Canon - Revision history

imported>Administrator: 68 revisions imported

2023-06-20T14:52:20Z

68 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:52, 20 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-18T21:42:50Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:42, 18 June 2023
(No difference)

47.5.179.247: /* The /tg/ Consensus */

2023-01-01T00:41:05Z

The /tg/ Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 1 January 2023
Line 60:		Line 60:
	To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].		To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].

	Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[Games Workshop\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept. The only thing an absolute majority accepts however, is the C.S. Goto's bullshit is most definitely no canon.		Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[Games Workshop\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept. The only thing an absolute majority accepts however, is the [[C.S. Goto]]'s bullshit is most definitely no canon.
	[[Category:Gamer Slang]]		[[Category:Gamer Slang]]

47.5.179.247: /* The /tg/ Consensus */

2023-01-01T00:40:29Z

The /tg/ Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 1 January 2023
Line 60:		Line 60:
	To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].		To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].

	Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[~~C.S.Goto~~\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept. The only thing an absolute majority accepts however, is the C.S. Goto's bullshit is most definitely no canon.		Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[Games Workshop\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept. The only thing an absolute majority accepts however, is the C.S. Goto's bullshit is most definitely no canon.
	[[Category:Gamer Slang]]		[[Category:Gamer Slang]]

1d4chan>Gilten at 06:39, 19 December 2022

2022-12-19T06:39:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 19 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{topquote\|Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.\|Leonard Nimoy}}		{{topquote\|Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.\|[[Star Trek\|Leonard Nimoy]]}}

	'''Canon''' is essentially the [[fluff]] of a setting that is officially approved by whomever is in charge of that intellectual property.		'''Canon''' is essentially the [[fluff]] of a setting that is officially approved by whomever is in charge of that intellectual property.

1d4chan>MrPhantom: /* The /tg/ Consensus */

2022-02-05T12:59:26Z

The /tg/ Consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:59, 5 February 2022
Line 60:		Line 60:
	To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].		To again use Warhammer 40k as an example, an entire "secret" consensus has arose within the fandom, a continuity that "fixes" poorly received retcons, patches up consistency issues, and tends to lighten the characters and infuse [[awesome]] into the setting wherever possible. /tg/ has even developed an entirely separate universe wherein fa/tg/uys can put all of their [[/tg/'s homebrews\|homebrew characters and factions]].

	Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[C.S.Goto\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept.		Note that this a consensus, not an official canon. Canon is, in theory, what [[C.S.Goto\|they]] say it is, whereas consensus fanon is what the majority choose to accept. The only thing an absolute majority accepts however, is the C.S. Goto's bullshit is most definitely no canon.
	[[Category:Gamer Slang]]		[[Category:Gamer Slang]]

1d4chan>Piroko at 02:25, 15 May 2021

2021-05-15T02:25:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 15 May 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	When a fiction story is told, the story makers have to create events which did not happen, make up people who were never born, travel to places that don't exist, and create things which never were. That collection of things that aren't real, and only exist within the world of make-believe of the fictitious story being told, is the canon of that story. This notion of canon is important to storytelling, because it allows storytellers to separate the scope of their made-up world from the scopes of ''other'' made-up worlds. If someone were to ask "Why aren't Star Destroyers fighting The Enterprise?" the answer is "because Star Wars and Star Trek are in separate canons.		When a fiction story is told, the story makers have to create events which did not happen, make up people who were never born, travel to places that don't exist, and create things which never were. That collection of things that aren't real, and only exist within the world of make-believe of the fictitious story being told, is the canon of that story. This notion of canon is important to storytelling, because it allows storytellers to separate the scope of their made-up world from the scopes of ''other'' made-up worlds. If someone were to ask "Why aren't Star Destroyers fighting The Enterprise?" the answer is "because Star Wars and Star Trek are in separate canons.

	When another storyteller creates a story, and they re-use elements from a different story's canon, it can be said that the new story is "within the old story's canon". This phenomenon - re-using story elements - is often known as '''fan-fiction'''. A good example of this are the Sherlock Holmes books: when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was done writing his books and short stories about Mr. Holmes' adventures, he said that anyone who wanted could write stories about Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty, and anything within the "canon" of his stories. This has spurred many fans of Sherlock Holmes to write stories about him ''(~~ironically,~~ when Maurice Leblanc did just that with Arsene Lupin, Doyle's estate sued his french pants off)''. Due to how Sir Doyle worded his release of canon ownership, it may be construed that any story written about Sherlock Holmes is "canon" instead of "fan-fiction"; read below for more on this idea.		When another storyteller creates a story, and they re-use elements from a different story's canon, it can be said that the new story is "within the old story's canon". This phenomenon - re-using story elements - is often known as '''fan-fiction'''. A good example of this are the Sherlock Holmes books: when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was done writing his books and short stories about Mr. Holmes' adventures, he said that anyone who wanted could write stories about Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty, and anything within the "canon" of his stories. This has spurred many fans of Sherlock Holmes to write stories about him ''(although when Maurice Leblanc did just that with Arsene Lupin, Doyle's estate sued his french pants off)''. Due to how Sir Doyle worded his release of canon ownership, it may be construed that any story written about Sherlock Holmes is "canon" instead of "fan-fiction"; read below for more on this idea.

