Defining Terms: Canonicity

This is my first entry in my "Defining Terms'' series. While this won't be required reading, this series will help readers get a better idea of where I'm coming from when I mention loaded terms. While words like "canon" have established definitions, nuance can play a big role in how those words are used, and how I will use them to make my argument. I am not saying that words ultimately have no meaning, I am saying that given the cultural context of a word, the meaning can take on different forms to communicate ideas. But enough with the intro, let's talk about the term: Canonicity.

WHAT IS CANONICITY?

    Historically, when a piece of literature is considered "canon" in religious terms it was considered authoritative or even "holy" when it comes to determining right action(Orthopraxy) or right belief (Orthodoxy), establishing orthopraxy/orthodoxy is usually done by arguing utilizing canonical works. Jews argue from the Tanakh (mostly), Christians from the Bible, and Muslims from the Quran. In more pop culture terms, when it comes to fictional worlds usually depicted in multiple books, comics or movies, if a work is considered canon then it means that everything described in that canonical entry actually happened in that world’s "reality" spread across the multiple entries. How an entry can become canon can be as simple as the author declaring it to be such, or fans of the work or works coming to a general consensus based on certain criteria that can be simple (one author wrote them all so therefore it's canon), or complex (events that happen, and character portrayals do not line up with previous canonical entries, therefore this work is not canon even though the author says it is). Even in historical religious settings there was much debate over which books should be included in the scriptural canon, and the arguments put forth would be very similar to modern day debates on which series entries should be considered canon if there is ambiguity. Do the themes line up? Where is it similar to other entries? Where is it different? Is this character consistent with other depictions of this character?

EXAMPLE: STAR WARS

    As an example let's take the Star Wars Universe. In 2012 George Lucas sold Star Wars to a Disney that was currently at the top of it's game, and looking to flex their creative muscles Disney simply declared that all the expanded universe was no longer canon. With one declarative statement they reduced the old canon with the new canon. Most fans did not take kindly to this news but were willing to overlook it. Disney had a good track record, and they were finally getting another trilogy. The Force Awakens had its issues but was mostly well received. The problems came with the release of The Last Jedi and its depiction of the most loved Star Wars Character: Luke Skywalker. After decades of waiting to see Luke return to the big screen fans were greeted with a character they were told was Luke Skywalker, but did not act like Luke Skywalker. And while their minds kept telling them that this was now the canonical version of Luke Skywalker, in their heart of hearts they knew that this was in fact NOT Luke Skywalker. There are plenty of critics out there that can break down the sequel trilogy better than I could, so I'll get to the point. I believe that in a number of years, fans will not consider any of the Disney led Star Wars productions, or any Disney Star Wars associated books as canon. Despite the movies being poorly made and poorly written, they deviated too much from the first six movies in lore consistency, and character consistency, and probably most important: theme consistency. 

CONCLUSION

    In my future writings and ramblings of video game or movie content, I may take the time to argue things like the Luke Skywalker debacle I mentioned above, or what I think the proper Zelda timeline is, or any number of topics that fans of fictional universes like to argue about. When I do, I am always trying to keep this idea of "canonicity" in mind because it grounds fans to a base set of facts and descriptions. In a sense it means that all who are willing to enter the debate are playing by the same rule book, and agree to debate using the same terminology.

more to come...