Personal Canon is the only canon that matters?

[Reverend]

Why?
Canon means "official material"...

Hence the personal in personal canon.

Nobody's claiming any "officialness".

^Anyone else spot in contradiction in terms here?

Anyway, "canon" does not mean "official material" in this context because "official material" covers anything produced under licence from the rights holders. That could include literally anything from novels, trading card, to shot glasses, bath towels, LEGO video games and monopoly sets.

No, what canon means is that a thing described *happened* in a given continuity and that subsequent instalments must abide by this (in theory.) I don't think anyone would claim that the LEGO Star Wars games are in the same continuity as 'The Force Awakens' despite being produced under an official licence and still sold to this day. Now the 'Star Wars: Rebels' series is canon because Disney/Lucasfilm says so and no other reason.

 

[dahj]

^Anyone else spot in contradiction in terms here?

There is no contradiction.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I've also been seeing the phrase "Head Canon" a lot recently.

 

[tomalak301]

I've also been seeing the phrase "Head Canon" a lot recently.

I think I like head canon more than personal canon. Probably rolls off the tongue easier.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I think I like head canon more than personal canon. Probably rolls off the tongue easier.

True, but I'm a Mech, so how would I distinguish that from my head cannon in spoken conversations?

 

[Reverend]

I've also been seeing the phrase "Head Canon" a lot recently.

The way I see that used makes it seem like it's just short had for "here's how I choose to interpret this thing." Usually as a way to account for a contradiction.
It's still technically a misuse of the word "canon", but the context usually makes the intent clear.

 

[shapeshifter]

Personal Canon which includes Non-Canon material is fine so long as it isn't quoted as fact.

We all know Trek comics and novels aren't "canon" so if someone comes along quoting them as if they were part of the Official Narrative we would say nope, that didn't Officially happen.

That's really the purpose of "Canon", imo - to define what we the fans can or cannot say actually happened or not.

 

[dahj]

It's still technically a misuse of the word "canon"

The word "canon" means like 15 different things. The way that you're using it now was originally a misuse...

It's perfectly clear what people mean when they say personal canon. The qualifier "personal" emphasizes it's the individuals own viewpoint, so I don't see what is so contentious about it.

 

[USS Triumphant]

My personal canon for the English language says that it is a valid use of the phrase "personal canon". Can we please discuss the meat of this rather than semantics when we all know what is meant? :P

 

[Nerys Myk]

I've also been seeing the phrase "Head Canon" a lot recently.

Head canon is the stuff you make up. John Byrne tells a story about a fan who hated the work he was doing on some character. The fan was adamant about all the "violations" Byrne had commited. Turns out what was being contradicted was that fan's "vision" for the character and not what had been published.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Here's one of my reasons for saying that personal canon trumps all: Whom is the holder of "official" canon? The IP holder, right? Are you sure? If George Lucas, in all seriousness, made a Star Wars "fan film", would you say it isn't canon if Disney told you so? If Siegel and Shuster were around to tell us that the guy in Man of Steel was NOT Superman, would you deny them in favor of the word of a soulless corporation? The art, and a true care for the material, MEAN something, I'd like to think, to all of us. Yes, Virginia - there IS a Santa Claus... if you have him in your personal canon.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Depends, which George Lucas is making this film? 1977 George or 1999 George?

 

[dahj]

1977 George or 1999 George?

The rare 1988 George.

The one who wrote Willow

 

[Paradise City]

Canon is cool. 'Specially when you light the match.

 

[theenglish]

I think I like head canon more than personal canon. Probably rolls off the tongue easier.

I also gives the implication that "head canon" is "made up/invented" strictly in the mind of the person considering it.

Here's one of my reasons for saying that personal canon trumps all: Whom is the holder of "official" canon? The IP holder, right? Are you sure? If George Lucas, in all seriousness, made a Star Wars "fan film", would you say it isn't canon if Disney told you so? If Siegel and Shuster were around to tell us that the guy in Man of Steel was NOT Superman, would you deny them in favor of the word of a soulless corporation? The art, and a true care for the material, MEAN something, I'd like to think, to all of us. Yes, Virginia - there IS a Santa Claus... if you have him in your personal canon.

The holder of canon is the rights holder. Once again, to paraphrase GRRM, "it is not a choose your own adventure".

Lucas no longer determines what is canon--if he made a movie it would be a fan film. Similarly, Siegal and Shuster haven't been able to determine what is canon in Superman for many many years. Superman canon is determined by the corporation because they hold the rights like it or not.

You can choose to say you like the pre-Flashpoint Superman--I like pre-Crisis. The current version is still canon (as are the old versions apparently, but another thread) For me, I ignore everything about Star Trek made after 2005 and the Canadian version of Airwolf, but I can't say they are not canon. And all that is fine--but I can't go into a discussion with someone and argue that I am objectively correct in my opinion. The most I can say is I don't really follow those films any more or I don't really like the Star Trek reboot.

 

[dahj]

And all that is fine--but I can't go into a discussion with someone and argue that I am objectively correct in my opinion.

You're fighting strawmen here. Nobody said that.

What the OP is arguing is actually completely opposite.
It's not about convincing people that your view is the best and only correct one one, it's about acknowledging that in franchises that span decades and multiple authors/interpretations it's ok to have varying opinions on what is "true".

 

[stardream]

Head canon is the stuff you make up. John Byrne tells a story about a fan who hated the work he was doing on some character. The fan was adamant about all the "violations" Byrne had commited. Turns out what was being contradicted was that fan's "vision" for the character and not what had been published.

For me it's the stuff I make up that happened off camera. For example in the episodes Extreme Risk and Memorial we see Tom and B'Elanna have scenes of conflict that are not resolved onscreen. In my head canon they work it out. I suppose it could be considered fanfiction that isn't written down.

 

[Starbreaker]

Just remember that none of it is real. There are a lot of aspects of shows I don't like. Often it's just from shoes going on too long.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Just remember that none of it is real. There are a lot of aspects of shows I don't like. Often it's just from shoes going on too long.

When they lose their sole, its time to throw them out.

 

[Kegg]

Canon only really matters as a question of what previous stories and imagined facts are part of the continuity a new writer needs to respect - so an author of a Star Wars work cannot say that Padme Amidala is from Alderaan, for example; but you are probably okay contradicting the Holiday Special's pronunciation of the Wookiee home planet's name as 'Kazook.'

What matters to me is more what I like and what I don't, more than whether or not it is canon (although I do like a good canonical debate.)

This said, one thing I like about the abolition of the Star Wars EU is removal of canon regarding Knights of the Old Republic. Darth Revan could be man or woman, Jedi or Sith, of various human races, depending on how a player played him, but there was only one, correct, light sided, male, white, 'canon' Revan.

Now your Revan is every bit as 'right' as the one in a Drew Karphyshyn novel.