![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI'm offline for the next two-three days for the Thanksgiving Holiday. When I get back will hopefully do a meta on poll results and respond to comments. Sorry about delay.
Thank you for answering my poll. If you friended me and are a fan of Buffy? And haven't seen or answered the poll? Please take the time to answer at least the first three questions of the poll. I really would like to see how many Buffy fans actually have read the comics, and how many gave up on them. I know it can't possibly be an accurate or scientific sampling (as I myself stated recently to someone else doing polls - such a thing may well be impossible)...but I'd like to get a snapshot, see the degree to which the mileage differs. Thanks!!
Regarding the canon question?
"I think how you answer that question has a great deal to do with whether you consider Joss Whedon the sole creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, or a co-creator/part of a larger collaborative effort. Think of it this way - you've written part of book, say one chapter, and there's a guy, JW, who hired you to write that chapter, he may have even edited portions, and given you notes , and he does the same with other people, including writing a few chapters himself, and he puts his name on the book - edited/created by J.W. Your name is listed in the table of contents, you are credited as a writer for hire. J.W does a sequel, he hires different writers, you either decline to contribute or aren't invited. He chooses to take the characters or information in the chapter that you wrote and write a sequel based on it, and states that his sequel is canon. It is a continuation of what you wrote - even though you haven't been consulted in any way. Since he or the publisher own the copyright, and you are a mere "work-for-hire" writer, you can't claim copyright infringement. He can do whatever he wants. Would you consider what he does with your characters, story, and/or ideas/information that you have concieved and written a true continuation of the work (ie. canon), if you are no longer part of the collaboration purely because he combined the original combination of stories, edited and put them together and is the one credited with coming up with the title and main concept?
Happy Thanksgiving for those in US who celebrate, elsewhere, have a great weekend!
Thank you for answering my poll. If you friended me and are a fan of Buffy? And haven't seen or answered the poll? Please take the time to answer at least the first three questions of the poll. I really would like to see how many Buffy fans actually have read the comics, and how many gave up on them. I know it can't possibly be an accurate or scientific sampling (as I myself stated recently to someone else doing polls - such a thing may well be impossible)...but I'd like to get a snapshot, see the degree to which the mileage differs. Thanks!!
Regarding the canon question?
"I think how you answer that question has a great deal to do with whether you consider Joss Whedon the sole creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer series, or a co-creator/part of a larger collaborative effort. Think of it this way - you've written part of book, say one chapter, and there's a guy, JW, who hired you to write that chapter, he may have even edited portions, and given you notes , and he does the same with other people, including writing a few chapters himself, and he puts his name on the book - edited/created by J.W. Your name is listed in the table of contents, you are credited as a writer for hire. J.W does a sequel, he hires different writers, you either decline to contribute or aren't invited. He chooses to take the characters or information in the chapter that you wrote and write a sequel based on it, and states that his sequel is canon. It is a continuation of what you wrote - even though you haven't been consulted in any way. Since he or the publisher own the copyright, and you are a mere "work-for-hire" writer, you can't claim copyright infringement. He can do whatever he wants. Would you consider what he does with your characters, story, and/or ideas/information that you have concieved and written a true continuation of the work (ie. canon), if you are no longer part of the collaboration purely because he combined the original combination of stories, edited and put them together and is the one credited with coming up with the title and main concept?
Happy Thanksgiving for those in US who celebrate, elsewhere, have a great weekend!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 03:37 am (UTC)God and his Angels : the world :: Joss and his writers : the Buffyverse
Because the Pope, to me, is an interpretor of God's word. Kinda like Scott Allie is an interpreter of Joss and the other writers. Which is why I only hold so much weight with Allie's interpretation of things. Because he's not a creator. Just as the Pope isn't a creator.
As for the Constitutional example - well the framers/creators aren't dead today, are they? The canon question of Buffyverse comics will be different when the creator(s) aren't around to answer these questions.
I believe it lies as simply as authority of determining the boundaries of a story and its identity as a continuation lies with the author/creator. While people might argue the meaning within the Bill of Rights or an Amendment - it's still acknowledged as part of the Constitution because the authoritative body determined it to be so. One may argue the subjective meaning of the Constitution, but that doesn't make it any less a part of the "canon" Constitution, does it? The 15th Amendment isn't less worthy than the 2nd for being added so many years later, is it? They're all still Amendments. Individual citizens may argue about the way the Amendment will be interpreted as readers may argue the interpretation of Season 8, but that doesn't change the identity of the either the Amendment or the story as determined by the authoritative bodies.