	When a story is told by multiple people (or a person chooses to set their new story within the canon of an old story), it is often the case that some things are described as being "real" within that story world which are generally accepted to be "not actually real" (either by a majority of the fans or the current "official storyteller"). These stories or story elements can be stricken from the canon for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: "these stories are bad", "elements in these stories contradict older parts of the canon", "elements of these stories devalue elements in older stories", and "the original storyteller/s didn't say it". In essence, the notion exists that some made-up stories are more "real" than others, even if they take place in the same universe. Quite often these '''non-canon''' stories come in the form of amateur fan-fiction. For example: J. K. Rowling is not beholden to include, mention, or reference anything which occurs or exists in [[My Immortal]] within any future Harry Potter works. Thus, My immortal can be said to be non-canon. Why is this the case? Because Rowling came up with the story in the first place, she is the storyteller, and she has the power to say what is or isn't canon (more on this later).		When a story is told by multiple people (or a person chooses to set their new story within the canon of an old story), it is often the case that some things are described as being "real" within that story world which are generally accepted to be "not actually real" (either by a majority of the fans or the current "official storyteller"). These stories or story elements can be stricken from the canon for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: "these stories are bad", "elements in these stories contradict older parts of the canon", "elements of these stories devalue elements in older stories", and "the original storyteller/s didn't say it". In essence, the notion exists that some made-up stories are more "real" than others, even if they take place in the same universe. Quite often these '''non-canon''' stories come in the form of amateur fan-fiction. For example: J. K. Rowling is not beholden to include, mention, or reference anything which occurs or exists in [[My Immortal]] within any future Harry Potter works. Thus, My immortal can be said to be non-canon. Why is this the case? Because Rowling came up with the story in the first place, she is the storyteller, and she has the power to say what is or isn't canon (more on this later).

1d4chan>Piroko at 02:24, 15 May 2021

2021-05-15T02:24:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:24, 15 May 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	When a fiction story is told, the story makers have to create events which did not happen, make up people who were never born, travel to places that don't exist, and create things which never were. That collection of things that aren't real, and only exist within the world of make-believe of the fictitious story being told, is the canon of that story. This notion of canon is important to storytelling, because it allows storytellers to separate the scope of their made-up world from the scopes of ''other'' made-up worlds. If someone were to ask "Why aren't Star Destroyers fighting The Enterprise?" the answer is "because Star Wars and Star Trek are in separate canons.		When a fiction story is told, the story makers have to create events which did not happen, make up people who were never born, travel to places that don't exist, and create things which never were. That collection of things that aren't real, and only exist within the world of make-believe of the fictitious story being told, is the canon of that story. This notion of canon is important to storytelling, because it allows storytellers to separate the scope of their made-up world from the scopes of ''other'' made-up worlds. If someone were to ask "Why aren't Star Destroyers fighting The Enterprise?" the answer is "because Star Wars and Star Trek are in separate canons.

	When another storyteller creates a story, and they re-use elements from a different story's canon, it can be said that the new story is "within the old story's canon". This phenomenon - re-using story elements - is often known as '''fan-fiction'''. A good example of this are the Sherlock Holmes books: when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was done writing his books and short stories about Mr. Holmes' adventures, he said that anyone who wanted could write stories about Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty, and anything within the "canon" of his stories. This has spurred many fans of Sherlock Holmes to write stories about him. Due to how Sir Doyle worded his release of canon ownership, it may be construed that any story written about Sherlock Holmes is "canon" instead of "fan-fiction"; read below for more on this idea.		When another storyteller creates a story, and they re-use elements from a different story's canon, it can be said that the new story is "within the old story's canon". This phenomenon - re-using story elements - is often known as '''fan-fiction'''. A good example of this are the Sherlock Holmes books: when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was done writing his books and short stories about Mr. Holmes' adventures, he said that anyone who wanted could write stories about Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty, and anything within the "canon" of his stories. This has spurred many fans of Sherlock Holmes to write stories about him ''(ironically, when Maurice Leblanc did just that with Arsene Lupin, Doyle's estate sued his french pants off)''. Due to how Sir Doyle worded his release of canon ownership, it may be construed that any story written about Sherlock Holmes is "canon" instead of "fan-fiction"; read below for more on this idea.

