Is it acceptable to create semi-canon?

[Project nachonaco]

Is it acceptable to have semi-canon relationships in your own novels?

Like, I can't get this picture of one of my characters' heads resting in another's lap.

I just think that's soo kyoot.

Now, see, they're both female...

And there's really no PLANNED scene that explains this or has the idea in it.

Is it canon? Semi-canon? Whut?

[ChaosTitan]

:Shrug:

Um...what?

I've heard the word "canon" used in fandom (and in the writing of fanfiction), but not to describe something in original work, so I have no idea what you're asking.

[WittyandorIronic]

Help a noob out.
Uh. what's a canon...or semi-canon?

[Project nachonaco]

My bads. Thought canon was common knowledge. :(

Canon = truth of the original work.

[ChaosTitan]

So you're daydreaming things about your characters that aren't actually part of the storyline?

[Project nachonaco]

Yeah.

I've known some of these guys/gals for about 5 years now, in one form or another. :D

[Zelenka]

I'm a bit confused as well. I've never heard "canon" used in fiction outside of fanfiction, referring to the original continuity / storylines / characters. Surely if you see them having a relationship then that's your invention, your story, so is fine?

If you mean in terms of fitting in a scene you've imagined that doesn't have a vital part to play in the storyline, and therefore should you have it in, then to me that'd depend on whether you think it'd be necessary, maybe as part of a sub plot or to develop your characters?

[ChaosTitan]

They're your characters. I'd say you're free to daydream them into any situation you want. I've done this on occasion, especially when I'm stuck on a scene or chapter. It's a good way to find inspiration.

[WittyandorIronic]

MMmmmm... I don't know if I totally understand what you mean, but I'll give it a shot.
I was recently working on world building for a story I had in mind, and it sort of spawned another bizarre little scene that had nothing to do with my MCs.
So... I wrote a short story. I wrote the scene, and then a little front intro and found a pleasant pause for the ending, and I kind of liked it. So, maybe you just need to give them their own little scene, and then go back to the story?
If that isn't even remotely similar to what you are talking about, just ignore me. lol.

[Project nachonaco]

The thing is, do I accept them as CANON or just bored daydreamings? That's what I'm confused about. :p

[ChaosTitan]

If using the daydream in the story adds to the tale you are trying to tell, then go for it. You are the author, naco. You're the only one who will really know if you should accept them or discard them.

[Project nachonaco]

Heh, thanks.

I am trying to take this draft VERY seriously. Painfully seriously.

I might touch on it. The rest....I leave to the fans. :D

[vfury]

I think you should put it in and let fans speculate. :D You don't have to confirm it in the story, unless more obvious stuff happens later on.

If it ends up on the cutting room floor in later drafts... well, that's another story. ;)

[Project nachonaco]

Ooooh...

Now what would be CONFIRMING it officially?

Them playing around, hugging and kissing and crap, or maybe just a wink every once in a while?

[PeeDee]

Holy crap, ma'am. That question, and the following explanation, just blew my brain cells. You can write it however you want. It's official when you put it on the page. You can give them duck shoes, if you like.

*staggers off to change brain cell sockets*

[Project nachonaco]

Wow.






PeeDee called me ma'am. :D

[willietheshakes]

Does anyone else find it troubling that the only meaning of canon in this thread refers to fan-fic?

[vfury]

Ooooh...

Now what would be CONFIRMING it officially?

Them playing around, hugging and kissing and crap, or maybe just a wink every once in a while?

Hugging and kissing would be major "WE ARE A COUPLE!" indications.

That said, fandom speculates on EVERYTHING, so even having a head in another's lap would probably spark off something...

:D

[vfury]

Does anyone else find it troubling that the only meaning of canon in this thread refers to fan-fic?

Sherlock Holmes canon was the next thing to pop into my head, but I suppose that's kind of the same thing...

[PeeDee]

Does anyone else find it troubling that the only meaning of canon in this thread refers to fan-fic?

