![[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}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-26 03:58 am (UTC)But I did think I would respond to your scenario as I understand it:
Joss as exec producer hires writers, he outlines where the story is going and then he may (or may not) allow those writers to create new characters and new story-lines which work within the frame work of his show. Ultimately though he does (IMO) get to decide what is canon and what isn't: if he wasn't happy with a writer's work then he would fire them...
if he liked the writer but didn't like their take on a character he would edit them...
so as far as I can see it is still his story that is being told no matter now collaborative it becomes.
Joss has changed costume choices made by the those hired to dress the actors, and he has redesigned sets in spite of having highly paid set designers. Of course he has also allowed some actors to ad lib, and some writers to go off in weird/new directions, but he still had the last word. He as admitted to being a
control freakcontrol enthusiast, so I don't think the collaboration is ever an equal partnership....Of course I haven't been there, and I can't know.... I'm just saying that for me what Joss says is canon is canon.
Long Comment (this always happens with canon)
Date: 2009-11-26 07:06 am (UTC)Which is all a long way to say I don't think there's a scenario where any other writer knows the characters (at large, as a whole) better than Joss because every character is partially based on him to a degree even down to the way he speaks. But Buffy most of all and she is the center of this world. Buffy is "[his] voice, [his] avatar, [his] girl." And you can see this in how he explores the negative effects of leadership that both he and Buffy have shared and how it sets you apart.
An interesting point was raised that the author doesn't get to dictate how the text is received. I agree to a point. The author doesn't get to dictate how the text is perceived. But the author does get to define the parameters of the series he or she creates. When I write a story or drabble and say "this is set in the same timeline as 'Thought You Should Know' or 'Sad Song in His Heart'" or if Barb says "set in the Barbverse" - that's the author's right to determine the boundaries of their world. The author gets to determine the basics - title of the piece, setting, characters living and dying by their hand. And the author gets to say 'this story is a continuation of my previous story.'
I'd be offended if someone posted me feedback for, let's say, a spinoff story that I'd written to comply with the 'canon' of "Thought You Should Know" and a reader said 'you're wrong, this isn't a continuation of that story.' Frankly, my head would be thrown back. And I'm talking about fanfic here where I don't have any rights to the characters, yet I still feel a sense of authorial ownership.
Re: Long Comment (this always happens with canon)
Date: 2009-11-26 07:10 am (UTC)Canon, to me, isn't about the reader's POV. Because the reader still has the power to reject canon - that prerogative always remains. Rather, canon is about a universally accepted authority - something everyone can look to and say 'yes, it was officially determined'. Canon comes from the Pope, canon comes from a group of authorities who join up to determine validity - canon is the decree, the law. Canon comes from the highest authority on the subject - for the Buffyverse, I feel that is Joss Whedon.
Now the people (readers) may rise up and denounce canon, but in doing so I believe it's necessary to completely reject canon as a concept. It's the reader's prerogative to reject authorial intent (to dismiss, ignore or even close the book). But it's the author who is the creator of 'canon', the writer of the script. Canon isn't meant to be interpretive, but rather a simple clear-cut body of work that defines rules and boundaries - and within these boundaries the reader finds innumerable avenues of interpretation - the way a Constitutional lawyer interprets the canon of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is 'canon' - the lawyer accepts this basic framework, then works out his or her own interpretation within this framework. A Constitutional lawyer doesn't get to reject a new amendment just because it was added two centuries after the original document was created.
I'm left wondering this - if Buffy Season 8 was the best comic book one had ever read (it had the best artist around, flawless writing, the most incredible plot twists and development, and character interaction that pleased every reader) - would people find it easier to accept it as canon? Because it seems to me that a lot of the denouncement of Season 8 as canon is accompanied by relief. A blanket statement of 'my god this is tripe, but thank god I don't think it's real and it doesn't matter!' Like by saying it's not real, not canon, one is protecting the rest of the series that is loved so dearly.
I know this is my viewpoint, that many disagree. But I find it inherently ironic that canon as a concept relies on a shared understanding of its definition. So individual canon reads to me like an oxymoron. Just the way an individual is not a society. Or that a loner cannot be part of a communal relationship. If one is determining canon on your own - well, that to me isn't the definition of canon, but rather the definition of an individual's opinion. And canon is supposed to be the bedrock upon which individual interpretation may stand, not upon which individual interpretation is spawned in an infinite number of directions.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 12:36 am (UTC)I'll try again - I do not believe Whedon can tell us what is canon or not, because Whedon did not create the story by himself, he was not the sole executive producer, he was not the owner of the rights, he made decisions, but he did not have the final say in all cases. David Greenwalt was co-executive producer of the series for the first three years. David Greenwalt and Marti Noxon developed and came up with the characters of Dru and Spike, with Whedon.
