Fire That Canon
Where to begin. Paul Cornell, a writer who (among many other things) scripted a two-parter for Series 3 of Doctor Who (which I’m waiting on pins and needles for) posted a blog about canonicity in Doctor Who, mentioning that fans of BtVS are much more willing to accept things outside of the TV show, such as the upcoming Season 8 comic (which I’m waiting on pins and needles for), as being part of the series canon. This lead to a debate of epic proportions on Whedonesque about canon vs continuity vs interpretation, if Eurasia is located on Pluto and/or evil, and if color-blind people are considered valuable members of reality. The debate is still ongoing and has prompted Paul Cornell to to issue an apology for instigating a “row” (an argument that can be traced back to someone British) and to make the strange assumption that all Joss Whedon fans like rye bread.
Since I have been in the thick of things writing some long quasi-intelligent posts (and some short, stupid, not terribly funny ones), I thought I’d try and compile my thoughts into one semi-coherent blog entry.
Canon vs. Interpretation
Pretty much every single fan in any fandom will have a slightly different view of the meaning of the events in any creative work. I’ve always been a strong believer in Reader-response theory. Authorial intent can only go so far when your work is being read by someone who brings an entirely different perspective/set of beliefs and life experiences to the table. In fact, as long as it doesn’t degenerate into nonsense like shipping wars, I’ve always loved debates about different perspectives of a creative work.
But at the same time, it does get ridiculous when people get so wrapped up in their own view of a fictional world that they’ll disregard something that is blatantly official canon just because they don’t agree with it. I think it’s fine to disagree with the direction a creator chooses to steer their creation (say, the Star Wars prequels), but if your solution is to close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum the Sesame Street theme in an attempt to pretend it doesn’t exist, you’re delving a bit too close to delusion. As much as these fictional worlds can mean to us, if we can’t accept the fact that they have flaws, we’re doing them and their creators a grave disservice.
The thing to keep in mind is that canon, as established by an authority (often the creators or owners of the property) stands separate from readers/viewers/fans. How we interpret a story can alter our view of the story, certainly, perhaps even the view of others if we can convince them to join our way of thinking, but it doesn’t alter the existence of the story itself. A reader saying “I don’t think _____ is canon” is like a person saying “Pluto really IS a planet.” They can say it all they want. The can even believe it. But they aren’t the authority that has been established to make such decisions for the general public. Canon isn’t necessarily set in stone for the rest of history, but can only be changed by those with the authoritative power to do so.
Canon vs. Continuity
Canon generally supersedes continuity (continuity in the comic book sense), since events in canon can alter the story’s continuity, not to mention the fact that different characters can have personal continuities. For example, in the first season of Angel, the events of “I Will Remember You” were erased from history by the Oracles, though Angel retained his memories of them. So they’d be part of Angel’s continuity but not Buffy’s, since for her they literally never happened.
The Buffyverse is rife with continuity changes due to timeline alterations. However, there seems to be a difference between actual changes in the timeline (the Oracles erasing a day, Anyanka creating the Wishverse, Illyria slaughtering Team Angel in her time jumps) versus perceived changes due to altered memories and such (the monks creating Dawn, Cyvus Vail changing Conner’s history.) The first case seems to result in altered continuity where events cease to exist or are relegated to an alternate universe, though some characters (especially Angel) sometimes remember that they did in fact occur at one point. The second has an odd doubling effect where the original continuity is known and understood by the characters once the truth is revealed, yet the existence of the “false” continuity still has an effect on events (Dawn knowing Angel even though she was actually created after he left town, Conner’s thankfully permanent personality change.) Although all of these events generally involve altering continuity, they only add to the canon. Nothing else in the canon is rewritten or removed.
Some might argue that retcons alter the canon, but they generally just offer a deeper truth/different perspective, which would go back to interpretation. Plus, it isn’t required for canon to have flawless continuity.
You Gave Me A Headache With That Continuity/Timeline Nonsense
Sorry. I’ve always looked at it this way. There is a universal continuity/timeline and a personal continuity/timeline. The universal timeline is a single set of linear events that is generally shown to be self-repairing (conflicting events erased or considered an “alternate universe”) with the occasional instance of circular causality (as in the first Terminator movie.) A personal timeline is also a series of linear events as seen from the perspective of any particular person.
In the real world (and in most fiction), the universal and personal timelines are identical. When you get into stories involving time travel and alternate dimensions and such, the two timelines differ. Take Angel, for example. In the episode of Angel mentioned above, the events the Oracles erased are no longer a part of the universal timeline or Buffy’s timeline, but they are still a part of Angel’s. To much of the universe, Angel may appear to be a certain age, but that doesn’t take into account the time he spent in that hell dimension, his day with Buffy, his minutes or hours timejumping with Illyria, etc. In this case, his personal timeline from his birth to the present is quite a bit longer than the universe’s for that same period of time.
helygen said,
February 13, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
I very much enjoyed this: not only do you make a lot of sense (and view canon and continuity as I do), but also your writing is a joy to read.
