one of the actress said that she didn't think the couple belonged together. The writers, mostly this last season, are giving the fans too much control and they need to take it back - because it does affect the show, it leaves lots of wholes just on a professional level.
ReplyDeleteAs for One Tree Hill - the show was on for three years when everything went down and in that time I went from not being a fan of Sophia bushes character to her being my favorite character on the show. That was almost 6 years ago where social media wasnt even half what it is now - where interaction was practically non-existent. SO it became something really personal because I was a fan of her and her character and then when Chad cheated and it completely changed my view on his character and him as an actor - he became less likable. That's completely on me as a viewer, but the writers definitely made sure that the relationship didn't last longer then that one season. It changed the storyline which at the end of the day is very important to any show.
I think what's interesting to look at, in considering how "canon" your ship may be, is looking to the actors. Show heads may write one thing, but the actors may interpret it differently. One example I can think of is the show Battlestar Galactica where [SPOILERS] Roslin and Adama are revealed to finally act on their feelings for one another in season 4. However, the actors have said they interpreted the characters as having commenced their relationship sooner, in season 3 (off camera, of course).
ReplyDeleteIf the show or media in question is an adaptation of a book, there's a whole other layer of interpretation involved. One example I can think of is the show "Generation Kill". The actors are interpreting characters based on scripts written by the writers, which in turn is an adaptation of a book, which is a journalist's firsthand account of events as he saw them. With so many layers of interpretation, what is "canon"?
Awesome answers, thank you! I am seeing a lot of intermingled feelings about characters, creators, actors and other fans, and it seems to me the lines just aren't that easily drawn, even when it'd make life so much simpler to just draw them that way -- to have what Chad did not affect your view of his character at all, for example. But you can't help that affecting you -- that's part of being human, and being a fan!
ReplyDeleteIndeed. And when TV shows have book tie-ins, it adds yet another layer... I'll be talking about that in next week's column!
ReplyDeleteexactly. Its not cut and dry at all, like at all. And you've gotta have thick skin to be a shipper, really in any canon. You can't come in and not know where you stand or who you 'ship', if you're uncertain you will get eaten alive for it.
ReplyDeleteits so dramatic and ridiculous but thats the way things are. Its never simple.
We can go off your banner for my answer for that. The Doctor/Rose were canon; Dean/Cas and Derek/Stiles are not. Or, if you want to go with a specific show context, Dean/Lisa are a canon couple, Dean/Cas (and Sam/Dean) are not.
ReplyDeleteJudging the canonicity of a couple based on perceived subtext is silly to me because different people are always going to read that subtext differently. That's why there is fandom! People can ship whoever they like, however they like, and never have to worry about canon at all.
"Does canon need to be the same for everyone? Can different fans with different visions of canon still interact and respect each other?"
ReplyDeleteAs far back as I can remember into my childhood as a fan, I think I've recognized the reality of multiple visions of "canon." I mean, everyone who reads a book takes away a different message from it. Multiple understandings of what a show or narrative is or does can exist side-by-side. And I think the best creations are those which inspire a multiplicity of readings.
Do I have strong opinions about what I consider to be a "fact" or "true" about the things I am a fan of? Absolutely! But I also recognize that other people hold equally strong views to the contrary. Not everyone has to be in agreement to enjoy the original work together; hopefully we can be respectful of one another for being fans in their own way. Another person's different reading doesn't invalidate your own!
I don't think creators of original works owe their fans interaction or need to respond to fan expectations or demands to create or change certain narratives (although I realize the power of harnessing fan excitement and buy-in for cultural and financial success on some level). Still, I can understand how some creators might start to feel held hostage by their fans who have a different vision of the creator's show than the creator does. The original work is the creators, not ours. That's what fanworks can be for -- sharing our own vision of that original work, co-existing alongside the original creator's vision. The creators don't owe us our vision writ large (if nothing else, with multiple versions flying around, which one would they choose?)
