Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Fans & Fantasy: 50 Shades of Canon


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Fans & Fantasy: 50 Shades of Canon

4 Feb 2013

Share on Reddit

"IT'S SO CANON, OK?"

It's the battle cry of the shippers. At least some ships, and at least some shippers, are convinced that even when it's not explicitly shown onscreen, their favorite couples are, in fact, hooking up.

At first blush that seems like a stretch. Anything so significant as a romantic relationship in a character's life would surely be shown onscreen, right? If the creators wanted us to see romance between Character A and Character B, they'd show it to us.

But there are a lot of definitions of "show." And, quite frankly, there are a lot of different definitions of "romance," too -- but that's another story for another time.

Based on a lot of the comments from last week's article, it seems that many of you reading this column have a very strict definition of canon. And yes, what's scripted and filmed and acted and aired is the narrowest definition of canon. But I submit to you that if that's where canon stopped, and there were no further questions to ask, TV wouldn't be nearly so riveting. We watch these stories not for what we know we're going to see but what we don't know and can't see. The mysteries that still aren't solved, the resolutions that haven't come yet. And trying to fill in those holes is fertile ground for discussion. It's the reason we have forums and speculation and columns like this one. There is room for the individual imagination in interpreting art. And in a medium like TV, which focuses almost exclusively on the outwardly expressed and the newsworthy, there are plenty of blanks to fill in. And sometimes those blanks are filled in not solely by fans but by people involved in the creative process.

Here are some of the ways canon can be stretched.

Tie-ins. For many popular series, the story can go beyond the weekly timeslot to fill books, video games, Web series, etc. These are officially licensed, and at the time of their release they fit in with continuity. But not every writer on a show is going to read cover-to-cover every novel tie-in. There are bound to be gaps in continuity, especially in long-running shows. Notably, the Torchwood novels do not go the same way as the TV series with regard to Tosh and Owen, their relationship and how things end up. So which is official canon? It's in the eye of the beholder... or the reader.

Hints onscreen. Sometimes an aspect of a character's past is not revealed onscreen. Shippers use this to their advantage, because it's always possible a character has had a sexual dalliance in his or her past that we don't (yet) know about. There have been hints onscreen about Dean Winchester's sexuality being less than 100% straight, despite the fact that we've only ever seen him flirt with or sleep with women. He seems visibly excited by the appearance of a hunky TV character, and at more than one point seems to lustfully "check out" a male character. These sorts of hints are fertile ground for shippers to speculate that Dean may have attractions to men, even though he doesn't talk about them -- which is in keeping with the character, too, since he's very attached to traditional notions of masculinity and would likely have trouble talking about any aspect of himself that didn't fit in with that. So while we can't say for sure that Dean is or isn't bisexual, canon does seem to be leaving the door open.

Statements by creators or actors. Who can forget the uproar when J.K. Rowling revealed, after the Harry Potter series had ended, that Dumbledore was gay? There weren't any mentions of Dumbledore's sexual or romantic inclinations in the book -- guy was pushing 90 and had enough to do -- but it's been widely accepted that Dumbledore being gay is canon, though it happened outside the realm of the written word.

These days, the same thing is happening on TV a lot. The rise of a culture with Twitter and blogs and conventions aplenty means that we hear more and more from writers, creators, directors, and everyone else involved in a show. And what we hear may be the opinion of one member of the staff, or it could be something the whole team is aware of and using. Comments by the actors and creative team of "Teen Wolf" about Stiles' bisexuality, and teases that the Stiles/Derek relationship could happen... gave shippers plenty of fodder for considering the strong feelings between their favorite characters canon, even if they didn't come to fruition onscreen.

And even when the statement isn't outright, creators' and actors' wishes for the characters can sometimes be considered part of canon. If Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have said they wouldn't mind taking Sherlock and John's relationship beyond the realm of the platonic -- that is, if the actors themselves ship it -- then what could be wrong with fans shipping it too, even if nothing has explicitly happened onscreen yet? Couldn't the intention, or at least the inclination, be considered canon?

Holes in continuity. A TV show just can't show everything. Even when there isn't any hint onscreen, it's an open question - what else do our characters get up to offscreen? What feelings and relationships do they conceal? And it's those gaps that keep TV shows going beyond their initial plots. Writers and creators have to find someplace to draw from. That's how you get family members we've never heard of, exes the characters have never mentioned, and yet in the start of a new season, they show up in town and are suddenly critically important.

These things aren't set in stone from a show's inception. The process of creating new parts of an existing canon is how TV continues to thrive over seasons. And shippers are just creating it, too... from a new perspective and maybe not getting paid, and certainly not in a way that earns universal recognition, but in a way that's rewarding and creative.

And maybe that is too far a shade of gray to be called canon. But it comes from the same place -- the heart and the inspiration that fiction provides.

So in understanding the phenomenon of shipping, maybe understanding that canon can be as open, or as closed, as you choose to see it, is a first step.