It's the commonest usage, since canon implies the opposite of "non-canon," which is the sheer definition of fanfiction.

[willietheshakes]

Sherlock Holmes canon was the next thing to pop into my head, but I suppose that's kind of the same thing...

I find this equally alarming.

[vfury]

I find this equally alarming.

Well, the Holmes academics are equally as enthusiastic about the canon as the fans, so... *shrugs*

[willietheshakes]

It's the commonest usage, since canon implies the opposite of "non-canon," which is the sheer definition of fanfiction.

We are in the Writing Novels forum, right? I haven't stumbled into a fanfiction zone or anything, right? Cuz I was napping, and you know, strange things happen.

If I'm not in a fanfic forum, though, no, this is NOT the most common usage of the word "canon", especially in a forum dedicated to the written word.

[PeeDee]

We are in the Writing Novels forum, right? I haven't stumbled into a fanfiction zone or anything, right? Cuz I was napping, and you know, strange things happen.

If I'm not in a fanfic forum, though, no, this is NOT the most common usage of the word "canon", especially in a forum dedicated to the written word.

Really? Oh. Neat. And what is the commonest usage? ("usage," and not "definition," which are different things in this case.)

[willietheshakes]

Canon, canonical, etc - the roughly accepted list of great or outstanding works in a given artistic form...

[Khazarkhum]

It's the commonest usage, since canon implies the opposite of "non-canon," which is the sheer definition of fanfiction.

You should hear the folks in the English Department.

There is a canon of 'acceptable' literature, and then there is everything else that's ever been written. Writers and their works are added to this unofficial canon from time to time.

Note that I do say 'unofficial' even though most of the Lit Crit/English world pretty much agree on the members. James Joyce is canon, as is Tokien (barely), Fitzgerald, Dickens, and so on. Not canon are people like Nora Roberts. An author need not be dead to be included; Toni Morrison is in.

Canon in fanfiction is something else entirely. It is canon that Bilbo is Frodo's uncle, or that Fred and George Weasley are twins. Some fandoms insist on writing within canon; others permit violation of canon in a clearly-delineated manner (usually called Alternate Universe).

In this case, we have a new world with new characters who have no previously known behavior. Therefore, the writer is free to depict them in any way desired.

[PeeDee]

So non-canon=hack?

Hmn.

Well, that's a bit silly, and yet I suspect it's entirely true.

[willietheshakes]

Canon in fanfiction is something else entirely. It is canon that Bilbo is Frodo's uncle, or that Fred and George Weasley are twins. Some fandoms insist on writing within canon; others permit violation of canon in a clearly-delineated manner (usually called Alternate Universe).


Right, this was my point.

Last time I checked, this wasn't a fanfic forum, hence my confusion...

[Zelenka]

You should hear the folks in the English Department.

There is a canon of 'acceptable' literature, and then there is everything else that's ever been written. Writers and their works are added to this unofficial canon from time to time.

Note that I do say 'unofficial' even though most of the Lit Crit/English world pretty much agree on the members. James Joyce is canon, as is Tokien (barely), Fitzgerald, Dickens, and so on. Not canon are people like Nora Roberts. An author need not be dead to be included; Toni Morrison is in.

Canon in fanfiction is something else entirely. It is canon that Bilbo is Frodo's uncle, or that Fred and George Weasley are twins. Some fandoms insist on writing within canon; others permit violation of canon in a clearly-delineated manner (usually called Alternate Universe).

In this case, we have a new world with new characters who have no previously known behavior. Therefore, the writer is free to depict them in any way desired.

See this is why I referred to fanfiction, as I figured that was the closest to what the OP's question was about.

Just to add in something entirely irrelevant, a load of my ex-colleagues used to refer to the canonical murders of Jack the Ripper too, as opposed to ones just attributed to him. Then they used to argue for hours over which murders actually were canonical.