As a queer woman, I definitely see the desire for certain pairings to become canon (*kof*kof*Dean/Cas*kof*kof*) and have experienced real pleasure when queer relationships have gone from hinted at to outright THERE (e.g. Jack/Ianto in "Torchwood" or Jenny/Vastra in "Doctor Who"). You bet I cheered when Vastra introduced Jenny as her "wife" in the recent Christmas special! So I do think fan desires to see certain relationships represented in canonspace do raise legitimate questions about the limited vision of (some) original works, and our desire for them to bring more diversity into those works. Hopefully, there's a way for that conversation to take place without creators feeling held hostage by the fans OR fans feeling betrayed or rejected by the creators.
I have to disagree actors sometimes make up backstory without talking to showrunners--that isn't cannon. If it isn't in the show, it isn't cannon. BSG however is a bad example. There was a big scene with Roslin and Adama in season 3 unfinished business on New Caprica. The cuddling was only in the extended version, but the actors shot the scene and the extensive flirting stayed in the show--their finale was built off of the connection in that episode. So it was in the show.
ReplyDeleteCanon is quite simply what's seen on screen. Canon ships are relationships that have been presented on screen, whether actual or in the building thereof (eg. Pride and Prejudice). Further proof is not necessary. Whatever is said by the creators or actors about motivation, if the relationship has not been realised or prepared on screen, it is not canon until such time as it does. When a show leaves the question unanswered, the creators intentions could accidental or deliberate for any reason. It's whether it is on screen that counts. Ships can change on screen but it rarely will affect my enjoyment of thinking about a ship unless and until something happens on screen which undermines the ship. It wasn't the case for me as I never shipped them in the first place but this happened to a lot of Buffy/Spike shippers after he attempted to rape her. All my ships are or have been canon. Everything is fair game for discussion about the characters, their motivations, etc. What can be obnoxious is when such discussion/speculation is presented as fact when it is unsupported with evidence from what's on screen. What is even more obnoxious is when such certainly is projected upon the real lives of the actors.
ReplyDeleteI have observed over time that there is with some a tendency to reject canon ships merely because they are canon in a "you can't tell me who I'm to like" sort of petulance/rebellion against the "authority" of the creators. This is something I would like to see explored.
Having now read the interesting comments, one thing I would add. Technically, a ship is any relationship - sexual, romantic, platonic, friends. Ships that fans get excited about are the romantic/sexual or potentially romantic/sexual ones so I assume it is those to which you are referring. Then again, you know what they say about assumptions so maybe it would help to clarify that.
ReplyDeleteI'm a fan of tiered canon. Anything that happens in the source material (TV show here) is the highest level of canon. It cannot be overturned except by in-source (in-show) retconning.
ReplyDeleteMaterial that is specifically packaged with the source material (like the copy of the DHARMA/Others truce that came with the Season 5 DVDs, for example), is the next highest level of canon because it represents something that was meant to be experienced with the show without exception. If it is somehow poorly fact-checked and disagrees with what's in the source material, however, the source material overrules it.
The next highest level of canon are creator quotes. Those who are responsible for the creation of the work are giving insights into the source material that may not have made it into the source material, but it is still important enough for the creators to tell people about it. However, it's not so important that they feel the need to make sure that everyone who experiences the source material (watches the show) hears the substantive material brought up in the quote. If these quotes don't disagree with the two prior levels of canon, these quotes are also canon and to be accepted as true. If the quotes disagree with either of the two prior levels of canon, we should just assume that the creator made a mistake. After all, if we always took these disagreeing quotes as the creator changing their minds and thereby altering the source material, we have 1) an audience who is now split, with only those privy to the quotes realizing that the source material has been altered, and 2) given the creator to alter whatever solid source material has already been laid down the ability to be changed on a whim at any time, and that seriously compromises the integrity of the source's continuity when it can be changed at any moment, rather than needing to be written into more source material to effect the change.
The next highest level of canon is any material that is sanctioned to be released by the creators but not directly from the creators themselves. The LOST encyclopedia is a good example of this. Damon and Carlton gave the go-ahead for the project, but that doesn't mean we should accept the encyclopedia's errors as fact, especially since it wasn't primarily written by the creators. But any new information here that doesn't disagree with any of the other levels of canon should be taken as true. Any information that disagrees with information from higher up should be ignored or discarded.