Do you consider canon closed or open? Is there a difference between how you perceive canon in general, and your "personal" canon? Can you understand the mindset of those who think differently? How can we communicate as people who have, literally, different realities to work from, or is that part of the fun of the discussion? Again, remember to be respectful. Thanks!

47 comments:

  1. Canon is what is explicitly shown on screen. Nothing a creator says has to be considered as canon. It's the straight-up facts. You can't stretch what's laid down as a fact into something else and still call it a fact. Just because it's not official canon doesn't mean it's not true or there, but it also doesn't mean that it is. What you're talking about is typically referred to as "fanon."



    For example, it is a CANON FACT that Dean kept Castiel's trench coat in the trunk of the Impala. That can't be argued, it happened. But anything beyond that, alluded to by actors or by creators is NOT canon. But does it matter? Does something HAVE to be canon in order to be accepted into fanworks? Answer: no. A fact is a fact is a fact. Stop calling things facts that aren't. Doesn't mean you can't use them, they just aren't facts. Or, in fandom (and previously biblical) terms: it's not canon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's interesting that you bring up the Biblical definition of canon. If Biblical canon were as immutable as your TV canon was, I don't think we'd have all these different sects of Christianity running around. The Bible's a perfect example of how people can take different realities from a single source. The words of the Bible don't change, but the discussion surrounding them obviously does, and always will.

    You're right that no matter how hard we say "Pairing X is canon," you're not gonna believe it. And that's fine. But it runs both ways. No matter how hard you say "Canon is limited to X," we're not gonna agree with you. The question is, are we going to shout "The chicken came first!" "No, the egg came first!" at each other forever, or are we going to move on and talk about the tasty possibilities for Shake 'n' Bake? Or is it your feeling that everyone who has sees something different in canon than you do just needs to go away?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe we need another term, something between "canon" and "not canon." Because all of fiction is interpretive. Even fans who strictly adhere to a "canon reading" will use symbolism and respond to literary devices such as parallels. Subtext is not just for slash ships but non-romantic implications as well. I get more than a little annoyed hearing over and over that shippers are "delusional" and "crazy" because they, like everyone else, respond and interpret and play around with multiple meanings. What's actually happening on-screen is subjective anyway if you watch a fandom debate over episodes, two people can watch the same thing and see something totally different and have a totally different emotional response before we even get to the subject of non-canon ships.


    So even if there isn't indisputable on-screen proof two characters are physically involved...who's to say they aren't in love, that it's ridiculous to interpret body language, responses, dialogue, as meaning to imply they might be. Whether two characters have chemistry is subjective, and sometimes I think fans are stretching the interpretation and sometimes I'm thinking wow, that's kind of hard for me to see any other way, it seems really obvious what that parallel and shout-out was meant to imply to the audience.


    Not sure what that in-between term word would be, but there's another answer here besides "delusional" or "overtly canon."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess our friend upthread would say we should refer to it as "fanon." But "fanon" doesn't quite give it the legitimacy it deserves, because it carries with it the connotation of being fan-created and based on wish fulfillment rather than what's overtly onscreen. It's all a means to an end, anyway, that end being the ability to coexist and discuss whether Character X is motivated by revenge, or daddy issues, or loyalty, or his feelings for Character Y, without the last option being immediately laughed at and discounted.



    Perhaps when I start fleshing out some of the other aspects of shipping fandom, those that don't necessarily depend on what's canon and what's not, it will provide a fuller picture of who shippers are and why they do what they do. (Why yes, that is a tease for next week's column!)

    ReplyDelete
  5. When it comes to TV shows, there's a team of writers. True, they may have to keep in line with the storyarc for the season or write within certain parameters, but any of those writers on that team may have personal interpretations regarding the characters. Canon becomes a looser construct when you take into account all those different intents. And regardless of the media, viewers or readers will bring their own lens to that. The author may be "word of god" when it comes to what constitutes canon, but that is far from the only valid way to enjoy it (otherwise we wouldn't have literary theory). If fans are extrapolating on subtext they see in the show--well, that subtext still exists in the canon, even if it may not be in the forefront.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here, I'd just like to add what happened in Merlin fandom, after the show ended. I'm sure most of you already heard of it, but let's repeat it again: On the DVD commentary, the showrunner Julian Murphy confirmed that the last episode of Merlin was written as a love story between two man. As a shipper of course, I couldn't see it as anything else but romantic relationship, but for the media even that confirmation wasn't enough. After all, Merlin and Arthur never kissed and their relationship wasn't explicitly shown as romantic.

    In addition, the media disregards the reveal of their true relationship as a joke:
    "Well, now that the show is over, we guess they can finally make jokes like this, right?" - Hypable

    This leaves me to wonder, is their relationship percieved as a joke, because they are two men? And how does the broader public, those who know nothing about shipping, see it? Are there even some of the slash fans who still don't recognize it as canon?