[PeeDee]

Just to add in something entirely irrelevant, a load of my ex-colleagues used to refer to the canonical murders of Jack the Ripper too, as opposed to ones just attributed to him. Then they used to argue for hours over which murders actually were canonical.

See, and that would be properly using the "definition" of the word, as opposed to the "usage" it was turning up with in this thread. Hence why I made the point of saying there was distinction between the two.

[Ava Jarvis]

Well, the Holmes academics are equally as enthusiastic about the canon as the fans, so... *shrugs*

Oh yes, no shame over here.

There's no lack of weirdness either. Even before the advent of the Brettish empire, there were people trying to prove (and writing very long papers and even books about) things such as that there were two Watsons, Holmes after Reichenbach was actually Moriarty, Holmes was actually a woman, Mycroft was Moriarty, Holmes/Watson, etc. I haven't run into Holmes/Lestrade and DO NOT WANT to.

Most unofficial Holmes fandom takes form in essays of "PROOF", though, rather than pastiches of "acknowledged fantasy". That's probably the main difference.

[vfury]

Oh yes, no shame over here.

None here, either. I lugged that Annotated Sherlock Holmes set to the bookshop counter even if it made a really loud thump when I finally put it down. And I had a lovely geeky conversation with the girl serving me, too.

The amazing attention to detail in the Holmes fandom is always a sight to behold, in my opinion. :)

[PeeDee]

Sherlock Holmes, as well as the fandom, is a delight to behold. And it led to Shadows Over Baker Street, a collection of stories where the world of H.P. Lovecraft and Arthur Canon ( ;) )Doyle collided and produced some really cool stories. Neil Gaiman's A Study In Emerald is still one of my favorite Gaiman stories.

[willietheshakes]

See, and that would be properly using the "definition" of the word, as opposed to the "usage" it was turning up with in this thread. Hence why I made the point of saying there was distinction between the two.

"Usage" or "definition", the problem is that "canon" simply isn't the right word. The OP isn't wondering if they can write a minor Hemingway novel, nor are they wondering about the usage of existing characters and world. The question is actually referring to subtext, or background... "Canon", in either sense, has nothing to do with it.

[Shadow_Ferret]

The only canon I know of is this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

So I'm really confused by this thread.

[PeeDee]

The only canon I know of is this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

So I'm really confused by this thread.

THIS post works for me. Lock thread!

(wait, that's me, oh well, never mind)

[Zelenka]

The only canon I know of is this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM)

So I'm really confused by this thread.

The original one-hit wonder...

Too funny.

[Khazarkhum]

So non-canon=hack?

Hmn.

Well, that's a bit silly, and yet I suspect it's entirely true.

Pretty much. I ended up leaving the U of California's PhD program because I couldn't find anyone to sponsor my research. I wanted to work on Lovecraft, but that was too radical. Now, if I'd wanted to work on a Chicana lesbian poet who was only published in a single place, or on some critical essays debunking other essays that debunked an original critical theory, those would have been fine. But Lovecraft? No way. :Shrug:

[JimmyB27]

If you did create it, would your semi-canon fire semi-canon balls?

Sorry

[Sheryl Nantus]

I believe that in this case, we're talking about fanfiction.

Which is fine and all that, since non-canon is a lot of what fanfic is about - but don't mistake it for writing that can be sold commercially. Polish it up and put it on ff.net but don't even think about submitting it to a publisher and claiming it as your own.

good luck!

[speirbhean]

Does anyone else find it troubling that the only meaning of canon in this thread refers to fan-fic?

YES. Thought I was going mad there for a minute.

Canon - according to OED - a list of literary works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. At least it was when I was in school...;)

[Project nachonaco]

SN - they're my characters. ;)

[Penguin Queen]

You could fire them out of a canon. A small canon. Like, half size. Would that make it a semi-canon?

[Sheryl Nantus]

SN - they're my characters. ;)

if they are, then there's NO canon to break.

canon can only be established if there has been previous written works on said characters. If you write about Jake Moshpit and he's a huge biker dude with tattoos across his body, you really shouldn't make him a small snivelling wimp in the next story without some explanation.

maybe you should actually clarify what YOU mean by canon...

