Hober Mallow wrote:
Having to defer to a central authority on which fiction is "real" and which is the "fake fiction" is beyond silly.
It's only silly because there is no such "central authority" in the first place. No studio is going to pay someone a salary to sit around and issue instructions to the general public about what they're allowed to like. That's a complete myth and a complete misunderstanding. Canon is not a command or a policy or a regulation. It's just a description
. The creators of a fictional franchise create their work, and that is something we call the canon. And no, that does not mean "real." Canons contradict and rewrite their own pasts all the time, because
it's not real and thus can be changed and rethought and improved.
And no, canon absolutely is not something that tells audiences they should only like some things and not others. Where's the percentage in telling your audience not
to buy books or comics that would put more money in your coffers? The only people who use "canon" as a standard of what's admissible to enjoy are fans who impose that standard on themselves, and delude themselves into thinking they're being instructed by some higher authority.
The reason that tie-ins aren't binding on canon isn't a matter of some "central authority" handing down ukases. It's simply a matter of practicality. Like I said above, no matter how hard you try to keep tie-ins consistent with an ongoing canon, a work of fiction is just too much of a moving target, evolving in unpredictable ways. So there has to be a core work that sets the pace and secondary works that follow its lead and risk being left behind when it veers in an unexpected direction. It's just the nature of the beast. It's not something that's dictated by some imaginary studio department or government agency or whatever; it's just the way the process happens.