    I just have to say, that I didn't like how the showrunners dealt with it, if they wanted to show that Arthur and Merlin's relationship was a romantic one, they should do this in the show, so everyone could see it, not just crack some jokes on a DVD commentary that hardly a few fans will watch... (p.s. sorry for my English.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, "fanon" isn't quite the right word because to me that applies to fanfic and fanart or entirely created backstory/untold stories. Fanon uses canon as a springboard, fanon draws inspiration from canon. Fanon can also become canon. But the canon-ish but not-quite-canon things that are interpretations of what was on-screen is a different creature. It's the difference between an explicit fanfic, and fans discussing a dialogue exchange that happened on screen involving body language and glances and subtext. With the explicit fanfic, there's no question that didn't happen on screen. (Could it be implied to have happened off-screen is a subject for discussion) With the dialogue exchange & interpretation & responding to a show's use of literary devices and body language...it is as you said a gray area.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think you mistake me for someone who is attempting to actually ship something (or, on the converse go against shipping) with my definition. You say that the Bible's a perfect example of we take different realities from a singular source and you're right. But your definition is wrong. What's canon are the words that are IN the Bible. You can't argue that such and such a thing wasn't said, or that such and such a thing didn't happen (in the sense that it occurs in the text itself, not necessarily historically.) That's what canon is. Everything else is how we interpret the canon, and not actually canon in itself. Follow?

    See: chicken and egg argument. There are chickens and there are eggs - that's canon. What came first - not canon.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I consider canon very very open. It's hard to explain, but the best example for me is JK Rowling and what she's currently doing with Pottermore. We got the 7 books of Harry Potter and if a person considers only the things mentioned in there as set in stone canon then what are these countless new informations JK reveals in Pottermore? She always said she could have filled a dozen more books with background stories about all the characters and the wizarding world in general and its stories. (Isn't that canon? Or is it JKR's own head canon/fanon? Just because the facts didn't make it into the books or movies, because an editor decided they weren't important enough?) And that's how I take it with all my shows, books and movies. There is SO MUCH MORE than the things we get to see on screen or read in books and it doesn't even have to be related to shipping two characters. Behind every episode and every book there're whole new worlds our fantasy can create and fill *without* ever touching or changing the canon we saw/read. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Who are people to tell me I'm wrong or what I'm doing is wrong. I seriously doubt that any writer/creator has only the absolute facts he puts into the final story in his/her head. There is never just THE canon. At least in my experience. Every new chapter/episode can change what we've previously known as canon. Canon is fluid and in motion. And if thousands of fans agree on the fact that Dean and Cas are more than just best friends because their eye sexing is legendary... well, then so be it canon for all of these fans, because there's nothing that contradicts them.

    Isn't it like this with every history book? If our history only consisted out of the cold facts in those books, all of it could have happened in a lot less time. But behind every fact in these books there are stories of thousands of people who aren't mentioned at all. Tragedies, happy ends, death, life... just because they're not in the history books doesn't mean they didn't exist or are less canon. So why should it be different here in our canon discussion?

    Of course I totally understand if someone doesn't see it that way. I think there are different kinds of people who would disagree. For one it's the people who just don't have the mindset for it. I experience it every day in my daily life how people take what they see and leave it at that. Thinking beyond that just doesn't occur to them. I find it unbelievable sad. The people in my daily life just lack the passion and the dedication to the characters, the show, the movie or the book to think further, to not just accept what they've seen. And then there are the people (like the first comment here), who just refuse to accept the possibility of widening canon to more than the pure cold facts. While I understand the reasoning behind it, in my opinion it narrows the world to a rather small collection of facts in comparison to the huge universe that lays beyond that. A universe that can be canon just as well for every single person who wants it to be canon.

    But as much as we all here have different views on canon, bromance, romance, pairings etc, how we define and understand them - the things we all have in common is the passion and the love for *our* show or we wouldn't be here, reading this column, discussing about it. We wouldn't even have an opinion at all. In all the shipping wars, the arguments, the belittling of opinions we sometimes do - I think we shouldn't forget that we all come from the same starting point - the love for a show, its characters and the wish to see their stories, their life, their love, their sorrows etc and often the wish to expand their universe by filling gaps, creating stories beyond what we've seen on screen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What happens when a pairing is made canon in one of these "extensions" of onscreen canon is often a trouble spot. There was a similar issue in Supernatural fandom when Misha Collins was quoted at a meet-and-greet as saying he, Jensen, and the writers are all very aware that there is *something* between Dean and Castiel, and that although it's unspoken, it's still clearly something. The upshot of this was that shippers took it as gospel, and those who didn't ship it immediately determined that it had to be a joke -- and started taking swings at everyone who took it seriously (I saw a distressing example of this not too far from where we now stand on the Internet globe...). Given that kind of backlash, it's not surprising that some shippers would much prefer things stay in the realm of the implied.