Everything else is non-canon. It doesn't come from the source material or anyone involved with it, so no objective truth can be gleaned from it.
Now, my levels do have a small flaw, as on their face they don't take into account material that is made by the creators regarding the show but not actually in the show itself. For example, still sticking with LOST, we have the LOST ARGs and the LOST Comic-Con preview specials. They were created and shown outside of the show, so they definitely fit somewhere below the two highest levels of canon, but do they hold more weight because the creators put more effort into them than just a simple quote? Or do they hold less weight because they were created and shown more for fun/hype than for actually providing canon information on the show's world? Luckily the creators of the show have some thoughts on this as they have said that the Comic-Con preview specials are non-canon while the ARGs are partially canon (mostly just the Valenzetti stuff from The Lost Experience), so this helps us define this particular grey area (unless we stick to my tiers very strictly, in which case it wouldn't matter what the creators said about them if they're at a higher level of canon than creator quotes :P ).
Canon in television is even more confusing than canon in books, because there is the added dimension of the actor's opinions and statements on the character.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's generally accepted in the Harry Potter fandom, for example, that Dumbledore was gay and in love with the wizard Grindelwald, because JK Rowling explicitly stated this in an interview.
This has essentially become part of the canon, because it is directly from the writer of the series.
For a television example...
At a convention last year, Misha Collins referred to Dean and Castiel from Supernatural as having a "love relationship", stated that "I think the love there is made pretty clear," and that "we’re all perfectly aware of how the relationship is, the writers are completely aware of how it’s being written. It may be unspoken but that doesn’t mean it’s not there or not true."
Is this canon or not?
Do we accept it as canon because we acknowledge that the actor embodies the character and thereby can be considered interpreting and understanding the character perhaps equally as well the show's creators?
Or is it not canon, because only the creator of the show can say it? Would it only be considered canon if Eric Kripke stated it? Jeremy Carver or Robert Singer, the new show-runners? What about one of the scriptwriters?
Who has the 'greater canonicity' here?
Or, if none of those things make it canon, and only the two characters kissing onscreen or otherwise overtly proclaiming their love would, how is this different from the Dumbledore example?
Additionally, if you don't consider Dumbledore's gayness to be canon... Why?
First, please excuse any mistakes as English is not my first language.
ReplyDeleteQ: Do you have ships that you consider to be canon? Short of a couple
kissing or having sex onscreen, what do you consider the proof that your
ship is canon?
A: No, if it isn't on the show it isn't cannon, As an example, I watch Criminal Minds and my ship is regardless of cannon, Hotch and Prentiss but there was never any explicit mention of them as a couple on the show. No kisses, no dates, no nothing. So for me this remain in the realm of fanfiction. In that fandom ( only one I follow and I am active in ) my cannon ship are the one established one the show Hotch and Beth, JJ and Will, Garcia and Kevin, Reid and Maeve etc.... As for what would be the proof I would accept for my ship to be part of cannon? The writers have to write it in the material.
Q: Do you think a show's canon extends to comments by the creators or
actors about their characters' motivations?
A: Yes. They are part of the creative process. This is THEIR creation, their world and characters. What they say about it counts into cannon.
Q: When a show leaves a question unanswered, do you think there's an
intended canon that's just not shown, or are the creators inviting viewers
to construct their own canon?
A: Yes, when a show leaves a question unanswered there is an intended cannon.
Q: How much do your ships depend on what happens onscreen? Have there
been ships that you stopped shipping because the characters' relationship
onscreen changed? Or once a ship is set in your mind, is it there to stay?
A: My ship doesn’t depend on what is onscreen. Hotch and Prentiss never got together, never
stopped me from watching and enjoying the cannon ships that involved those
characters. For me, Ships can totally exists outside the show and I am happy with it. No, I can change my mind about a ship, nothing is ever set in stone. Like life things change and so does
relationships.
Q: Do you ship characters who have never or seldom met onscreen?
A: No. There has to be something there, cannot build in a vacuum.
