#canonicity

I hadn't thought about that before! I checked the copyright date, and it looks like The Wounded Sky came out a year before The Search for Spock, so you were writing without knowing that sacrifice would eventually happen.

How did you feel about that? Do you wish that writing decision had been made differently? (If, as a Trek writer, you're allowed to comment on other Trek writers' choices!)

You know, I tend not to think a whole lot about such issues. First of all, because (in the long run) it gets you nowhere in particular that's useful. And secondly, because it's not a thing that, as a Trek writer in any medium except film, you have the slightest power to change.

Now, at this end of time I think we can safely say that no one's going to hire me on to write a Trek film. And also that no one at that end of the creative spectrum is going to pay the slightest attention to anything I say, either. Both of those situations are just What's So, and neither of them bothers me. (Since I have universes of my own to manage at the moment, and that's where my attention properly lies.) So as regards my opinions about other writers' work, I'm pretty much off the hook.

If I had been on screenwriting duty for that film, would there be things I'd have wanted to do differently? Hell yeah. From the premise up. But the important thing here is: would those things necessarily have worked better on the screen / with the audience? Impossible to tell. And speaking as someone repeatedly given permission to work in someone's universe, the main thing to be aware of is the expectation that your chief responsibility is to do what best serves the characters and the IP of which they're part. (There's a post over at Out of Ambit with a lot more of my thoughts on the subject:)

The other thing to remember is that, though I've worn the Canonical Hat in my time, novel work is by definition non-canonical. Doing it, you are at all times working with the understanding that the licensor rarely views your work as anything better than a corporate side hustle—a way for the IP to make some cash on the side—and will ignore you and the stuff you've created unless given pressing reasons to do otherwise. (Such as when they might make some unexpected money off it... at which point you remind yourself as forcibly as necessary that what you did is Work For Hire; they own it, lock, stock and barrel, and you should not realistically expect to be given any credit.)

And, if you understand the rules and enjoy the work enough, all of this is okay. The reward is not in making a lot of money doing it, or even in having aspects of your work openly assumed into canon. The reward lies in being allowed to contribute to a given universe in public (and, yeah, getting paid for it by the licensor). It's not payback: it's payforward. And you're left an astonishing amount of freedom to bring your vision to that universe. (Sometimes... as one colleague has McCoy say... you have to be "very, very careful" to get away with it. But it can be done.)

The truth is that even in the 1980s, I was sharing this level of playing-in-a-universe with a goodish cohort of editors and writers: a big roomful at least. Now I'm sharing it (retroactively speaking) with hundreds of them. With the best will in the world, even in the 80's the licensors (as regarded film) couldn't have realistically polled/listened to all of us regarding our creative opinions about the screenplay end of things. As for what that'd look like nowadays... I'll leave you to your own deductions. 😏

Don't even get me started with Mobestiary because its premise was about being some kind of guide to mobs written by an in-universe researcher — except it confirmed that the only Minecraft book to be canon is The Rise of The Arc-Illager. Like, what are we supposed to do with it then?

For example, I know it's merely a gameplay choice to eat enchanted golden apples because no human could ever eat approximately 154 kg of raw gold - let alone in less than two seconds. But what about Evokers being unable to use a Totem of Undying while other beings can use it - including undead beings? Should we think it's also a gameplay design since a Evoker round 2 would be quite stronger or it's to imply something else but in-lore?

It has layers.

Okay, I just gotta be the fandom elder here, because there is a thing that is kinda bugging me. And that is the tendency of especially younger fans of stuff to point at all sorts of suplementary material (artbooks, interviews with creators/actors, articles in magazines and what not) and go: "See, my interpretation of this and that is totally canon!"

And the thing is that... it is a bit more complicated than that. Because what is and isn't canon... Well, it is something people argue about a lot. But the general thing is, basically this. Canonicity can have multiple levels - and the top level of it is basically just the text itself.

Like, older fans of the Star Wars Fandom might still remember Lucas' five (or was it even six?) levels of canon. And those were just based on actual stories. It had become a necessity back then just based on the fact that a lot of the extended universe stuff was at times contradictory - even with the stuff that Lucas himself had done. So according to Lucas, the main canon was just the stuff he had been a part of creating. And then there were levels of things going from "most canon" to "least canon" basically.

But yeah, generally speaking: Canon is the information given within a story itself. You can argue about additional story material maybe being canon (like tie in novels to a movie, for example), but generally even those are not... necessarily canon to the main-thing itself.

I know that these days there is this big thing happening of creators just being very, very accessible to fans. So, the temptation is big to tweet or mail or comment on a twitch of your favorite media's creator/your favorite character's actor/whatever and be like: "I have this theory/analysis. Am I right?" Which is... fine. But you also have to keep in mind that stuff that people privately say is not necessarily authoritatively.

As some of the followers of this blog might know: My OG fandom is Digimon. And boy howdy, can I tell you stories about Digimon's "Word of God". Because... look people, if it is not a book, there is not a singular creator. And the people who were in charge of Digimon, had at times very, very differing ideas from each other.

With Digimon Adventure/02 I interviewed several of the writers. And guess what: I at times got opposing opinions from them. And those opinions were also differing from what the producer and the director said in official interviews and sublementary materials (like artbooks or the novelization).

Two examples are Sora's age and Hikari's crest. Sora is shown to have her birthday in movie 2, which is set in March. Given how Japanese school law works, this would make her 10 during the events of Digimon Adventure and 13 during DIgimon Adventure 02 (because the cut-off date is April 1st). According to Reiko Yoshida, who wrote that movie, this is true. According to the producer, however, no actually the movie is set in April, she is 11 during the events of the first season. And the other fun one: What does Hikari's crest of "light" actually mean. We asked five different people involved and got five different answers.

And the big thing is, that you cannot assume that someone, who is engaging with media, does also engage with ALL THE INTERVIEWS and FOLLOW EVERYONE INVOLVED ON SOCIAL MEDIA. Because most people don't.

I see this happening a lot especially in regards to people interpreting the canonicity of ships - and character sexuality.

Let me use an example where I totally agree with the person in question: Isaac from Castlevania. According to his voice actor Isaac is queer. I totally absolutely read the character this way, no question. But... technically it is never confirmed in the text. So if you come away from it not reading him this way, yeah, that is totally understandable. You do not need to know everything every voice actor said.

And if stuff within the actually story itself is kept vague, you cannot just go and say: "Person XY who also was involved in creating media X said this, so this is the only correct opinion." Because if the text does not confirm it, it is not necessarily "canon" and either interpretation is valid.

And if there is multiple entries as source material, also try to think of what people will usually think of, when you say "Fandom X".

Like, to get back at my own fandoms: Yeah, no, most people will not know about the novelization of Digimon Adventure. Most people will also not have played the Wonderswan games (that also at times outright contradict the primary text in form of the anime). Or with Pirates of the Caribbean: Most fans have never read any of the tie-in novels. Heck, most people do not even know they exist. Meanwhile, also a ton of people do not consider movies 4 and 5 canonical to the Gore Verbinski trilogy, given that again those movies outright contradict some of the stuff stated in the trilogy.

What I am trying to say: Canonicity is, if anything, a spectrum, not a binary. So for the love of all the gods, please stop the entire: "Well, the guy who did the storyboards for three of the scenes in this show agrees with me, so I am right," stuff. I know it is tempting (believe me, I KNOW). But... If it is not in the text, other interpretations are valid.

i am literally doing the lords work out here in the fandom fr (evangelizing people unto troll cannibalistic traditions and fashions)