	When a story is told by multiple people (or a person chooses to set their new story within the canon of an old story), it is often the case that some things are described as being "real" within that story world which are generally accepted to be "not actually real" (either by a majority of the fans or the current "official storyteller"). These stories or story elements can be stricken from the canon for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: "these stories are bad", "elements in these stories contradict older parts of the canon", "elements of these stories devalue elements in older stories", and "the original storyteller/s didn't say it". In essence, the notion exists that some made-up stories are more "real" than others, even if they take place in the same universe. Quite often these '''non-canon''' stories come in the form of amateur fan-fiction. For example: J. K. Rowling is not beholden to include, mention, or reference anything which occurs or exists in [[My Immortal]] within any future Harry Potter works. Thus, My immortal can be said to be non-canon. Why is this the case? Because Rowling came up with the story in the first place, she is the storyteller, and she has the power to say what is or isn't canon (more on this later).		When a story is told by multiple people (or a person chooses to set their new story within the canon of an old story), it is often the case that some things are described as being "real" within that story world which are generally accepted to be "not actually real" (either by a majority of the fans or the current "official storyteller"). These stories or story elements can be stricken from the canon for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: "these stories are bad", "elements in these stories contradict older parts of the canon", "elements of these stories devalue elements in older stories", and "the original storyteller/s didn't say it". In essence, the notion exists that some made-up stories are more "real" than others, even if they take place in the same universe. Quite often these '''non-canon''' stories come in the form of amateur fan-fiction. For example: J. K. Rowling is not beholden to include, mention, or reference anything which occurs or exists in [[My Immortal]] within any future Harry Potter works. Thus, My immortal can be said to be non-canon. Why is this the case? Because Rowling came up with the story in the first place, she is the storyteller, and she has the power to say what is or isn't canon (more on this later).

1d4chan>Piroko at 02:19, 15 May 2021

2021-05-15T02:19:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:19, 15 May 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{topquote\|Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae.\|Leonard Nimoy}}

	'''Canon''' is essentially the [[fluff]] of a setting that is officially approved by whomever is in charge of that intellectual property.		'''Canon''' is essentially the [[fluff]] of a setting that is officially approved by whomever is in charge of that intellectual property.

113.21.70.218: /* Who is the Storyteller? */

2020-09-12T10:41:57Z

Who is the Storyteller?

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:41, 12 September 2020
Line 25:		Line 25:
	When all stories were told around campfires, the storyteller was whomever was telling the story. Unless someone was re-telling a story (and was within earshot of the creator or a hardcore fan of said story), the person speaking had full control of the story. Because a storyteller immediately saw their audience's reactions to their story, they made sure to make the best story possible, because otherwise their listeners would lose interest. Canon was only relevant so long as someone could recall what happened in a story from ages ago, since nobody write things down. Issues of canon only arose when someone shouted out in the middle of a story "Hey, that's not what you said last week!".		When all stories were told around campfires, the storyteller was whomever was telling the story. Unless someone was re-telling a story (and was within earshot of the creator or a hardcore fan of said story), the person speaking had full control of the story. Because a storyteller immediately saw their audience's reactions to their story, they made sure to make the best story possible, because otherwise their listeners would lose interest. Canon was only relevant so long as someone could recall what happened in a story from ages ago, since nobody write things down. Issues of canon only arose when someone shouted out in the middle of a story "Hey, that's not what you said last week!".

	In the modern age, stories are written down, published for a wide audience, and ~~poured~~ over in great detail. A story can also be owned as '''Intellectual Property'''. This means that someone can buy the legal rights to a story, or assume control over the people that do, effectively making ''them'' the new storyteller. This is a very common issue in things like [[/co/\|comic books]] and movies, and less so in things like literature and fables. Anyone who legally owns the rights to a story can sue someone for writing another story that includes elements of their original story. This can also mean that some pretty shitty elements can be injected into the canon of a beloved story, and nobody can do anything about it.		In the modern age, stories are written down, published for a wide audience, and pored over in great detail. A story can also be owned as '''Intellectual Property'''. This means that someone can buy the legal rights to a story, or assume control over the people that do, effectively making ''them'' the new storyteller. This is a very common issue in things like [[/co/\|comic books]] and movies, and less so in things like literature and fables. Anyone who legally owns the rights to a story can sue someone for writing another story that includes elements of their original story. This can also mean that some pretty shitty elements can be injected into the canon of a beloved story, and nobody can do anything about it.

	Stories which are within the '''public domain''' are legally the property of everybody. This doesn't strictly mean that all fan-fiction is canon, but it does mean that there is no legal storyteller. If the author is still alive and telling new stories in their universe, this is generally the most-agreed-upon source of new "official canon". If not, the fans may find themselves surrounded in fan-fiction of varying levels of quality, some of it "deserving to be canonized" and most of it "bad garbage". This is what happened to Star Wars before Disney acquired it. Though it wasn't in the public domain, George Lucas said that people were free to make and sell new stories. By the time Disney killed this huge cloud of fan works, they had amassed themselves into several "tiers" of canonicity; some people to this day demand that stories like the Thrawn Trilogy be made honorary canon on account of their popularity and high quality.		Stories which are within the '''public domain''' are legally the property of everybody. This doesn't strictly mean that all fan-fiction is canon, but it does mean that there is no legal storyteller. If the author is still alive and telling new stories in their universe, this is generally the most-agreed-upon source of new "official canon". If not, the fans may find themselves surrounded in fan-fiction of varying levels of quality, some of it "deserving to be canonized" and most of it "bad garbage". This is what happened to Star Wars before Disney acquired it. Though it wasn't in the public domain, George Lucas said that people were free to make and sell new stories. By the time Disney killed this huge cloud of fan works, they had amassed themselves into several "tiers" of canonicity; some people to this day demand that stories like the Thrawn Trilogy be made honorary canon on account of their popularity and high quality.