Best-written concise canon argument

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-22 12:30am

OK, the issue of what is and isn't canon has been debated for years, due mostly to a certain class of troll whose primary means of argument is to wrangle about what is and isn't canon.

There have been many approaches to dealing with this problem, mostly in the area of point-by-point rebuttals of the trolls' claims or thorough dissertations on the issue.

But I'm currently in the process of populating my "Arguments" database on the main site, and what I need is a compelling yet concise summary of the issue (database answers must be concise). Think of it as a contest, although apart from giving credit, I have no idea what the prize would be.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-10-22 12:42am

About the differences in Canon and Continuity and such in Star Trek and Star Wars, or of canonicity (?) itself?

IE, are we explaining to them what is debate material in SW and ST, or explaining to them the concept of there only being a certain size of the toybox you're allowed to use in a debate?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-22 12:45am

Basically answering the kind of arguments you'll get from a Darkstar acolyte.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-10-22 01:08am

I'll write one, just to get people started, and to give you something to critique and point us in the direction of what you're looking for.

"The essential nature of a Star Wars versus Star Trek no holds barred contest is that it is a problem of scale and degrees of militarization, and even based on the most conservative estimates Star Wars technology creates such massive disparities in terms of speeds, firepower estimates, shielding, ground force deployal, and industrial potential that only elaborate ground rules or preferential writing could change the outcome.

So through no fault of their own, the militaries of Star Trek would simply be unable to adequately defend against a Star Wars force, even if liberties are taken by either debating side to increase or decrease the casulaties suffered or the lengths that are gone to."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-22 01:11am

No, I'm talking about RSA's endless rantings about precisely what is and isn't canon. He tried taking that shit to TrekBBS and ended up getting flamed by numerous published authors because of his insane obsession with treating the Star Trek "canon policy" as "a court case", as the writers put it. He also tried attacking Leland Chee over at starwars.com, with similar results.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2006-10-22 01:21am

While "If Lucas says it, it's so" would probably suffice for most persons, RSA seems the type who'd take to holding George Lucas hostage —like the character in the Stephen King novel Misery— to force him to accept the Darkstar Theory of Canonicity. You'd never get through to a man who's well on his way to the mental ward.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-22 01:34am

Patrick Degan wrote:While "If Lucas says it, it's so" would probably suffice for most persons, RSA seems the type who'd take to holding George Lucas hostage —like the character in the Stephen King novel Misery— to force him to accept the Darkstar Theory of Canonicity. You'd never get through to a man who's well on his way to the mental ward.

No, but the argument is not meant to convince him. It's meant for people who might have otherwise found some of his canon rantings to be convincing.

There is currently an argument already in the database regarding this issue, but I'm wondering if it could be improved.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Dat ... .php?ID=41

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-10-22 01:45am

"Star Trek and Star Wars universes contain many stories and depictions which lie outside canon or continuity, and are not considered debate subjects any more than film errors, author's intent, or fan fiction.

The accounts that are authorized as 'recongized' authentic material for Star Trek are restricted only to the movies and TV shows, while Star Wars recognizes the films of Lucas to be a higher level of authenticity than the less authentic material produced by everyone else. The credibility of this second level of 'canon' is dependant on how accurate it is to the primary accounts of Lucas created material, but still considered by Lucas and others to be in-universe depictions of events."

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-10-22 02:03am

It's previously been Darkstar and his ass-muncher brigade's contention that there is some sort of ethereal, seperate, "Lucasfilm Ltd" canon policy out there that somehow overrides the mere "Lucas Licensing" canon policy that the "dishonest rabid Warsies" use. Of course, this magical "Lucasfilm Ltd" canon policy says only the movies and novelizations are canon, or really, whatever Darkstar wants it to say- it's easy to make shit up about something that doesn't exist.

Of course, the idiot eventually took it to starwars.com and Leland Chee saw it. In one fell swoop, there's the "It is not." quote from Chee about the "seperate from George's vision" claim, which is already cited in your current arguments section.

But the other one, that's even better:

"Does LucasFilm Ltd. itself actually have a Canon Policy?"

No. I'm not exactly sure what the existence of such a thing would actually mean. Beyond the merchandise and online, I don't see how or where it would be applied. It's not like there's a document that exists that says "these are the things that are canon" that everyone in the company can look at.

If Greedo can shoot first and an old Anakin ghost can be replaced with a young Anakin ghost, then there's always room for things to change.

And that's that. There's no other canon system in existence, anywhere in the Lucasfilm structure. That's an explicit repudiation of Darkstar's entire argument, and really, all his canon policy is a shaky collection of his interpretation of a bunch of quotes from George Lucas. It's sad.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-10-22 02:16am

Here's my attempt. I wrote it to be consistent in style to the argument pages already in the database.

Argument

"The movies are the only canon. Nothing in the Expanded Universe counts."

Rebuttal

Over the years, LFL employees have made numerous statements supporting the canonicity of the Expanded Universe. There is a current and ongoing thread in the official forums at starwars.com where the Star Wars canon policy is clearly explained by Lucas Licensing employee Leland Chee ("Tasty Taste") [1]. The novels, rpg sourcebooks, etc. are labeled as "C-canon," while a another label, "N-canon" exists specifically to refer to things which are not canon. Why does the N-canon label even exist if the novels aren't canon?

Despite the mountain of evidence against them, movie purists still claim that they're right, for the following reasons:

1. "Steve Sansweet said that the films are the only absolute canon."
2."George Lucas himself called the EU a parallel universe."
3. "What those LFL employees say is meaningless." George Lucas is the only one who can decide what's canon!"
4. "The novels may be "in continuity," but they're not canon. Anything which isn't considered absolutely true can't be canon."

