Literary Theory and the idea of "Canon"

A forum for non-Suikoden related topics.
User avatar
caspiancomic
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:18 pm

Re: Literary Theory and the idea of "Canon"

Post by caspiancomic »

A beautifully written piece, Rooks, although I'm partially with Calvin on this one. The word "canon" certainly originally referred exclusively to an author's established body of work, but in the years since has also come to mean, for lack of a better word, how much a given entry into a series "counts". It's sort of ugly because this new, colloquial meaning retains some of the word's original definition, but is also muddied up with some modern baggage. It's sort of more narrow in focus: rather than referring to, for example, the "agreed-upon" members of western art (Giotto, Raphael, Gauguin, Picasso, etc etc, but not, for example, Hokusai), it can also refer to the "agreed-upon" members of a single series or franchise (Symphony of the Night, Aria of Sorrow, Portrait of Ruin, but not, for example, Castlevania Legends for Gameboy). This definition is really not too out there, either. It borrows more from your Theological definition than your Literary one: specifically, the idea that certain Gospels are considered non-canonical, or apocryphal, compared to the four canonical Gospels.

In some ways it's a shame that words get dragged through the Star Wars fans of the world, but we wouldn't be speaking English at all today if language didn't have the capacity to evolve.

Anyway, as to your other point about the Death of the Author. I too have always felt very strongly in favour of this theory, but like you I can't quite bring myself to believe it all the way. I'd say I'm around 80% in favour of the Death of the Author theory, if conditions are perfect. Like you said, it's painful to see somebody get a particular text hideously and grossly wrong, especially if they're influential enough to convince other people of the same, but I suppose it defeats the purpose of the theory to even believe there could be a "wrong" way to interpret a work. Still, though, it's hard to read something like Animal Farm without getting the point. But for the vast majority of works, I think the theory holds up very strongly. Tolkien, for example, frequently insisted that Lord of the Rings was not an allegory for World War II, but it lends itself to that interpretation very well and plenty of people read it that way. Just because Tolkien did not intend for his work to carry that particular allegory doesn't discredit somebody choosing to read that into the work, if that makes the work more meaningful to them.

I also think you have an excellent point about how the games in the series, or any series in any medium, are more closely related by our reaction to them than by any supposed link the author claims they have. I mean sure, when one work is called "Suikoden" and another is called "Suikoden II", obviously we're encouraged to associate the two. But if Suikoden II felt weird and alienating after playing the first one, it would be difficult to accept it as a true successor. I suppose that's the reason Suikoden IV left such a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. Textually speaking, there is absolutely nothing disqualifying it from standing proudly with its older siblings, but the actual experience of playing the game felt too unlike the others in the series. Our experience with it, as readers, was too different from our experience with the first three games, so even though it is plainly called "Suikoden IV", it doesn't quite feel like it fits. (This is of course, all subjective and based on what I perceive to be the most common fan reaction to the game)

I suppose this also goes a ways towards explaining why (cough) some people around here are so violently opposed to Tierkreis. After five entries in the main series, we as fans have been calibrated a certain way for interpreting the games in the franchise. When our experience with an ostensible new game in the series clashes too strongly with what we've come to expect from that series, our reaction can be, as we've seen, very strong indeed. I suppose it also explains why I have no problem with Tierkreis, and actually rather liked it in fact. It was different, in some very fundamental ways, from what I thought the series "meant", but there was enough familiarity there that it didn't clash too hard with my expectations. I was able to read that particular text as a Suikoden game, while others read it as some kind of personal insult.

I'd like to close with a personal example I have of exercising my power as a reader to disqualify a particular work from my own personal "canon". It's a bit of an odd duck, but here it is: for me, the Final Fantasy VII world begins and ends with Final Fantasy VII. I know there are now five or so "entries" into this particular series, but in my heart, the only one that really counts is the original game itself. I know that, according to Square Enix, and probably thousands of people, Advent Children is a sequel to the game, but to me it will always be a very cool looking, and certainly enjoyable, complete and total non-entity. To use this Death of the Author business, to me as a reader it doesn't matter that according to Tetsuya Nomura the battle for planet Whatever It Was Called (Gaia?) continued three years after Sephiroth was defeated. As far as I'm concerned, at the end of FFVII, humanity was erased from the planet entirely. Technically, if you subscribe to this whole canon business, I am just straight up incorrect. But really, it's my right as the reader of a given text to inject into it whatever meaning I please.