    There's a distressing culture of victimization going on here where both shippers and non-shippers feel belittled and marginalized by the other side, and so strike out to try to make sure their point of view is respected. It's something I am really, upset by, when the truth is that we could both learn from and relish each other's points of view. But I think we all need to look at ourselves hard and understand that we have a responsibility to stand up for ourselves positively and say "I see it this way" rather than taking to mocking people who simply see it another way... but I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mm, perhaps I should clarify myself a little better. What I'm saying is that canon by definition is not open for interpretation, if the fact can be believably argued, then it's probably not canon. So what I'm saying is that shipping battles should be less about "this is canon," "no it's not," and more about "is it justifiable?" (Unless of course, we abolished shipping wars, but heaven forfend.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I know about that interview... It's really interesting to see how Destiel fans alone are divided. There are those who wish for the pairing to go explicitly canon, and also those who wish it would stay "fanon", or as it is at the moment. Some are of the opinion that asking for Destiel to be canon, would mean forcing our own ideas to the showrunners. They feel they can enjoy in what we get on the screen, and have fanfiction for all the Destiel moments they don't get in canon.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Historical_Materialist4 February 2013 at 19:29

    Very interesting article. The need for its existence is unfortunately very sad because rabid shippers (you know who you are) should just accept the fact that just because romantic connections don't work out according to their own imaginations; it isn't the end of the world.

    Specifically about canon; its simple really. Unless it happens within its primary medium sponsored and/agreed to by the creator and/or owner of the property; then its not canon.

    Examples: Until a character and/or plot point shows up on a DC Comics "Superman" title in print. Nothing that happens in CW's Smallville should be considered canon.

    Torchwood and Dr Who are BBC TV productions. Unless it happens on the screen; it hasn't happened.

    Sorry to break it to the haters but Enterprise was a bona fide Star Trek series. Trip died and didn't end up with T'pol.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think I understand you a little better now. You are
    opposed to the use of the word "canon" to mean "I believe this is
    happening, though we can't see it." So, for example, saying "Pairing X is canon" means to you "Pairing X is happening onscreen." I submit to you that the term "canon" may itself be interpreted differently. Suppose we insert a different word for "canon" - let's say, for argument's sake, "real."

    So, if I believe Pairing X is *real* -- meaning, it's happening, but not onscreen -- that should hold the same level of validity as someone who believes Pairing X is *not real* -- meaning, it's not happening, onscreen or off. The problem in the discourse is that it doesn't, although there's the same amount of interpretation to support either option. How do we get to that point in our conversation, where believing Pairing X is implied, or "real," isn't immediately a point against a person's sanity or intelligence? I'm open to your suggestions.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think advising anyone to "just accept the fact" is an uphill push. People will believe and infer what they want to believe and infer. My aim is not to agree on a universal canon/fanon/fictional "reality" for everyone here but to encourage the notion that our views are not going to line up, and that there is beauty and food for thought in that very difference of opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To be honest, having an in depth argument about whether something that's only fictional is real or not is pretty much a guarantor of commentary against sanity and intelligence. But you see what I mean now. To continue in a Supernatural vein, John and Mary's relationship, Sam and Jess' relationship: those are canon, because the show explicitly tells us, yes, they are a couple. And in such a way as is meant to be accepted without argument. But romantic relationships between Dean and Castiel or Sam and Dean are not canon. Doesn't mean they can't be written about or enjoyed, they just aren't canon. What bothers me here is the liberal use of a word that's being bent the wrong way 'round to feed an argument - not specifically in your argument, but in shipping wars generally.

    What I don't understand is why we have to validate ourselves. I feel like the reason we have so many problems is BECAUSE we're throwing around the word canon. Any shipper who attempts to define the relationship of a couple that's not inarguably in one as "canon" is asking for validation. "Look at my pairing, please acknowledge that it's real!" Now, I'm not stirring up any shipping battle in particular here, I have ships that I agree with and ones that I don't, but I don't ask other people to lend any validity to them. I think if we can lose the word canon and stop trying to validate ourselves, maybe we'll have a chance of seeing a little less argument. "Ship and let ship" doesn't just mean don't hate on other people's ships, it means don't expect everyone to love your ship either.

    At risk of opening myself up for pointed fingers, I enjoy a good Dean/Castiel story. And I even write them. But when I see someone shrieking, "oh look, he kept the trench coat, that makes them canon!" it annoys me, too.

    tl;dr Leave the damn word "canon" alone. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This exactly. Some fandoms have a slightly broader interpretation of their fandom's material, but this is precisely how it works. Canon in the religious sense is what text is accepted as the one true text. For most Christian religions, that's the entire Bible, old and new testament. For Judaism, only the old testament. Lord of the Rings fans accept the happenings of the books as canon, the slight changes in the movies can be accepted into fanworks, there's no rules against it, but the books are the one true text. And that's how it works!

