Canonical Hierarchy and the mundane, non-important problems is causes for fans.

[Jacco]

I was recently reading something on another forum (whether the Empire or the Covenant would win in a war--don't ask why) and during the debate, people were pulling numbers for weapons and firepower and stuff from the Star Wars and Halo wiki's for comparison. Naturally, it turned into a big argument as some people were dismissing numbers because they were given in books and not movies or games and not comics or whatever.

That intrigued me. I always assumed the "most" canonical thing was what was said in the original medium the work was put out- i.e. anything said in the Star Wars movies is "more canonical" than what is said in the books or games. But the people on the forum were arguing about an entire hierarchy of what was acceptable as cannon. Specifically, they were using Halo as an example since it has so many mediums and it went something like this:

Games > Books > Comics > Movies

So in Halo's case, the battle of Reach was covered thoroughly in the book "The Fall of Reach" which also covered many other things such as the aforementioned weapon yields, character histories, etc. Since Halo: Reach retconned the events depicted in the book, does that mean the whole book is now non-cannonical? If so, that means all the books are invalidated as cannonical sources of information for the universe. And it not, where does it end? How do you determine which events are cannonical if there are multiple "cannonical" versions being presented?

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

From what I saw, yes, "The Fall of Reach" has become non-canon, although I personally still consider it canon (the game makes no sense in-universe anyway). For the Star Wars canon, I was told the other day that there are so many tiers of canon between the expanded universe, books, games, etc... it's a nightmare to tell what's what, except the actual canon is whatever Georges Lucas says it is.

I guess what's canon is what the author/writer/creator says it is, and everything else should be taken with a grain of salt for such debates.

 

[Tanis]

I'd go by release.

So using Star Wars, for example.
I'd go with the original trilogy, then the whatever books/comics followed.

In SOME cases it's actually up the the original creators.
With the Dragonlance universe, which has a LOT of side books written by other people, some of those 'other' books have been written out of canon because the creators HATED what they did with characters/magic/etc.

THEN you get into Doctor Who and it's all...uck.
TV, comics, audio dramas, audio books, books, games and flavor text on card, and..oi vey!

 

[Soundwave]

Not to be overly negative or "that guy", buuuuuuuut I hate the idea of canon because I can't square the idea that one source's imaginary nonsense would have some sort of higher truth value than some other source's imaginary nonsense. Hell, the people writing these things don't even have the basic understanding of the science involved.

 

[Jacco]

From what I saw, yes, "The Fall of Reach" has become non-canon, although I personally still consider it canon (the game makes no sense in-universe anyway). For the Star Wars canon, I was told the other day that there are so many tiers of canon between the expanded universe, books, games, etc... it's a nightmare to tell what's what, except the actual canon is whatever Georges Lucas says it is.

I guess what's canon is what the author/writer/creator says it is, and everything else should be taken with a grain of salt for such debates.

See, but since it's been reconned, does that make everything that happened in the book retconned? So all of the stuff with John and Kelly and Linda just didn't happen? Or is it just the stuff relating to Reach?

This is what confuses me about the whole canon issue. Where does it end?

 

[Jacco]

Not to be overly negative or "that guy", buuuuuuuut I hate the idea of canon because I can't square the idea that one source's imaginary nonsense would have some sort of higher truth value than some other source's imaginary nonsense. Hell, the people writing these things don't even have the basic understanding of the science involved.

I don't think you need to really understand the science for a fictional story. Just having a general grasp I think is enough. But if someone makes up the universe that another is using for their own story, wouldn't the person who made it up be more of an "authority" than the person living in it?

 

[Soundwave]

I don't think you need to really understand the science for a fictional story. Just having a general grasp I think is enough.

That's fine if it's billed as "fantasy", if someone is claiming their work as "Science Fiction", I'm going to have to expect some basic adherence to science. These are standard expectations from the label. If it's called "fantasy" or "science fantasy" I really don't mind it (though I'd be lying if I said I liked either of those as much as legitimate science fiction)

But if someone makes up the universe that another is using for their own story, wouldn't the person who made it up be more of an "authority" than the person living in it?