To give an example from an artist perspective - the Marvel artists in 1990s got very upset with Marvel and specifically Stan Lee (who is the Marvel equivalent of Mutant Enemy's Whedon) - Lee had power. He had initially come up with concept of the X-Men, and was more or less credited over John Byrn (the artist).
The artists who created new characters, such as Gambit, Rogue, Bishop, Lady Deathstrike, Cable,
Psylock, got upset when they realized that it was only "canon" if Lee said so. They did not own their characters. Their ideas, their art - was well Marvel's and Lee's and Lee and Marvel could do whatever they damn well pleased regardless of whether it made sense.
So, they formed Wildstorm. A similar thing happened yet in reverse with the creators of Superman - who lost control of the character to DC, who became the controller. The same thing could happen with Buffy, by the way, the Kuzuis could get a new writer and director, change the story, get a following, get a fandom and in due course that fandom may state that whatever that director/writer states is "canon". Which is exactly what happened with Superman and the X-men.
Canon to me, is meaningless in collaborative environment. It only works with a work by say someone like Jane Austen - where you can locate a single source and single author.
Also, I don't care about canon. Canon...schamon. I read the comics because the story interests me and I find Whedon as a writer, to be interesting. I find his writing interesting, deeply flawed in places, but definitely interesting. ;-)
This isn't meant to be an argument per se, but rather an attempt to explain my point of view.
I think from your response above - you perceive Whedon as the God of the Buffyverse or the creator of it.
I do not for the reasons stated above.
Re: Long Comment (this always happens with canon)
Date: 2009-11-29 12:55 am (UTC)You give Whedon too much credit I think. For the actors contributed as well. Jeanty doesn't begin to convey the characters the way those actors did, and their interpretations of Whedon's lines...also, James Marsters told Whedon that he thought Spike was in love with Buffy that was why he was hanging around. THAT never occurred to Joss Whedon until James Marsters mentioned it. And Marti Noxon saw Juliet Landau perform in England and told Whedon about it - and came up with Dru. Those characters came about because of Noxon and Greenwalt. Whedon added to them.
Cordelia was picked and cast by Gail Berman, Whedon would have cast someone else.
Fury came up with Giles betrayal and the Watcher Council in Helpless - Whedon never thought of it.
Whedon is NOT a novelist. Every screenplay and teleplay he has written, has been collaborated on. It is a group effort.
His stories are more like Tea At the Ford's Six Deep or ATPO's Season Six Virtual - where you have many writers arguing and fighting and developing the story, not like your tale which you have one writer and betas looking at it.
So, no, I don't agree. Whedon to me is not the sole creator of this enterprise.
I read the comics for a different reason than most. I find Whedon to be an interesting writer, I like his collaborative efforts, and I find the comics to be interesting. I do not see the comics as canon, because I do not see Whedon as the sole creator and writer and artist behind the work - whatever he does with the characters it will always be different from what was on the show, because he is working without the other writers other artists other editors. The one constant on that series - were the actors, editors, producers. Whedon himself came and went at times. In TV - writers, head and otherwise leave all the time. Aaron Sorkin left the West Wing in the third or fourth season of it (I forget which), John Wells (I think it was him) took over, the series was still canon, it sill rang true. Why - the producers, the writing team, and everyone else stayed the same - only Sorkin left. That's how it works with "collaborations" - if the executive producer/creator leaves, the show remains to some degree true to itself, but if everyone else does...not so much. OR another way of looking at it - UPN would have continued Buffy without Whedon, they were considering it, it was when Gellar announced she was through with the show (b/c she would not do without Whedon and she was tired of it) that it was cancelled. Fury and Noxon executive produced Season 6 with input from Whedon, just as Whedon ran S1-5 with input from David Greenwalt.
Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 02:02 am (UTC)And why do you have to believe that the comics are not canon to
not enjoy them?
There are quite a few people who stated they hated the comics but saw them as canon, and several who did not see them as canon yet enjoyed them.