[CaroGirl]

I've never heard of "canon" used in this sense, as applied to established works on which people base fan fiction (the amount I know about fan fiction would fit neatly on the head of a pin, so...).

It sounds like a misuse of the term canon, and people should have used, i don't know, "tradition" or something more applicable. But, if it's already an accepted use and has meaning in the fanfic community, it's an entirely new definition for an old word, and has nothing to do with the original meaning of "canon". Damn this English and its plasticity.

[Marlys]

I'm more familiar with it from the Star Wars universe, where only the bits that appear on film are canon, and all the books, games, etc. are not (even the official novelizations of the movies). So the bit in the novelization of Return of the Jedi where Obi-Wan says Owen is his brother could be utterly ignored in the prequels--non-canon, didn't count.

I would say the usage, both in Star Wars and fanfic, relates to this definition of the word: A general rule, fundamental principle, aphorism, or axiom governing the systematic or scientific treatment of a subject (dating to the 16th century) or possibly this one: any set of sacred books; also, those writings of a secular author accepted as authentic (14th century), not the later, 20th-century lit crit definition.

[NeuroFizz]

A semi-canon is just a small pill away from being a full cannon.

[PeeDee]

YES. Thought I was going mad there for a minute.

Canon - according to OED - a list of literary works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. At least it was when I was in school...;)

Boy, do I resent the hell out of that meaning. I'm going to go shuffle in the gutter with the rest of the hacks for a while, thanks. :)

[nerds]

Never fire semi-canons when half-cocked.

[CaroGirl]

Never fire semi-canons when half-cocked.
"Now don't go off half-cocked."
"I'm always fully cocked."

A rep point for who can tell me where that quote comes from.

[nerds]

CaroGirl -

:) It sounds like something Clint Eastwood / Dirty Harry might have said. Or Mae West. Although, could be from a blue movie, too. :D

Clearly I have no idea. But I like it.

[preyer]

it would fill the cockels of my heart with love were i to be canonized.

just to clarify, you're asking *me* if it's okay to include a lesbian scene? are these lip-stick lesbians or lumberjack wanna-bes?

any story that features lesbians, lumberjacks, canons and pirates (generally used to fire said canons) rates pretty high on my personal scale. conversely, here's a short list of things i don't want to read about:

rainbows

kittens

vampyres

anything that presents country music as a real art form

a woman confused about wanting to love a man who turns into a werewolf

conversations carried out via instant messages/e-mails. carrier pigeons are acceptable

children with magickal powers

children who solves crimes

children in general

bitchy princesses who lose their kingdom

stories featuring magick system based on the elements

two hot college girls who *don't* experiment

anything with cell phones

anything that obviously uses WWII or iraq as reference

hm, it's early, so i must be forgetting a few....

[willietheshakes]

Boy, do I resent the hell out of that meaning. I'm going to go shuffle in the gutter with the rest of the hacks for a while, thanks. :)

Well, I wouldn't worry about it too much, for two reasons.
First, the canon is hardly fixed in stone. At various points, Melville, Donne and Whitman weren't included, for example, so it's hardly the monolith that it presents itself to be.
And second, having an academic background and a lifetime of bookstore experience, my personal definition of the canon doesn't fall into the canon/hack dichotomy you seem to be fretting over, but into the more reasonable books people read because they have to (the canon - school, peer pressure from book geeks, etc) versus books people read because they want to... Sure, it's not exact, but it works in general terms.

[PeeDee]

I worked in a bookstore for a couple of years, but I never heard the term used like that. Ah well. I think we live in a world where Raymond Chandler is only recently considered to NOT be a hack anymore. That's fine by me. I bet 90% of the authors on my shelves are hacks, or, non-canon. I'll have 'em.

...