Yes, that's basic argument of canon. I'm just saying that something based on "falsehood" (fiction), is still "falsehood", and logically contains little to no "truth".

Essentially I'm saying that when people argue over what amounts to which of two completely meaningless numbers is greater, I stop listening, my eyes glaze over, and I find myself less able to say nice things about them.

Fun Fact: The Star Trek Animated series had been arbitrarily dismissed as "not canon" because rather than giving someone a pay raise, Gene Roddenberry entitled Richard H. Arnold as something like "loremaster", who didn't like the animated series. Which'd mean that the people who actually wrote Star Trek (writers like DC Fontana) had their own work declared not-canon by some guy who didn't even write anything in the franchise.

 

[Terraniux]

So in Halo's case, the battle of Reach was covered thoroughly in the book "The Fall of Reach" which also covered many other things such as the aforementioned weapon yields, character histories, etc. Since Halo: Reach retconned the events depicted in the book, does that mean the whole book is now non-cannonical?

They re-released the book around the time Halo: Reach came out, actually. It changed some details, like the mention of Elites having never been seen before, as well as some other stuff I don't know because I didn't actually read the new version. I think they also edited out Brutes being never seen before in First Strike as well.

 

[FalloutJack]

I think I can honestly say that I don't know. And because I don't know, I think it would be simpler for me to take the piss out of the discussion that caused the conundrum in the first place. Unless it was for a roleplay or something, this kind of comparison-themed argument is as bad as a console VS PC war, except over even-more-trivial things. And in the case of it being about roleplay, you get a GM to put his foot down and everyone either lives with it, or it's GG guys.

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Here's how I simplify it (because I don't have time to care about it)

Original Media IP existed in > everything else

So for star wars, the films come first, nothing can change the canon of the films.
Anything else, so long as it doesn't conflict with any of the films, is fair gain and I usually rank it in order of what I read first.

Canon just isn't that important to me anyway, as long as it's a good story the canon can go fuck it's self.

 

[Korten12]

From what I saw, yes, "The Fall of Reach" has become non-canon, although I personally still consider it canon (the game makes no sense in-universe anyway).

So in Halo's case, the battle of Reach was covered thoroughly in the book "The Fall of Reach" which also covered many other things such as the aforementioned weapon yields, character histories, etc. Since Halo: Reach retconned the events depicted in the book, does that mean the whole book is now non-cannonical? If so, that means all the books are invalidated as cannonical sources of information for the universe. And it not, where does it end? How do you determine which events are cannonical if there are multiple "cannonical" versions being presented?

Incorrect, both The Fall of Reach and Halo: Reach are canon. To fix all of the canon problems, 343i did a thing called Data Drops on their site that tried to fix everything.

http://www.halopedia.org/Data_drops

Also the Canon Hierarchy for Halo has been changed. Before what you wrote was what it was for Bungie. But now for 343i, everything is on equal level with each other. The books now are as much canon as the games.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

From what I saw, yes, "The Fall of Reach" has become non-canon, although I personally still consider it canon (the game makes no sense in-universe anyway).

So in Halo's case, the battle of Reach was covered thoroughly in the book "The Fall of Reach" which also covered many other things such as the aforementioned weapon yields, character histories, etc. Since Halo: Reach retconned the events depicted in the book, does that mean the whole book is now non-cannonical? If so, that means all the books are invalidated as cannonical sources of information for the universe. And it not, where does it end? How do you determine which events are cannonical if there are multiple "cannonical" versions being presented?

Incorrect, both The Fall of Reach and Halo: Reach are canon. To fix all of the canon problems, 343i did a thing called Data Drops on their site that tried to fix everything.

http://www.halopedia.org/Data_drops

Also the Canon Hierarchy for Halo has been changed. Before what you wrote was what it was for Bungie. But now for 343i, everything is on equal level with each other. The books now are as much canon as the games.

Is that a fact? Well, shows what I know.