For myself? I don't care if they are canon or not. But I've been reading comics and watching daytime soap operas for years, if canon and continuity mattered that much to me - I probably wouldn't have been able to tolerate all the stuff Marvel and other comics/shows threw at me, let alone read Joss Whedon's take on the Marvel Universe - which comic book geeks still can't figure out is canon or some alternate universe fanfiction. Astonishing X-Men could literally be read apart from the entire X-men franchise as a stand-alone. I enjoyed it. Was it canon to the X-men? I have no idea. Stan Lee, the original creator, would probably say it wasn't. But I don't care. I just care about how much I like the story, do the characters fit how I perceived them (the movie in my head),
and does it fit what the characters would do - do I find it believable? If it doesn't fit those things, do I find it an interesting alternate universe version? Does the story hold up on its own? Does it interest me? If it doesn't do the last two things, and it fails to keep my interest? canon, schmanon (TM BGF), I'm done.
See the thing about serials? They don't have rules. They aren't really like the US Constitution. But the US Constitution requires votes, and ratification by all 50 states, please endless intrepretation. They still haven't figured out what that phrase "right to bear arms means" and "the first amendment" - that is argued up the gazoo. Strict Constructionists believe as you do - you go by the framers dictates. But one teeny tiny problem - the framers died over 100 years ago, and we have no clue what their intent was, sure we can thread our way through their papers - but we need to also keep in mind that they made these dictates in a world vastly different than our own. If we followed their dictate by the letter, women would still be male property. Thank god for those amendments. And those amendments to the Constitution? They aren't made by the original authors, and not one sole guy gets to make them, they are argued by vast numbers of people, many who died for them. Martin Luther King amongst them. And then ratified by the majority. Not quite the same thing as Whedon thinking one day, hey, I'll write a comic book continuation of Buffy and call it canon! Just as the Pope's dictates, require votes and endless discussion by the Cardinals, and staff, and advisors, and well...I hate to tell you this, but 80% of American Catholics ignore Pope. They do by the way. If they didn't, ahem, we would have a much larger population and no birthcontrol. So, this is not quite the same thing as the US Constitution. We actually can and do ignore the Pope's dictates. Heck, we also can decide to join another religion. What the Pope states is NOT the law, except to orthodox Catholics - of which there aren't that many.
As for Buffy, I enjoy the comics more or less. If I thought they were canon to the tv series? My opinion of them would not change. And I know from BGF and shapinglight's comments their opinions probably would not change if they thought the comics were or weren't canon. Many of the posters actually stated that they would like the comics MORE if they thought they were fanfic. Many stated that they preferred Brian Lynch's comics even though they knew they weren't canon. And other's stated that they were following them purely because they thought they were canon, even though they sucked beans.
Part II - Why we define things differently - we think differently
Date: 2009-11-29 02:09 am (UTC)Instead, one person wrote that he saw bars of music or notes each time an instrument was played, another saw colors, a third just felt things, my aunt's turn finally came and when she read her story or the movie she saw in her head when she listened - everyone gaped in astonishment. The teacher said she knew my Aunt was a visual learner, which is rarity, and wanted to demonstrate how differently we all think.
Some people will read the word canon - and think - oh the Catholic canon and see in their heads, the Pope, the canonical texts of the Bible - what was accepted by the Pope and considered the reliable text for interpretation, others will just see a word and have to look it up in the dictionary, others will think of "law" or "rules to live by", others will see it in copyright or intellectual property terms - which is canon is based on the medium (ex. tv show is one canon, comics is a derivative work of a tv show...or canon is based on "rights".Dark Horse owns the comic book rights for Buffy - that is comics canon. Fox owns the television rights that is tv show canon. DH (aka Scott Allie) controls what is in comics and communicates with the audience, he is the editor. While Fox (and Gareth...) controlled what got shown on screen. And then the novels - Fox developed a set of canon guidelines sent to someone who worked with authors to control the novelization canon based on the TV series. In that group alone you have three canons based on intellectual property rights.), others see it from your perspective - it's the guy who came up with the title, Buffy, and the slang - he rules, and still others see is as the author or creators of the work.