    ReplyDelete
  18. At some point I will definitely be looking at why it is that people find it rewarding or necessary to believe that their ship is "canon" or implied. There's a good, a bad, and an ugly to that, and I don't think it's all quite the desperate scramble for validation that you think it is. But I will acknowledge that the desire for validation exists, and what would be truly interesting to me would to look into why that is, what's lacking such that seeking validation is necessary. I don't think it's always a matter of personal psychology made mass hysteria; I think there's a real question of representation there. And I also think that if there were a little more tolerance for shipping as a phenomenon within non-shipping circles, there wouldn't be quite so heavy an outcry for things to be made overt.


    (I also don't think that the quest for validation/acknowledgment is, in itself, such a bad thing. But that, I suspect, is a severe difference in our philosophy.)



    I just made a note to myself to write, at some point, a "what's it all mean" column... a question of why this raises so many hackles and creates such a visceral emotional response. And why it's important to talk about this sort of thing, even though it's only concerning fictional universes. Because it has to do with how we treat ourselves and others, what our expectations are, what we do when reality doesn't meet our expectations, and how we can understand one another.



    And as for the word "canon"... I shudder whenever "impact" is used as a verb, so I get your feeling. I just don't know that worrying about the word's meaning is going to be the question on which the debate hinges. Sad as it is, you may just have to have it continue to annoy you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In the same way that I fear shipping woes and a lack of validation for shippers from non-shipping communities will always annoy you. But you're not looking for validation, right?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "canon by definition is not open for interpretation" -- this seems to be where the crux of the difference of opinion is. I disagree that canon is not open for interpretation, as I said in my comment above, fiction for me is interpretive by nature, two people can watch the same episode of something and have a different emotional response and interpret the meaning of what happened (maybe even the facts) differently. Interesting about it maybe being about "justifiable"--it's not about whether it's overtly in canon or not but in pointing out the things that were on-screen that led people to the interpretation they took, and then it's up to the individual to decide if it holds up or not.


    For the record, I've seen plenty of shut-downs of shipper reasoning that were based on arguments that ignored chunks of actual on-screen overt canon. Anyone, shipper or not, is capable of misinterpreting or twisting canon to see what they want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I always thought about canon as something with layers. We have what's undeniably canon, those things that are facts. Cas raised Dean from Hell. Dean and Sam are brothers. Cas is an angel. No one can refute those things. And we have interpretations of canon. I don't like when people call those fanon, because fanon implies "created by the fans" and it's not what it is. Shipping Anna with Jo or Adam with Samandriel is fanon, because they didn't even meet. I'm a Destiel shipper, so I will take it as an example. I ship Destiel because I interpret their canonical relationship as romantic in nature, because the way their relationship is presented in the show makes me feel they're in love. Not together romantically, but simply in love. It's not about fanwork, it's about how I feel about their canonical relationship. I know them being in love can be refuted, so it's not undeniable. But it's not something I made up either. I didn't even know the term Destiel when I started shipping it, I wasn't even a part of the fandom. Interpretations that come from canon, but are not undeniably canon should have a name, it would avoid a lot of fight.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Which two things do you not equate? You're running on slight non sequitur here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The source of annoyance I mentioned versus the one you mentioned. I don't think they are the same in scope or relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah, yes, how you feel about the canon is totally an interpretive on your part. But what is in itself canon is not up for interpretation. You can't just say, "oh, that didn't happen, I refute that," if it clearly did. I think it's just the words we're struggling with. I fully agree with everything you're saying except that the word "canon" is what we're talking about. Does that make sense? I feel like I'm going in circles, lol, and not by way of argument, just my attempt to explain myself. The canon is what did happen. How you feel about it or choose to interpret it is something else, and I don't know what that's called or if it has a name, but it clearly should.

    Right, I'm not arguing about shippers or not-shippers. No one, shipper or not-shipper should be twisting around canon for their argument.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Because one is something I'm annoyed about, and one's something you're annoyed about. I feel like you're trying to turn this into an argument about something that it's not meant to be an argument about.

    "A body of literary work that is generally accepted as representing a field," is how canon is defined in its broadest sense. Therefore, you have to select a literary work, let's say a TV show, and decide how that's best represented. Probably by what happens in the show, right? Therefore, what happens in the show is the canon. You can do whatever you want with that, but if it doesn't happen in the literary work, then it's not canon. We put too much weight on "this has to be canon in order to be right!!!!!" and where's the fun in that? I'm not making any arguments about shipping or insecurities about being a shipper in a world of people who often look askance at them, but just what the word itself is. I don't even think I'm arguing with you about anything at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The problem I have with stating that something is canon has to do with the point you have made, there is always room for interpretation and a show/film/book never tells you the entire story - that would be impossible, so when discussing a character's history you can never say with certainty what he/she could have done or has done in the past.