(this is such a weird thread)

[CaroGirl]

CaroGirl -

:) It sounds like something Clint Eastwood / Dirty Harry might have said. Or Mae West. Although, could be from a blue movie, too. :D

Clearly I have no idea. But I like it.
Nope. But at least you tried, so I gave you a rep point anyway.

[willietheshakes]

Isn't it a newsman who's always fully cocked?

[CaroGirl]

Isn't it a newsman who's always fully cocked?
You got it! You're my kind of guy.

[willietheshakes]

Ah, that lifetime of junk culture finally pays off!

[WittyandorIronic]

Alrighty....so I believe I have finally figured this out. Maybe.
So, these characters are your creations, as is the setting (I assume) which wholly makes this your work of art.
You have a story, maybe even two, with these character but now you have an image of them doing something that does not fit in with their personalities, does not move your stories along, or really matter anyway except that you see it in your head. And you want to know, does anyone else ever get images and impressions that are contrary to how their characters have behaved in the past (hence the non/semi canon), and what they did about it. Because you REALLY like the scene, but you don't want to break the depth and realism you have built into your story by throwing your readers for a loop. Is that right?
Well, assuming I am right, then I suggest you NOT throw your readers for a loop, regardless of how great the scene is in your head. Write it down, and then forget about it until you finish your WIP. If AFTER you are done (and none of the characters have died) you still really like this scene, then make your next WIP the struggle to get from the end of WIP 1, to the scene. What would it take to move your characters there? Would it take grief or a disaster, so that they turned to each other for comfort? Would it take heart break, or almost losing each other to realize what they had? Make that your next story.
If I was not right, well...I don't want to know because I was kind of proud of myself for figuring all that out.

[nerds]

This thread is inspiring all manner of Raunchy Dialogue in my mind. Mostly between hard-boiled Private Eyes and fully-cocked newsmen, all best left unposted. Thanks for the point-for-effort, CG. :D

[WittyandorIronic]

Oh and...I rarely agree with expressed classics or "canon" authors or works. I believe the whole thing is a bunch of baloney. Archetypes are archetypes, and I think many authors now use them in intelligent and compelling ways, just like they have throughout the ages. If someone writes a story that is so good you find yourself wrapped up in it and emotionally attached to the characters or the plot, then they deserve that esteemed title of "Writer" in my opinion.

[willietheshakes]

Oh and...I rarely agree with expressed classics or "canon" authors or works. I believe the whole thing is a bunch of baloney. Archetypes are archetypes, and I think many authors now use them in intelligent and compelling ways, just like they have throughout the ages. If someone writes a story that is so good you find yourself wrapped up in it and emotionally attached to the characters or the plot, then they deserve that esteemed title of "Writer" in my opinion.

I'm not entirely sure what the use of archetypes or whether someone is called writer or not has to do with the canon...

All the canon is is the grouping of works we usually refer to as literature. Nobody is claiming that people outside of the canon aren't writers, and most wouldn't refer to them as hacks (as some here have expressed). It's not a threat, it's not a looming monolith, it's not an exclusive club (well, it sort of is, but generally you have to be dead to be in it).

Nobody (well, almost nobody) would call Salman Rushdie, Cormac McCarthy, Richard Ford, Sebastian Faulks and their ilk hacks, but they're not canon... yet (well, Rushdie might be, depending on who you ask). Only time will tell.

[WittyandorIronic]

Mmmm...and I apologize if I was confusing two different concepts, but there was another thread (no clue where) that was discussing a quote that stated something along the line of "You're a writer now." And that there were only a few writer's alive at any given time, and to be included in that was a prestige above and beyond. I guess I sort of merged my dislike of both ideas together. I'm a firm believer that elitism is only interesting to the elite. The rest of the world (namely me) rarely cares.

[PeeDee]

By the way...

Canon.

Cannon.

I can be huffy about words too! :D

[willietheshakes]

By the way...

Canon.

Cannon.

I can be huffy about words too! :D

?

[Drasheny]

Like, I can't get this picture of one of my characters' heads resting in another's lap.