All of these claims display poor reading comprehension, spotty logic, or delusion:

1. Contrary to what the movie purists think, this quote [2] actually supports the canon status of the EU. Sansweet meant that the films were the only sources that were completely correct, citing varying styles and practical considerations when it comes to portraying Star Wars in other mediums. Sansweet even stated that "every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe," and that some windows were "foggier" than others. This is consistent with the position that the EU is canon, but is considered incorrect on specific facts which contradict the movies.
2. While it is true that Lucas referred to the EU as a "parallel universe" [3], he was speaking figuratively (certainly without choosing his words with nitpicky debaters in mind) and did not literally mean that it was in another universe separate from that of his movies. In the very next sentence, Lucas defined his "world" as merely "a select period of time," stating that the EU "[does] intrude in between the movies." Lucas also called the EU a "different world" [4], but Leland Chee commented [5] on this quote at starwars.com, stating "the quote you provide makes it sound like the EU is separate from George's vision of the Star Wars universe. It is not."
3. This idea is so absurd it hardly deserves a response. LFL is George Lucas's company. Its employees would definately not be allowed to make numerous official statements over the years regarding his vision of the Star Wars universe, unless they did it with his consent.
4. A last, desperate argument among movie purists is to try to create a distinction between "canon" and "continuity." They claim that that while LFL maintains continuity between the films and the novels for commercial reasons, the novels are still not canon because canon supposedly "must" be 100% absolute truth. This definition of canon is completely fabricated, the dictionary definition of canon is merely "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works." That's exactly what the EU is. Besides, dictionary definition of canon is irrelevant, because we're talking about what LFL defines as canon. Whatever word they may use to describe it ("canon," "in continuity," etc.), what matters is that as far as they're concerned, the EU counts. Don't like that, well too bad. This argument is a red herring, and nothing but useless semantic nitpicking.

Notes:

1. Holocron continuity database questions thread.
2. Steve Sansweet, "Ask the Jedi Council," 2001 (dead link, anybody have a copy of the quote from a reliable, official link?)
3. Cinescape, July 2001
4. Starlog, August 2005
5. December 7, 2005 post by "Tasty Taste."
6. Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I know that you wanted something concise, but I felt that I had to go over all the common arguments used by Trektards and idiotic movie purists. Is this too long?

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2006-10-22 02:30am

"Star Wars canon policy and Star Trek canon policy are similar in the fact that what is or was presented and seen onscreen by each franchises creator and his respective companies, is what is canon."

"Where they differ is in what stays canon. In the SW universe all other sources, or what Lucasfilm call "levels", must never and cannot contradict or override what George Lucas laid out in the 6 movies and in the future the television series. That being said, what GL has laid out in his movies can be changed by himself which can subsequently affect all lower levels i.e. cartoons, technical manuals, novels and comicbooks. These lower "levels" can be altered or retconed as needed to help fit into the overall SW continuity."

"In Star Trek, what Gene Rodenberry laid out in TOS, early TNG and his movies, and what jackass and jackass later laid out in the rest of TNG, DS9, Voyager and their moves are, and always will be canon. What is the cause of confusion to many people is that while these sources are always canon, they sometimes may fall out of ST's overall continuity. *insert example here* is a prime example of such an occurance."

I consider myself to be much less intelligent, well at least less educated, than a large number of people on this site and this is something that I could understand. I hope I got some part of it right.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-10-22 02:32am

Jim, a small correction: Sansweet quoted Chris Cerasi of LucasBooks.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2006-10-22 04:41pm

I think you should just archive the comments of all the ST and SW authors who called Scooter a fucking idiot.

Ryushikaze · Post by **Ryushikaze** » 2006-10-22 08:53pm

I second the above, but make a second entry for it.

harbringer · Post by **harbringer** » 2006-10-27 08:27am

ok.... im not an expert like some so

if you dont like it ignore it....

Canon policy is a factual account of the universe in question, non cannon is stuff that is plain wrong or contradicts canon. Lucas and his companies came up with a tree with true canon (those facts I mentioned right) stuff that cannot be contradicted by anyone other than Lucas, and stuff that might be true or just rumour or half true (the different levels of fact). Star Trek only has what is on screen (and if you go by Roddenberry only the original series) and nothing else becuase the people in charge want it to be true or not true, ie: if they say it is true then it must be , while if I say it is so it wont be..........canon is stright forward to understand, Lucas wouldn't have allowed a heirachy to develop if he didn't WANT it that way and the same is true of B&B with star trek. End of the day we play by their rules not them by ours.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2006-10-27 10:40am

Arguments over Canon are surprisingly common. The Canon of Star Wars or Star Trek defines which sources (TV episodes, movies, books, etc.) actually reflect events that occurred and which are unreliable.

Many debaters have their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be included in the Canon of a particular storyline, but for fair debate purposes, an objective standard is necessary. The official Canon/Continuity policies of the franchise holders are the only objective standards available.

Followed by clear statements of what the canon policies are, with references.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-10-28 08:25am

Calling a continuity policy "objective" is an abuse of the term. It is not objective at all; quite the opposite in fact. It is an appeal to authority because we are dealing with a particular subject in which the opinions of certain individuals carry the weight of law. If the canon policy could be considered "objective", then it would exist outside anyone's opinion and the appeal to authority would be a totally fallacious way to define it.

Scooter's big mistake was in believing the silly notion that "canon policy" can be considered an objective quantity, when in fact it is quite literally whatever the copyright holder says it is.