Reddygirl said,
April 5, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Lady Brick, I hope you don’t mind my commenting here about some posts you made at Whedonesque.
I, too, don’t believe Spike’s attempted rape shouldn’t be shrugged off. But, what is also important to remember is that he didn’t have a soul. So, what he did is not a “real life” situation, any more than Willow’s mindrape of Tara was a “real life” situation, or Angel’s losing his soul and subsequently psychologically torturing Buffy was “real life” situation, or Buffy’s beating the crap out of Spike in Dead Things was a “rea life” situation. In each of these cases there were circumstances that made it complcated to equate then to actual events in real life.
The big problem in fandom re the AR is some people who dislike the idea of Buffy and Spike as a couple use this as a reason as to why Buffy and Spike can’t have a relationship. I can accept this logic if a person who holds this view also believes Buffy and Angel can’t be together because of what he did when he was unsouled. And thinks the same goes for Willow and Tara. And Buffy and Xander because Xander tried to rape Buffy when he was controlled by the hyena demon. Plus, Buffy can’t be with Spike because she assaulted him.
So, no, the AR shouldn’t be brushed aside. But neither should Angel’s actions when he was unsouled. Or souled Willow’s violation of Tara’s mind.
The soul makes a huge difference that that’s why the events in SR are not exactly parallel to rea life.
Jody H. said,
April 5, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
Reddygirl: I completely agree. Morality in the world of fiction is often fairly similar but not identical to our own world. We don’t deal with issues like hyena possession and vampires with or without souls. But when issues move closer to real life (upset guy trying to force himself on his ex) and people defend perpetrators using real life excuses (she was almost asking for it with her previous behavior) rather than the actual reasons within the context of the story (he didn’t have a soul), THAT’S when I take issue. Especially when the reasoning runs so contrary to author intent.
I myself have never understood the whole shipping trend, especially so-called “ship wars.” It seems like people get so biased that they can’t view the story or have a debate from anywhere near an objective viewpoint. Obviously, I’m somewhat biased in this matter with my whole “rape is bad” perspective, but I can live with that.
Reddygirl said,
April 6, 2007 @ 7:57 am
Rape is bad, very bad. And I’m glad society is finally getting the message.
But, so is murder. We saw Angel kill Jenny Calendar. That was very akin to a real-life situation, just as much as Spike’s trying to force himself upon Buffy.
It’s unfortunate in America that murder is more acceptable than rape. But, popular culture has for decades glorified killing.
People who subscribe to the idea that what unsouled Spike did was worse than what unsouled Angel did are not delving deeply into the issue, just mouthing politically correct platitudes, imo.
I am not saying this is what y ou’re doing at all. I’m very impressed with your thoughts in your blog. I just read a lot of posts at different sites where when I give my opinion that Jenny’s murder was worse than what happened to Buffy in the bathroom the poster will reply “I never thought of it that way”. Jenny’s dead, she remains dead, she’s not a metaphor. Just like Tara is dead.
And I do also think Buffy’s beating of Spike is very close to a real-life situation, just as much as the AR is. People do beat up their lovers out of frustration. Spike was literally physically hurt, we still saw the damage in the next epi.
Of course I understand why Buffy did what she did; I don’t excuse her, but there were extinuating circumstances, mainly that Spike allowed her to hit him, encouraged her to use him as a punching bag. I love Buffy dearly and felt her pain every moment in 6. But her actions were still wrong.
So, to me, Spike’s attempted rape, Angel’s killing of Jenny and Buffy’s beating of Spike are all equally “real-life” situations. But this being Jossverse, there are limits to how much we can compare what happened there to actual real life. And in Angel and Spike’s cases, it’s the soul, or lack of soul, that sets them apart from your usual rapist or murderer.
Thanks for listening to me and replying.
Jody H. said,
April 7, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
I definitely would agree that those actions are all examples of equally wrong behavior. But what sets the AR apart in my mind is that the MOTIVE is very real world, while the motives of the other events fit within the rules of the fantasy world and stand more as metaphors for the reasons behind real-world events. It doesn’t make the characters’ actions less wrong, but it softens the blow, making them FEEL less wrong to some of the audience. The three events that strike me as being most real world are the AR, Joyce’s death, and the shooting of Tara and Buffy. They are some of the most jarring events in the show because the metaphors have been stripped away.