Re: The EU Admits to Being Parallel in Print
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 10:23 pm
i just wanted to use the 'oragahn trail' bit. you know you're my favorite troll ever.
Starfleet Jedi Forum
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/
As the passage reveals being canonical and having occurred (being true) are not one and the same thing. These are two different properties. Canon is an out of universe concept known only to the audience; it serves to establish whether something was done directly or closely watched by George Lucas. Luke Skywalker has no conception of whether an event is canon or not, to him both his fight with Darth Vader and his dealings with Admiral Thrawn are equally real events.Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's quite an odd mental gymnastic here to consider something to have occurred and yet non canonical. If it has occurred, by definition it has to be true. But true to what referential?
Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.Kane Starkiller wrote:As the passage reveals being canonical and having occurred (being true) are not one and the same thing. These are two different properties. Canon is an out of universe concept known only to the audience; it serves to establish whether something was done directly or closely watched by George Lucas. Luke Skywalker has no conception of whether an event is canon or not, to him both his fight with Darth Vader and his dealings with Admiral Thrawn are equally real events.Mr. Oragahn wrote:It's quite an odd mental gymnastic here to consider something to have occurred and yet non canonical. If it has occurred, by definition it has to be true. But true to what referential?
In other words unless something contradicts canon it happened and this is the only thing that matters when discussing SW using suspension of disbelief, that is from a perspective of an imaginary character like Luke Skywalker.
The way I understand it there is only one canon: the works done or overseen directly by George Lucas. Thrawn stories aren't part of canon but they don't contradict it hence they happened. You seem to still be confusing the terms "canon" and "it happened".Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.
This is true. And the mechanism explained by Hidalgo is simple: everything in the canon (overseen directly by Lucas) is true as is everything that doesn't contradict canon. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what confuses you. The filtering logic is pretty straightforward.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Fact is, the notion of canon is of importance to the geeky scholars we are. We use it to filter information.
But then who or what the hell was KirkSkywalker?Mike DiCenso wrote:Ah ha! I knew it, SWST was really Kane's sockpuppet all this time test how far a relatively friendly place like this could be pushed without breaking!
But seriously, good to see you back, Kane.
-Mike
If it happened why wouldn't it be a part of the debate?mojo wrote:well, it certainly seems like a fairly straightforward attempt at introducing non-canon material into the debate, i'll give you that.
This conclusion you propose happens because Hidalgo talks of only one canon. More precisely, he uses the word canon once, in regards to one specific group of data. We don't even know what he understands by canon exactly. It is quite clear that the more confusing the management of a brand is, the more complicated the staff's declarations become. I've seen that for Warhammer 40000, and we've seen similar issues through RSA's following of the Star Wars and Star Trek canon debates. Those are messes. By no mean they have been easy to understand, hardly straightforward.Kane Starkiller wrote:The way I understand it there is only one canon: the works done or overseen directly by George Lucas. Thrawn stories aren't part of canon but they don't contradict it hence they happened. You seem to still be confusing the terms "canon" and "it happened".Mr. Oragahn wrote:Actually, according to one canon, Luke Skywalker never met a guy called Thrawn. In fact, Thrawn isn't even real at all, within this context.
This is true. And the mechanism explained by Hidalgo is simple: everything in the canon (overseen directly by Lucas) is true as is everything that doesn't contradict canon. I guess I'm having trouble seeing what confuses you. The filtering logic is pretty straightforward.[/quote]Mr. Oragahn wrote:Fact is, the notion of canon is of importance to the geeky scholars we are. We use it to filter information.
This is untrue.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Simply put, if events are officially recorded and validated as having happened, they cannot be anything but canonical. That's the most basic definition of the canon.
So I can't be confusing "canon" and "have happened", because they are, in fact, both one and the same.
I assume this is a retorical question on your part since the obvious answer is "yes". That's more or less what the Star Trek franchise has been doing for almost 30 years now with it's EU, even those books and materials written by people who worked directly on the shows and movies. And they don't even put any kind of a disclaimer on their books, like you suggest, since it's been explicitly explained elsewhere.Mr Oragahn wrote:So, a question now: Aren't there some franchises out there which openly manage one major canon and then alternate realities and which have not commercially suffered of this dual or even triple nature? Perhaps some comics or else?
Obviously that was another sockpuppet to test if a Trekkie troll would be given free passes compared to the Warsie one. Like, duh! ;-)Khas wrote: But then who or what the hell was KirkSkywalker?
With the problem here that Hidalgo doesn't speak of any "SW canon", as you put it. He says:Kane Starkiller wrote:This is untrue.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Simply put, if events are officially recorded and validated as having happened, they cannot be anything but canonical. That's the most basic definition of the canon.
So I can't be confusing "canon" and "have happened", because they are, in fact, both one and the same.
Relevant quotes:
"The most definitive canon of the Star Wars universe is encompassed by feature films and television productions in which George Lucas is involved."
"That said unless something occurs in a canon project to directly contradict a published source it can reliably be said to have occurred."
As you can see "SW canon" and "has happened" are not one and the same. Hidalgo is very clear on the matter. Your confusion seems to stem from your apparent belief that there is only one strict definition of canon that everyone in the world uses in any context which is untrue. Hidalgo explains very clearly what he means.
In fact, this very formulation proves that there is another canon, albeit less definitive (authoritative): it is "the less definitive canon" that is implied here. Hidalgo simply identifies the "most definitive" one and explains what it contains. This is the correct interpretation.The most definitive canon of the Star Wars universe is encompassed by feature films and television productions in which George Lucas is involved.
In fact it wasn't rhetorical, and I precisely left the Star Trek case out because it embodies the problem at hand: that EU material is not described as such. It's the same commercial trick: when you buy the book, never does it say that the story you're about to read is not reliable.Mike DiCenso wrote:I assume this is a retorical question on your part since the obvious answer is "yes". That's more or less what the Star Trek franchise has been doing for almost 30 years now with it's EU, even those books and materials written by people who worked directly on the shows and movies. And they don't even put any kind of a disclaimer on their books, like you suggest, since it's been explicitly explained elsewhere.Mr Oragahn wrote:So, a question now: Aren't there some franchises out there which openly manage one major canon and then alternate realities and which have not commercially suffered of this dual or even triple nature? Perhaps some comics or else?
-Mike