At this point, I kinda don't care who likes Season 8. For my own part, I'd rather people just say "I don't like this and I'm ignoring it" rather than "It's not canon, so it doesn't matter thankfully." Because I don't like "I Robot, You Jane" and I just skip it every time I watch the series - and doing so doesn't make my pleasure less for the greater episodes like Innocence, Becoming, Hush, Pangs, The Body, OMWF, etc. I'd rather that people just say "I don't like this, it's not for me" than using the concept of different canons to divorce the story. Because, to me, that's grasping a power that the audience doesn't possess over fictional works - a power that resides with the creators (be they writers, actors or even production crew). But even with this crew of collaboration, every person I've ever seen mention a hint of the highest authority on this subject? They always, always say it's Joss', first and foremost. There's an acknowledgment of a hierarchy there.
To be clear - I'm not saying we don't get to disagree on what the definition of aspects of law and canon are. And also to further clarify, one of the major differences between the comparison of the Constitution in relation to its citizens is that its a body of law "of the people, by the people and for the people." This is not true with the Buffyverse which was made "of the creators, by the creators and for the creators and the people." The "people" or the audience do not have authority over determining "law" of the Buffyverse the way that we citizens have authority over it (a shared authority of the people). So perhaps my using the Constitution was a poor choice because (besides your personal experience and authority) the Buffyverse isn't a representative democracy. The audience doesn't have representatives within the authoritative body who get to determine and shape the text. The audience's authority exists in interpreting the text, not in defining its basic identity (title, setting, paragraph structure, placement of dialogue bubbles, relation of text to previous works).
Re: Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 03:57 am (UTC)Regarding the canon argument? Whedon did not write Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He was not Rod Serling - who wrote 85% of Twilight Zone. He wrote far less than that. He only wrote one episode of S6. Two episodes of S7. And I think 4 episodes of S5. He blocked out each arc with his other writers. He did it as a collaboration. This one he is doing as a collaboration.
Media analysts who replied to this poll and do this for a living, stated it was not canon.
Until you can prove to me that Whedon wrote the show by himself, that all the decisions were his alone, and he controlled the rights and what they could or could not do - we are not going to agree. Also, I'm sorry, mediums do change the story, one writer leaping off, with three others, to continue a tv show in book form doesn't automatically make it a continuation of the tv show just because he says it is. (Ironically Whedon said as much himself when he indicated he didn't consider the Battlestar Galatica comics canon and would not read any produced by Moore because he only looked at the tv series in that respect and a comic continuation would ruin for him. )
If he had done all those things - then yes, I'd say it was canon and yes, he could dictate this was the continuation of his story. But he did not. He just decided to call it canon to sell comics, so you'd buy them. It was a marketing tactic.
Re: Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 04:49 am (UTC)And again, I'll point above to my other examples about how my view of canon is creator authority based. The people who are denouncing it as canon are the audience. So like I said, if Noxon or someone wants to come out and call them "not canon" then we'd have a game. And actually Fury admitted in an interview he didn't really see them as canon, but then immediately backtracked to say that Joss says they're canon, so then they are canon.
That's my point really. That the people in authority to determine canon, all the writers, the actors, the crew, all bow to Joss authority. Even JM who disagrees with many develoments for Spike's character says that it was Joss' choice in the end. Every person with authority over what's 'real' in the Buffyverse accedes dominant authority to Joss. So for me, that's the greatest recognized authority. And canon, by its nature, needs to be something determined outside of the audience's individual perspective or else it serves no purpose - if everyone who watches/reads has a different canon, then the shared understanding and basis of canon ceases to exist. If there are one million canons, then there are no canons.
Re: Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 08:46 pm (UTC)I will accept that the comics is how Whedon would continue the series if he could do whatever he damn well pleased with it - no budget limitations, no actors, no network notes (although I'm guessing Scott Allie is now in that function.).
But accepting Whedon as the sole creator of the series the only one who counts? That is akin to stating that the blood sweat and tears the others put in is worthless. And that is not true. They did more and worked harder at times than Whedon ever did. Sorry,
no, the comics are not canon. They merely show us how Joss Whedon and the writers, editors and artists that he has hired would have continued this storyline. If that is how you define canon? Than yes, I agree that is true. I do not agree that they show us anything other than that. Nor do I require them to.