The Thinker said:
Ryan Hughes said:
The one that gets me most though -likely because I seem to be the only person who is bugged by it- are canonical arguments dealing with fictional works. The logical fallacy being that you are arguing about something that may or may not have happened, when it is clear that it did not happen. I.E. it exists in a fictional world, thus none of it ever actually happened, and argumentation of occurrences of things that never occurred practically defines the term "logical fallacy."
Sometimes smart people make the mistake of using the word "canon" to describe fictional events, but what really gets me are the rabid fanboys of things like Star Trek and Star Wars that argue over very minor fictional points and throw the word "canon" around as if they actually knew what it meant.
Why, good sir, the arguing over fictional events-- searching for clues, shifting through text, reading the author's blog-- is a healthy mental exercise that keeps those fans off the streets! With out it, they'd be like football fans: committing random acts of violence and brutality whilst yelling really loudly!
Moreover, I am lead to believe "canon" means "things accepted to be part of a fictional universe", as co-opted from terminology about the Bible. Do you or the rabid fanboys subscribe to some alternate definition?
You are lead to believe that by the very people who misuse the term. As I said, smart people misuse it all the time.
As briefly as I can explain: The word should used only to denote factual occurrences, not ones that take place within a fictional space. The Bible is key, because those that established biblical canon believed that the actual authorship could ultimately be attributed to God. The argument of canon revolves around whether or not the book was divinely inspired.
600 years later: Beowulf was written, but all we have today as an "original" document is a fire-burned tome from about 1,100 A.D. There are parts where the characters basically drop what they are doing to pray and worship the Christian God, but those parts seem a bit out of place. This leads to a legitimate canonical argument. Were those pieces in the original story? or were they added later by a Christian scribe to bring an older tale into the realm of Christendom? This deals not with the characters or the fictional world, but with who actually wrote the poem. It deals with a factual event.
After the character of Sherlock Holmes became popular, many other people wrote books featuring the character. Sir Doyle objected to this, as he was the person who invented the character. These other works are considered non-canon. NOT because of what happens in the fictional space, but because of the fact of their authorship.
Now, we have massive so-called "intellectual properties" with so many differing authors that no one can seem to keep things straight. This was started by comic companies and continued by IPs like Star Trek and Star Wars. None of these canonical arguments apply because authorship is clearly marked, and ultimately leads back to the holder of the IP. Yet, when differing authors have stories that conflict, as long as both are recorded and under the auspices of the IP holder then both should be considered "canon," as there is no real-world conflict, only a fictional one.
Using "canon" to denote which fictional storyline is the "true" storyline is about as much of a logical fallacy as anything else I can think of. Also, while the meaning may have changed slightly to accommodate these sprawling fictional spaces, if you were to use the term in front of someone like me -with a background in literary theory and literature- it would just make you seem like a person who cannot discern fantasy from reality. In fact, if it is true that people have made Star Wars / Trek religions, then that just reenforces that point.