    Moreover, if a story is still being told, then as you also pointed out, half the fun is imagining the possibility of something happening in the future, which is the fun of shipping. When you ship something, you see potential in a relationship that you wish was further explored in a series. Sometimes that relationship is canon, other times it's fanon, and sometime it's just crack!ship but it's still entertaining to imagine that relationship becoming more meaningful.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That's a very valid argument. There are counterarguments, but at this point I have to head home, so we have to will leave it there. I think we ended up talking past each other a bit, so sorry if I've misinterpreted you in any way, and thanks as always for being part of the conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The X-Files was a series that for many years did not have a romantic
    pairing. In fact, the creator had adamantly declared that the two main
    characters would NEVER become romantically involved. Still, people
    shipped the characters for years. At the time, you could have told them
    the same thing people tell many shippers of these so called "fanon"
    relationships today, that this relationship would never happen and that
    people should "get over it" - but the fact is that in this series people
    didn't let it go and eventually the creator changed his mind and
    allowed the characters to become romantically involved. However, it was
    always an uphill battle because even when the characters did get
    together, it was done in such a way that people were left confused
    asking "did they? or didn't they?" it wasn't until one of the character
    was pregnant - yes, I'm not kidding, that the audience went, "OH GOD,
    THEY DID!" And even during that 8th season, in the finale, when the
    characters were scripted to be holding their newly born son, the creator
    still didn't want them to even KISS! This is how anti-romance this
    person was. The director (Kim Manners) and the lead actor for the main
    character (David Duchovny) had to tell the creator, "The characters have
    to kiss. You cannot end it this way." And they added their first "real"
    kiss to the series as more than just friends and it was a beautiful
    moment, but boy how people had to fight to get that in there. This is
    the time of uphill battle that fans of the X-Files had to deal with
    because the creator of that show really wanted to create the ultimate
    platonic relationship, which he did regardless of the eventual romantic
    element to the story. Another interesting tidbit is that at the time,
    the fandom was split into people who wanted "romance" and people who
    didn't want romance (they referred to each other as "no romos"). Now
    this was happening in the mid 90s so as you can see, it was a LONG, LONG
    time ago and it was before people had blended ship names for every
    couple. So, shippers have been struggling with non-shippers since we
    have been able to connect with each other and talk about fiction! The
    point in all of this, is that shippers should never lose hope nor should
    they feel badly for wanting to see a romance on screen. It happens in
    pretty much every fandom. People forget that ship stands for
    "relationship" and the whole point of humanity is to connect with each
    other. To try to tell someone that a "ship" is not important is just not
    true. It just depends on what ship you are talking about, because in
    every story a "ship" has some kind of importance. Like I told my friend
    the other day online, "If you dad hadn't shipped your mom, and your mom
    hadn't shipped your dad - you wouldn't be here today!" :) Go 'ships!

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am not of the opinion that the creator is the only word on canon. I think if you can logically argue your point, then it is no less true than another's, maybe more socially acceptable, version. I just think that too much intent has had to be purposefully made oblique, what others would not accept as hard canon, in order to escape the prejudices of the time. The movie The Celluloid Closet made that clear to me.

    I've also found myself disagreeing with an author about his perspective on a character. A perfect example of this is JK Rowling's statement that Snape is not a hero in her Harry Potter series. I disagree and feel like the text could not help but point to a tragic hero's story. I actually think that's part of the fun--when a character breaks free from his restrictions and in a way writes himself despite the author's best intents to write him a different way. In this scenario, a writer would say that his interpretation is canon when text would support evidence of the contrary. If you have a very black and white interpretation of canon I think you miss all these nuances and as a fan also lose control of your own reading experience. For me, Snape will always be a greater hero than Harry Potter and I'm not going to let even the author's dislike of her own character derail my enjoyment of his journey. Precisely because a creator is so close to his work I don't feel he is always able to see what he has written.

    Intent by the creator does not always equal canon. Nor is subtext not canon, especially when it is utilized to consistently enhance the subconscious or unspoken personality of a character. This is why I don't think people who believe in a Dean Winchester / Castiel romantic relationship are deluded. In many ways half the fun is the speculation of how far has it advanced, do the characters even realize how deep they are, and when is it going to be spoken out loud? But even it if never is, no one is going to convince me that their story isn't romantic. As many people have pointed out before, if Castiel was in a female vessel, very few would question the romantic undertones of the relationship. But fandom isn't concerned with limitation while hard canon is a slippery slope of nothing but limitation. We all read a combination of our own life stories, what we need to read at the time, and the author's intent into one story. So I view canon as akin to several different alternate universes existing simultaneously in one space.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree with you. What we call "canon" is based on what happens onscreen. But what happens on screen can have many interpretations. So the basis of "canon" (aka the narrative) is not black and white and therefore by extension "canon" can never be black and white either. Therefore, saying "canon is not up for debate" is false. For simple events such as "it rained on that episode" sure you can say that's pretty much clear cut but for situations involving character emotion, dynamics and motivations this is often too complex and subjective to ever be black and white.