Like in all things - people aren't going to agree on which definition rules. We don't by the way agree on the US Constitution - if we did there would not be any Constitutional Lawyers and there would not be any Judges. Nor do we agree on whether or not to follow the Pope. If we cannot agree on these things? Why would we agree on canon? Heck, I don't even agree with your interpretation of intellectual property law (Whedon doesn't own any rights in the material - Dark Horse has the subsidiary rights in Buffy, IDW has the subsidiary rights for Angel, Fox has the TV rights and Movie rights and novel rights). Whedon is a paid for hire writer who was provided creative control over the tv series and given quite a bit of money to create it. Whedon, knowing fully what he was doing at the time - if he didn't - he was an idiot because it's not like he was a novice or anything - had sold the rights of Buffy to the Kuzuis, in order to make the film. He did not have to do that. And he got money for it. A lot. Then he got to do a tv series. And a spin-off. And another tv series.
And a comic book series. But, the rights are owned by the people he sold them to and they in turn distributed them to others. Creating multiple derivatives and adaptations. I worked in intellectual property law for 7 years.)
Re: Part II - Why we define things differently - we think differently
Date: 2009-11-29 03:15 am (UTC)There's no way you'd know this of course but you probably should NOT have chosen "Catholicism", "Constitutional Law" and "Intellectual Property Law" in your analogy regarding canon. Particularly today, after I'd discussed all three with relatives, arguing bits and pieces of them.
I am a former Catholic, whose uncle is a Priest. With a minor in cultural anthropology.
I studied constitutional law and almost became a constitutional lawyer.
I worked for 7 years in intellectual property law.
Re: Long Comment (this always happens with canon)
Date: 2009-11-29 03:18 am (UTC)I was comparing the author versus the reader/audience. Because it's not the actors and fellow writers of Season 8 that are denouncing it as not canon, but the readers who are doing so. As for collaboration, we do have Goddard, Vaughan and Espenson collaborating with Whedon and to a lesser extent Doug Petrie and Steven Deknight. But still the point I was drawing between my own experience as an author and the audience is that the audience doesn't get to determine canon or the range of the series. I get to do that. I get to say this one-shot is a continuation of the Phlebotinum Jello series. And if I say it and I'm writing it and I'm the creator (and frankly, Whedon still gets top billing no matter what - because he did create the character of Buffy and its modeled on him to the extent that his speech patterns are Buffyspeak) then that's the story.
I reject the notion that the audience determines canon when a creator authority is there to determine it. In the absence of the creator(s), then yes the only authority present is the audience. But that to me is not the default option. Because again, canon is about a shared understanding - it's not based upon the individual beliefs of the reader - it's accepted as an authoritative decree on the work. The solid foundation upon which all other subjective interpretation may stand - it anchors discussion and evaluation. Like when one is spinning in a circle, you look at a point in the distance so as to remain standing.
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 II - Why we define things differently - we think differently
Date: 2009-11-29 03:51 am (UTC)As for "intellectual property", well I don't really see its relevance in terms of a literal interpretation. I'm speaking in terms of the creator as the giver and shaper of life, not the one who owns it. While Spike was created in joint part by Whedon, Noxon and Greenwalt, some of the most important and defining aspects of Spike's character journey came be traced back to Whedon. I think, more than any other character, it is Buffy's character that I most closely draw relation to Whedon. And as she's the central character of the 'verse, that tends to shape the hierarchy. Yes, she is partially owned by the Kuzuis, but that means little to me in terms of creator and her identity. The Kuzuis writing Buffy would be like me watching the Buffybot only without SMG acting, no soul, wrong words, wrong look, just wrong. But the most important of these, to me, is the soul of the character and her personality. Which I feel Whedon understands and has shaped more than any other person.
I don't think Whedon is God of the Buffyverse (I've mocked that notion actually), but I do think he's the highest creative authority of the Buffyverse. And if Noxon decided to argue with Whedon about the canon of Season 8, well, I'd sit back with popcorn. Because that to me would be a legitimate disagreement over the canon of the story.
I'm looking at canon as defined by the authority of the creator. I think many other people look at it as the authority of the reader to view the world from the subjective individual lens. The whole philosophy of reality is always in the eyes of the beholder and so forth. To me, the concept of canon is about letting go of individual subjective rationale and accepting the basic framework of the creator's determination (I the author have named this character Buffy Summers and she will ever always be known as Buffy Summers).
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 04:01 am (UTC)The concept of canon has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the comics. What canon affects is my enjoyment of the Season 8 fandom. It affects my enjoyment of discussion of the comics, not the comics themselves. Because I still get the same excitement every first Wednesday of the month that I go to buy the comics. And I still read the comics in the car before I leave my comic store's parking lot. Canon, to me, is only relevant in joint discussion and shared consciousness of the series. It it is a concept useful to for shared understanding of the story. And shared understanding is not the basis for my enjoyment of the series, nor was it ever a reason for me to enjoy the show. I enjoyed the series and watched it on my own before ever hearing of the word "canon" as I also enjoyed the comics before entering fandom almost two years ago.