And you know what? That's cool! I bear absolutely no ill will towards people who lovingly accept the "extended universe" thing. I myself actually even really like Advent Children, it's just that as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't actually happen. None of it actually happens, which is the point. It's all equally fictional, so it's up to every individual reader to decide what matters to them. And to allow each other to do the same. So if, for example, I enjoy and accept Tierkreis as a part of the Suikoden World, I can understand and respect someone who does not want to include that in their personal experience of the Suikoden series. And hopefully, one day, those of you who absolutely despised Tierkreis will offer us the same favour.

Anyway, tl;dr, etc. I really must try not to be so wordy in the future, please excuse the verbiage.
User avatar
Rooks
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 2:03 am

Re: Literary Theory and the idea of "Canon"

Post by Rooks »

Rachael wrote:I agree with some of what you said and also with Jimi Moondance.

But my concern is that what you wrote sounded a tad presumptuous, especially:

Why would you call someone "imbecilic" simply because they don't understand a word's original meaning? Maybe they're misinformed. Maybe they're even wrong. But that doesn't make them imbecilic. Not everyone has a college education, let alone a degree in literature.

Same with the second quote. I finished college, and I've never heard of Roland Barthes--at least, not that I recall. And just because she stated something about one of her characters, that doesn't make her an idiot. It certainly doesn't mean you have any place scoffing at her for not knowing who Roland Barthes is.

Other than that, the essay was excellent and I enjoyed reading it, even if I didn't agree with all of it. But it does help to put the whole Tierkreis issue in perspective.
Well, ok I am not calling the Star Wars fans Imbecilic because they misunderstand canon, but because they argue over facts set inside of a fictional universe. Which in my opinion simply cannot exist. In the case of Ms. Rowling, well, if she had actually established Dumbledore's sexuality inside the novels, I would have lots of respect for her. But outside the text, after the last one had been released. . . That is not courageous. Actually, she had probably been looking for a way to get back at the religious zealots who literally hated her, but still, I don't like what she did at all.
calvin wrote:Society creates and changes words all the time. I've done a few minutes of research, and as best I can tell the word "canon" has undergone a semantic change called "figurative extension." That is: "A type of semantic change in which a word gains additional meanings through metaphorical or metonymic associations" Basically, the word "canon" has gained additional meaning through social and cultural interaction. Purists may argue against such changes, but the fact is that if most people agree and start using the change, than it is so. That is, after all, one of the main tenets of language: the ability to successfully communicate with one another.
True, Language is used, created, reformed, and changed by everyone, all the time, simultaneously. In fact, the definitions of words change faster than their spellings, for some strange reason. But, I guess I would just say that I am whining about this particular change, because of the implications it holds: That people actually assume that fact can exist within fiction. To me, that is simply wrong, and also, it tends to create a lot of vitriol.

About the dictionary definitions: "The Established Works of an Author." Means the factually established works of an author. And the second is "Canon" in the wider sense, like the "canon of late modernism." The fist definition only applies to establishing who wrote something.
Darthe Lamp wrote: I've heard most of that before. The only real issue I see is that canon in certain series does indeed exist. Canon isn't used in Star Wars or the like as with authorship, because we know who wrote what. It's used closer to the theological definition, of what is truthful. So for Star Wars, there are plenty of comics and books that get written that are purposefully "What if" in nature. Also instances of where one author disregards another inadvertently, or when a Star Wars film changes something that was in a book. Then you get questions regarding continuity. Canon, at least for Star Wars, is set up to show not only level of credence, but to outline the story. Of course, it's all a bit ridiculous since it's a fictional work, but it has a clear purpose.
That is just my point exactly, you cannot have canon in a fictional universe. And even in the Theological Sense it is still about establishing a fact. Of course, you are free to think that an entire religion is fiction if you want to, but for the people arguing these things, they are arguing about facts based on what they think is reality. As opposed to Star Wars. Though I think there actually be more than a few who believe it just like many believe a religion. Actually that is a very frightening thought.

In any event, thanks for reading, and I think we have an interesting conversation here.
Post Reply