Anna S. (eliade) wrote,
Anna S.
eliade

  • Mood:
  • Music:

canon and stuff

Cool posts on the question of what constitutes canon here from musesfool, and here from corinna_5, found via latxcvi's LJ. Discussions using words like "metatextual" and "extratextual" are usually fun for me to read, because I'm geeky that way.

It seems like fans of Smallville have a lot more to chew on than fans of other shows, because they have so many varieties of text--TV shows, movies, comic books. Okay. I realize as I write that that BtVS has all those things too, and tie-in novels, and a spin-off. But I get the feeling that with Buffy most fans take the TV shows as primary canon and don't worry a lot about the comics and novels--and even less about the movie, which Joss has pretty much disavowed. (I say that knowing how much some of you *do* like the movie's supporting characters, who never did appear on the show, but that aside, *most* people don't pay much attention to the movie.)

Not having read any Buffy-related material, the only time I've dipped into outside sources is to acknowledge India as the slayer before Buffy.

But with Buffy, there are definitely questions about where textual canon ends and "metatextual" canon begins, given how gabby the show's creators and actors are about what they make. I think I talked about this vis-a-vis a NYT interview with Joss a while ago--I can't remember if it was in LJ. But for me, anything not shown on the show itself is pretty optional, though I do exercise a double standard when it's something usefully evidentiary. Spike *did* go in search of his soul, tyk, and yeah, I'm going to latch onto that *fact* and shove it into the mud of my beaver dam to shore up my readings against a river of opposition and snark.

Shove...into...my beaver. Uh huh.

It's late. I haven't eaten.

I *know* I've talked even more recently here about the idea of readings, how canon can be read in different ways--like, even a character's most explicit words could be lies or lesser degrees of truth, either deliberate or unintentional. Meta- and extratextual things: optional. The text itself: incredibly malleable.

These are just tiny blurty thoughts of mine, mostly for my own sake as I try to figure out if I have anything new to say on this subject. Yes. No. But for the whateverth time, canon by my own best definition is the factual footage of events that happen in a text show. We saw Buffy stick a sword in Angel and send him to hell, blah blah blah. Reality. Which if you like playing with clay, can usually be reworked into a lot of different shapes. I mean, with Buffy we have canonical AUs. How hard is it to create a reoriented universe, then crossover in a way that posits the Jossverse as a variation on your own imagined "original"?

Of course, free creative rein is great, but if readers don't credit your characterization or premise, you'll probably end up arguing your case in circles and enjoying your own cleverness in a vacuum.

I worked until 8:00 p.m. in a fit of...something, and have had no dinner, and my brain's tired and mumbly. What's the meal between lunch and dinner? High tea? Supper? Suppunch? Dinunch? I had three-bean cake for suppunch (cocoa bean, vanilla bean, coffee bean).

Now I'm just going to wander off.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 5 comments