And why do you have to believe that the comics are not canon to not enjoy them?
Well, I personally don't believe this. And I actually don't think I've seen anyone with this belief. Rather, I think people first don't enjoy the comics, then find shelter in the label of "not canon" to protect and shield their enjoyment of the show. I have seen views expressed that the developments of Season 8 have shaken the views of the tv series. I think it's the natural tendency to put distance between what one enjoys (the seven seasons) and what one dislikes (Season 8) - and the way to do this within fandom is to use the phrase "not canon". If one were alone in reading the series and watching the show, one would just say "I don't like this" and put the book down, dismissing it from one's mind. But within fandom, shared understanding of canon is necessary for useful discussion. We must acknowledge that Giles sang the song "Standing Still" in OMWF in order to debate the subjective meaning of the song and the motivation behind the character - so it's "canon" that Giles sand "Standing Still" in that episode.
Re: Part II - Why we define things differently - we think differently
Date: 2009-11-29 04:19 am (UTC)I think Joss Whedon believes Buffy is his avatar and sole creation. But David Fury a while back made a great comment - he said, Whedon fails to see how much Sarah Michelle Gellar made Buffy who she was - that the show would not have existed and Buffy would not have existed without her in it. I agree with him. The comics have proven that to me. She did play a HUGE role, but like many tv writers - Whedon doesn't like to think actors are as important and vital as they are.
(That's partly why Dollhouse is so creepy at times, that metaphor rings heavily in that show - because he is clearly struggling with that attitude). Other things - Gail Berman - the producer reigned in Whedon, as did the other network execs, and Marti definitely had a say, as did Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Greenwalt, Minear and the other writers. I honestly think their absence shows. And as they say proof is in the pudding - look at the poll results. And the comments thread. The number of people who stated that they lost Buffy in the series. That it does not feel like the character. That the story is not ringing true. As well as the number who stopped reading after The Long Way Home (and then Retreat - two volumns that focused heavily on Buffy). Then look at the number who stated it was not canon.
So, what we are disagreeing on may be that Whedon is NOT the creator. Your argument is that we don't get to tell the creator what to do. And since that creator is Whedon, then we don't get to tell Whedon what to do with Buffy or that Buffy comics aren't canon. But what if we don't agree that Whedon is the sole creator?
What if I believe that Whedon is part of a group?
And without certain key members such as SMG, Gareth (the head producer), Noxon, and Fury (the ones who were with him the longest, and Greenwalt as the consultant...plus the fact that we have changed publishers, editors, and formats and now have Scott Allie (of all people) editing and contributing to the plot arc, plus some hack named Meltzer, and an artist named Jeanty...taking over? How's that the original creator? I'm sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;-)
Re: Part I - Canon doesn't matter to all of us
Date: 2009-11-29 04:34 am (UTC)Because that would make discussion easier.
You don't have to believe to that the comics are canon to discuss them in fandom. I've been discussing them from the very beginning as non-canon. I've NEVER considered the comics as canon. I ALWAYS saw them as another medium.
It never bothered me.
What I see the comics as - is a continuation of the story as Joss Whedon would have written it. So I analyze and discuss and critique them based as a continuation of the story as written by Joss Whedon. I enjoy them because I'm curious what he would have done. I want to know how Whedon would have continued it. (I may have read Greenwalt's, Fury's, Noxon's, Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Marsters, Nick Brendon, Hannigan and Espenson's versions as well, and I would not have called them canon either.)
See, we're thinking about this differently. You need everyone to agree that they are canon by your definition of the term - because you see it as simple as agreeing Giles sang Still Standing. You see it as a fact. I don't see it that way at all.
My perspective on this is completely different. My definition of canon is different for one thing. I think you can discuss it as a possible continuation of the story as Whedon saw it without agreeing on the canon bit. And I can enjoy it and enjoy fandom's speculation and discussion without having fandom agreeing on the definition of canon or that the story is great or that it is canon.
Does the fact that I don't believe it is canon really change our discussion of plot points, characters or story? Isn't it enough that I agree that it is how Joss Whedon would have continued Buffy's story and leave it at that?
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.