    ReplyDelete
  31. But why do those things have to be canon? Why do we have this need to define those more complex things as canon at all?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks your response is like a breath of fresh air. I am always very particular about what is a fact and what is an opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I believe myself to be a 'purist' when it comes to canon. What is shown on screen is canon - any 'hint' of behavior or 'interpretation' is completely in the eye of the beholder. Even your article made the attempt to make your personal observations seem like actual facts. Using Dean as an example, you state he 'seems visibly excited by a hunky character' and 'we cant say for sure whether Dean is or isn't bisexual' but neither statement isore than your interpretation. I, for one, have never interpreted his reaction to any male character as 'excited' and have no doubts he is in no way riding the fence. The character has even stated it -- out loud -- on numerous occassions which 'team' he plays for which, by any definition, makes his orientation canon. That's what bothersy anout discussions like this, people clearly see what they want to. Not what is actually there. Si in my opinion, canon has to be interpreted by what is on screen and nothing else or you open it up to a million versions of interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It makes his personal opinion of his orientation canon. He might not be *talking* about attractions he feels to the same sex, even though we feel the body language. Hell, he might even be lying about it because it's something he can't express out loud.



    Your interpretation of Dean's sexuality is completely valid and you don't have to see him as having attractions to the same sex. I wouldn't want you to. But to say that his stating his complete heterosexuality is proof he IS completely heterosexual is as much an interpretation of canon as my saying he's lying about it. I have no proof, but neither do you -- and if characters were never in denial and never lied, we'd have one hell of a boring character on our hands.

    ReplyDelete
  35. His 'statement' is the only thing that can be taken as canon. If a character blatantly says something about themselves, that is the definition of canon since it is the statement is the only thing not open to interpretation. Dean has said 'sorry, i don't play for your team.' That is canon. People can dream and interprit all they want but black is still black. I'm not arguing anyones right to twist things to be what they want them to be, but I do believe 'canon' is what is said and shown and not subject to interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  36. A statement is absolutely open to interpretation. If Dean says he is an FBI agent, that doesn't make it so, either. The idea that Dean's telling the whole truth about his sexuality is just as valid an interpretation as the idea that he's not.

    I really object to your word "twist" there. If I see something different in the characterization than you do, then that's fine, but it's not any more or less valid than what you see. If we are going to agree that canon is what's shown and said, then we have to agree that what's not shown and said is open to individual interpretation in both directions.

    You might consider my idea unbelievable, but I'm not "twisting" anything. Nothing I suggest about Dean possibly being in denial invalidates anything that was spoken or said in canon. It just differs from your interpretation.

    I'm saddened if we can't at least agree that we have different interpretations of canon. Isn't that why we're here? To discuss our favorite shows and what we read into them?

    ReplyDelete
  37. So by your interpretation, nothing a character says or does can be taken as canon? It's all up to interpretation? Then yes, we have different ideas of what that means. And the whole discussion is mute. And the word twist is by definition simply an alteration of intended meaning. So takung a statement like 'I don't play for your team' and making it mean anything other than that is twisting. Just like saying statements are open to unterpretation is twisting the definition of the word 'statement'. If offended, i apologize but i believe you twisted the definition of the word 'twisted' unnecessarily.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It's canon that he said it. It's also canon that he said he was a teddy bear doctor. So by your definition, they should both be taken at their word?

    Look, I'm willing to adjust my usage of the word "canon," because I'm starting to understand that using that word is really problematic for some people. I think we need to start having language we can all use to mean the same things and have comfortable discussions, accepting our differing opinions and enjoying the fact that they do differ. So, by the same token, I'm just pointing out a word that is similarly problematic for me; you can decide what you want to do with that information, since you are interested in being in the discussion (and I thank you very much for that!)

    No need to worry about me getting offended: I'm writing this column because I think we need to be having these discussions. Sometimes they get testy. One thing I'm trying to do is stay rational and open-minded, and allow everyone to have their opinions about what they think is going on between the lines. In the end, my goal is to celebrate those differing opinions. If at any point I have made you feel like your point of view is invalid, then I'm the one who should apologize. I just hope the feeling is mutual.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Not sure what that in-between term word would be, but there's another answer here besides "delusional" or "overtly canon."

    A term I've seen used for this sort of thing is inclusive vs. exclusive canon.

    Someone who uses the exclusive approach looks at their pet theory and says "Is there direct evidence to support this?". The key part here is "direct". Using Leverage as an example, Nate and Sophie bickering in seasons 1 and 2 is not evidence they are already a couple, nor is the sexual tension, nor is any situation where Nate gets jealous of someone hitting on Sophie. The only direct evidence is the reveal in the season 3 finale.