Q:How much outside of what's explicitly shown onscreen is fair game
for a discussion of a TV show? If you don't agree with shipping, is
speculation of a character's motivations, past or secrets all right? Is
it all right to posit theories?
A: Anything is fair game to discuss . I don’t mind theories but again those have to have some sort of
basis. Shipping let’s say Hotch and Anderson ( yeah I am going way out there!) can be discuss but there got to be something more than Hotch telling Anderson to take Elle home for me to even entertain the idea that Hotch would be interested in Anderson. As for posting theories, sure it is alright to post them but it should be alright to post arguments against said theories.
Yes! I know. Being in the Sherlock fandom, I believe that there are two types of people in this fandom. The crazy as fuck ones and the 'moralistic' ones. And the moralistic ones are often offended by every theory that the crazy part creates. Not to mention the idea of saying that something is canon when they haven't signed the marriage papers. I've seen people saying GIVE UP THEY WILL NEVER BE CANON, like really angry because there are people who want it to happen. I don't understand why these people are so offended by wanting it to happen, though. Because to me, what John and Sherlock have right now is the best that could be. It's not just a regular friendship, and it's not romantic relationship either. It's something in between, that it's the same in every single Sherlock Holmes' version ever created. They love each other, they would die for each other, and as Moffat said, if you fancy someone, you spend the night with them. If you love them, you'll spend your life. And that's what John does. He spends his life with Sherlock, not the night. And Sherlock is not interested on sex, so that's what a relationship would be to him.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the theories are really interesting ways to analyze the canon. Again mentioning Moffat, he likes and he approves those crazy as shit theories, and in Doctor Who he has already said that he intentionally puts details so people will create theories over it. And Sherlock is MADE to have theories. I mean, do you really think that Gatiss and Moffat created Sherlock so people will simply watch it and get over it? Turn off the TV and think of something else? No, there's a lot there, there's a lot to be explored. His relationship with John, with Irene, with Molly, with Greg, with Mrs. Hudson. And come on, the years of waiting for another season are much funnier when you can see the theories being created and posted on tumblr. That's why Sherlock's fandom never dies, there's always something being posted, you can never be bored on Sherlock's tag. Even if there's only 6 episodes and years of waiting between them =)
(Great topic! I'm SO glad this column is a thing).
ReplyDeleteI'm a slash shipper, and I'm queer, so when it comes to canon for what I ship, which is same-sex couples 99% of the time, both these things come into play when it comes to the definition of canon for me. I'll take a definition of canon from a meta I wrote a little while ago, because it's really the best explanation I have for what I think of as canon ship-wise:
An explicitly romantic relationship, as opposed to implicitly romantic, which is made clear and obvious enough in its nature that the majority of casual viewers, who are not interested in shipping, slash, or LGBT, still unmistakeably identify it as such and are sure of what they’re looking at, and which can, therefore, be considered a representation of same-sex couples if it is such a couple.
This definition includes all things that I mean when I say "canon": explicitly romantic, obvious to every type of viewer, queer representation if it's a same-sex ship. So, basically, "canon = representation; no representation = no canon". As a queer person, I really can't disconnect one from the other, because LGBT representation is a huge personal matter to me, and from that POV, considering stuff to be canon and rejoicing when nothing actually explicit (romantically explicit, not sexually, hahaha - although I am also highly concerned about desexualisation of queer characters, and if someone says "they don't need to show kissing/sexual part of their relationship/physical attraction", I call very serious bullshit) has happened/nothing has actually been done to make it clear to everyone that the 2 characters are a same-sex couple, is something that I wouldn't do. I'm happy about shippy and implicit stuff, but it's not canon untill you make it canon.
For these same reasons, I'll never take "word of god", i e stuff TPTB or actors say outside of the actual episodes, as legitimate canon: the only people who will hear this are active fans, most of whom will be shippers who are already well aware of the implied stuff anyway, while the casual viewers, who are the ones in need of being exposed to LGBT representation, may never know of what they said. It's a way of appeasing fans, but it's a cheap trick, and I would feel cheated and wouldn't settle for that as something actually good when I was promised representation and given subtext that only I and people like me can see, no matter how obvious it is to us.