I just think that's soo kyoot.

Now, see, they're both female...

And there's really no PLANNED scene that explains this or has the idea in it.



Them playing around, hugging and kissing and crap, or maybe just a wink every once in a while?

If you're asking if it's OK to have these characters engage in a lesbian flirtation apropos of nothing else in the story, I would say no. You would just be confusing/distracting your readers.

But if this is an idea you absolutely can't shake (goes beyond a bit of "daydreaming," as you said) you might ask yourself if your story isn't struggling to be a love story between these two women. In which case, you might want to seriously overhaul/rethink the story.

[Penguin Queen]

By the way...

Canon.

Cannon.

I can be huffy about words too! :D


Oooops.

[Penguin Queen]

it would fill the cockels of my heart

Now that we have established what canon (not to mention cannon) is (are), can somebody enlighten me as to this cockles of one's heart business? What are they? Do we all carry shellfish in our chest cavity that require to be warmed? (I believe the cockles of one's heart are traditionally warmed, rather than filled with love, alhough I am happy to learn otherwise.)

Answers on a postcard.

[PeeDee]

I'll go experiment with warming/filling my cockles and see what happens. I'll let you know.

[preyer]

'If you're asking if it's OK to have these characters engage in a lesbian flirtation apropos of nothing else in the story, I would say no.' ~ i'd say a lesbian scene is *never* inappropriate. unless, of course, they're ugly.

ironic had a good train of thought. i reckon that if it's in a character's scope of possibilities, it could work, but there has to be some kind of aftermath after such an experience, no?

[preyer]

if your cockels are empty, you'll know.

'i never knew how empty were my cockels until they were filled.'

then again i have a tendancy to speak out my arse.

[Siddow]

Brrr...my cockles are cold. Anybody got a sweater?

How about a screamer? :D

[Project nachonaco]

Weeeeelll.....

The younger character's like....really messed up. And she kills people. So does the other lady. Yeah. Seeing a connection.

Their connection's either gonna be love (WOOOT) or like a sister type thing.

[wayndom]

Is Dumbledore really gay?

Or did J.K. Rowling just make that up?

[preyer]

i think she made that up after the fact (or at least after the first novel. certainly she didn't expect to do so well and plan from the very start to have him be gay, no? could be wrong, of course. it just seemed to come out of left field to me, kind of like saying, 'jack ryan? yeah, he wear women's underwear.' after all, there's no indication he *doesn't* wear women's underwear, and it could be a very liberating revelation for men to admit they wear silk panties under their camo.)

anyhoo, if they're killers, i think it follows that they have an attraction towards one another, that whole sex-violence thing and all. i think thelma and louise were about one shared milkshake away from getting drunk and waking up nekkid together.

a pair of mad-dog psycho chick killers, eh? ever see that movie 'monster'? good flick. based on a true story. they made that several years ago, back when it was fashionable for beautiful hollywood actresses to ugly themselves up and reach for that oscar.

the one women's revenge idea i had was about a bigomist playboy keeping several wives in different areas of the country. they find out about it and get 'im good.

[Drasheny]

Is Dumbledore really gay?

Or did J.K. Rowling just make that up?

She made everything up. :)

I just heard about this yesterday, and I admit that, opened-minded as I think myself to be on the subject of homosexuality, I found the news a bit jarring. But why should that be? If she'd said that Dumbledore had a girlfriend for awhile, but they grew apart or something, no one would have raised an eyebrow.

And that made me think of my response to this thread, and I think I'll change my answer. Think of how many stories have romantic (straight) subplots for no reason other than to inject a little romance into the story. But, gay or straight, it still has to reach the level of a full-fledged subplot, IMHO. They can't just start making out in the middle of a chapter without at least hinting of their attraction earlier on in the story.

The women in your story kissing, hugging, winking, etc could be signs of a friendship, it could be sexual subtext, or it could be an all-out love affair, depending on how you handle it.