    Someone who uses the inclusive approach looks at their pet theory and says "Is there direct evidence to refute this and does circumstantial evidence support it?". Going to Leverage again, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that Nate and Sophie are already an item leading up to the season 3 finale, and nothing directly refutes it. So to someone who's being inclusive with canon, it's very easy to say Nate and Sophie were a couple much, much earlier than the end of season 3.
    Thing is, though, these two approaches are so different that both sides look barking mad to one another.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I agree with you. But the difficulty you have is that everything you see has to be "interpreted" how the acting performance plays it, the context, etc, not just the literal words. Hypothetically, you can have a character who slaps someone and says they hate them and then starts kissing them two seconds later--there is a lot of subtext and emotional history being played out through acting, action, and context.

    That being said, I don't believe that *all* interpretations are valid. The actors and writers and directors are trying to present a specific story and if they are successful at all that story and the emotions and connections are readily "interpreted" by the audience. Yes, at times they are leaving things open to go multiple directions, but not most of the time. Most of the time what you see is what you get (or it is a bad show). Take this week on SPN, Dean was super uncomfortable by the guy hitting on him and thinking they "had a moment." How far you want read into that is dangerous. Certainly consciously, Dean is not intrigued or interested in men finding him attractive or thinking he was flirting with them. And nothing in the performance would lead you to believe that he had a private thought that contradicted that. The only argument that Dean wasn't as uncomfortable as he seemed would be that he was "protesting too much" and that some other thought process happened off screen. That's stretching and making stuff up that we don't see, and until they give us something to back that up (like him being happy to flirt with a guy or actually picking up a guy or talking about it) that isn't a valid interpretation because the show doesn't show it. If they wanted to us to think it, they would make it clear. They aren't tricking us--it isn't Blues Clues. They are trying to tell a story that they want us to follow. That's just my take. But I agree, if it isn't in the show, it isn't canon. And one's interpretation shouldn't be coming from a place of what one wants to see, but what the show is trying to tell you and that interpretation will be supported by context and continued use.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm with a lot of the posters below. If it is on screen--and only if it is on screen--is it canon.

    If JK Rowling wanted Dumbledor to be gay and she thought it had any impact on the story, she should have put it in one of the books and until she does, his sexuality is unknown.

    If something happened in a book, then that is canon for the book, it is not canon for a TV or movie. When do they ever adapt a book to TV/movie accurately? Never. They change endings, they pick and choose characters. It is about as good an idea to say what happened in a book is true for screen, as it is to write a paper on The Scarlet Letter book based on the Demi Moore movie.



    Filling in holes in time and action is a fun fan thing to do, but it isn't canon, it isn't real. It's a story you made up. Sure there are things that get insinuated on screen that aren't shown--sex for instance. Like the scene where a couple kisses, soft music plays, and she gently takes his hand and leads him to the bedroom and they close the door. No, we didn't see the sex, but it is reasonable to infer. Or a hero swoops in and saves the day holding the bad guy on the ground at gunpoint, the victim is shepherded out of the room and the camera stays with the victim but you hear the shot. It is reasonable to infer that the bad guy is dead. These sorts of things are done time and time again. People die off screen so you don't have a gory show, people have sex off screen so the show is still fit for network TV.


    People get frustrated when fan groups start to deliberately apply their own rules and selective unreasonable interpretations to things that have no grounding in the show and treating it as gospel fact. It is hard to have a discussion when people can't agree to fundamental on screen action. So groups either have to splinter or be aware and conscious of what they are rewriting and what actually occurred.

    ReplyDelete
  42. There seems to be something missing from this conversation and that something to me is "context." When Dean says "we're teddy bear doctors," it's in a situation where we as an audience know through previously established canon no, Dean is not a teddy bear doctor and he often lies to people while on a hunt in order to get information from them. So we know through context, this isn't meant to be taken literally. When Dean says "I don't play for your team," we know through previously established canon that yes, Dean likes women. So through context, this is set up to be taken literally. If a witch cast a spell on Bobby and he involuntarily was forced to make out with Sam, you can't just say "oh, Bobby kissed Sam, that makes them a couple." You have to take into account the context with which that happened and this applies to your quotes, on either end of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Very well said. :) My point exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  44. No offense taken. :). But at some point, there has to be a 'canon' and as far as I can see that can only be what is said and shown to us. Like Otter says below, context is an important part of what we are to believe. Yes, the boys tell people they are FBI, but we know they are lying because it has been told and shown they are just pretending. All I'm getting at here is that there has to be some parameters for what is canon, and the only possible way to determine that is by what is actually said and done on screen.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Exactly. Well said.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Completely agree. Even if an author or screenplay writer comes back later and says they wanted something to be but it wasn't, it doesn't change the fact that that it wasn't. Even authors can change their minds, but it doesn't change what is already done. I write fanfiction. I determine the characters to act how I want them. But nothing I write is ever going to be canon no matter how close to actual canon I try to stay because I'm making decisions and determinations for them according to what I want them to do, not what they've actually done. So I agree, canon is pretty cut and dry. What you read in a book or what you see on screen is canon. Whatever you imagine beyond that is your prerogative but not canon.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.