Sign in or 
Share this
Canon Balls
Monday, July 30th 2007.
I have, of late, been reading some interesting debates about canonicity, that is, the assignment of a work of fiction to a body of work that forms part of a greater body or collection of literature.
In particular there’s this thread from Paul Cornell’s blogspot.
And this rather dubious wikipedia entry defining literary canon.
I’ve always been more comfortable operating in the realms of the apocryphal (works not considered canon), but find many hours taken up with debating what individuals do or do not consider ‘canonical’.
To me the whole ‘declaration of canon’, either by individual or committee, is flawed. Beyond the original creator or author, whose right is it to determine what is and isn’t canon? The Church could only define canon by virtue of its belief that the Pope is “God’s representative on Earth”, ergo, the Church considers itself the executor of the divine estate.
The canon of Sherlock Holmes was first identified as Holmes stories written by the author, but it was done so after his death and not, as I understand it, by anyone of authority. In Tolkein’s case the definition of canon did indeed fall to his estate, through Christopher Tolkein, although many disagree with his views for aesthetic reasons.
But Doctor Who?
As a corporate creation, the BBC is seen as the only authority, and by default this sits in the hands of the current production team. They don’t use the term canon, and in terms of what is and isn’t official, they avoid being drawn on the subject so as not to be seen to take sides. Thus the fans attempt to define canon, and in their eyes Doctor Who is sometimes regarded as what appeared in the TV series or more broadly ‘what was officially produced by the BBC’.
Of course, in the twenty-first century stuff officially produced by the BBC strays far from what is seen in the TV series itself. Websites, webcasts, interactive games and mobile content have all been produced to promote and enhance the experience, leading to yet another layer of division in an increasingly needless canonicity debate.
Let's face it, whatever a fan declares to be or not to be canon is irrelevant. Subjective canon identified by the individual, based on “I like it and deem it ‘canon’ ” is, by its very definition, not canon at all.
In practical terms, a canon is simply a recognised body of work identified for the purposes of interpretation and research. Church canon basically meant “these are the bits we promote and quote”. They are also the bits that many feel bound to interpret literally (the word).
But in literary terms, the expression is simply abused.
Personally I prefer the term “expanded universe” coined in Star Wars circles, implying as it does a body of work that rests outside of canon, but can be referenced by it or contradicted.
The issue then, is how well a piece of work relates to the greater whole. Where reconciliation is deemed “impossible”, “too difficult”, or “unacceptable”, the tendency is to claim it is not canon or, in deference to a new, Who-specific term, unbound. Unbound stories are “What if?” adventures deliberately set outside of Doctor Who continuity. The term is not a category for depositing stories deemed irreconcileable.
In fact, because of the nature of Doctor Who, I’ve yet to find a fictional fact that can’t be reconciled, because we can all come up with fictional explanations as to how it happened that way. Many of my favourite stories involve clever solutions to what appear to be contradicting facts – it’s a game, and one that I find enjoyable.
The problem is that in the “expanded universe” surrounding any body of work, there are people like me who want to put their explanations on paper – preferably in “canonical form”. When two people both present their own solutions, but those solutions don’t complement each other, we end up with a mess.
But what gets my goat is not the retconning and labelling, but the war over canonicity. It’s a complete nonsense. Wikipedia constantly states that “the canonicity of Doctor Who spin-off media is debatable”.
Rubbish.
There are two accurate definitions of canon within Doctor Who literature, but there are a number of debates about continuity. It may be semantic, but it’s a cyclic argument for which there’s no need.
For example, Scream of the Shalka and Death Comes to Time are either out of canon (if canon is defined as broadcast BBC TV stories only), or within canon (if canon is defined as officially sanctioned bodies of work). But without an official statement (likely to change like the wind with the appearance of a new production office), there is no canon. End of debate.
So where do the production office fit? Well, Russell T Davies has repeatedly drawn on other media for both content and inspiration. In terms of content, he’s referenced many, many elements drawn from books and comics, and he’s also re-imagined a couple of stories from other media (the Big Finish audios Jubilee and Spare Parts, the New Adventure Human Nature, his 'Meet the Doctor' article and Steven Moffat's Sally Sparrow short story in the 2006 Storybook). Yes, he’s also contradicted them (disambiguating the on-screen Time War with BBC books’ War in Heaven, and casting Christopher Eccleston as the ninth Doctor instead of Richard E Grant).
But he’s also given fans the greatest tool for accepting anything, ever: the Time War. With a few well-placed sentences we are told that history was changed by the war between the Time Lords and the Daleks, so things aren’t quite as they used to be.
Continuity relates to the placement of events into linear progression and, like history, is a subjective process driven by the observer (the reader of history). Everything can be placed into continuity somewhere and occasionally – just occasionally – two stories seem contradictory because they have chosen to occupy the same point in linear time.
What Russell has done is to add an extra dimension to continuity – sideways in time. Where old stories might vie against each other for placement in a linear timeline, now stories can run parallel to each other and still be part of the greater whole. Death Comes to Time can sit alongside the TV Movie, and the Scream of the Shalka can sit alongside Rose without any problem whatsoever.
Except in the polarized eyes of fandom. Those who like solving puzzles won’t accept the Time War as a solution except as a last resort. Better to be clever and uncompromising. Those who just like the stories and don’t care about continuity just shrug and say “Time War”, just as Russell intended. So everyone’s happy, right? No.
Because of the pointless canonicity debate. Continuity is not canonicity, and it’s about time these words were disambiguated.
I’m happy as Larry to discuss where stories fit in continuity, but not their canonicity. I’d respect the wikipedia articles much more if they said that “placement of spin-off media within Doctor Who continuity is debatable”.
In terms of continuity, the only argument/debate is if/where they fit, not whether they exist. I can offer three compelling arguments as to where stories like Death Comes to Time or Scream of the Shalka can be placed, and why, without contradicting facts established by canon, and without creating a major disturbance to established continuity.
All text contained within Psychopomp and Circumstance is copyright © Adrian Middleton, 2007. All thoughts and opinions expressed within the confines of this thread are those of the author and do not, in any way, reflect the views or opinions of any other group or individual connected with the newapocrypha site.
Metabaron |
Latest page update: made by Metabaron
, Sep 4 2007, 7:05 PM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by Metabaron
1 image added view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Canon
continuity
Paul Cornell
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
