From Canon to AU: Defining Canon on a Continuum
My last post on whether or not Maedhros threatening to kill Elrond and Elros was canonical has generated a lot of wonderfully thought-provoking comments. Not surprisingly, many of these have been about canon: what it is, how it is defined, and at what point to we pass from “canon” to “AU.” This is a matter to which I have given a lot of time and attention over my years in Tolkien fandom, so in wake of the discussion on Take Pity upon Him, I thought I’d put some of my more recent ideas down as I continue moving toward that (perhaps unattainable) goal of defining “canon.”
When I first started studying Tolkien’s works and writing stories based on them, I had this idea that, as I studied more, I’d move closer to being able to define canon definitively; that is, to produce a final and unequivocal judgment on how things really went down. Instead, I’ve found that the opposite has happened. Pandemonium remarked the same in the comments on Take Pity upon Him: “As I’ve examined JRRT’s work, canon becomes more and more nebulous to me.” Yet, at the same time, I feel better equipped now than I did four years ago to analyze what JRRT wrote in terms of “canon,” even if–at the end of my study–I don’t end up with any answers at all.
Sometimes, I think that we discuss canon and how to define it without really differentiating the ways that authors use JRRT’s writings to form judgments on their relative truth. This leads to arguments where something that is clear fact to one author, debatable to another, and false to a third, and all three fans are trying to prove each other wrong without considering whether they might all be right. I don’t think that canon can be so neatly summed up as “is” or “is not”; it occurs on a continuum, and different people will draw the line between “canon” and “not canon” in different places–even multiple places–along that continuum. I am going to attempt to summarize some common ways–complete with made-up terms!–that I think authors put together information from the texts to develop their definitions of canon.
Defining Canon
Canon. “Canon is synonymous with fact. It is not arguable. An author who violates this canon unintentionally has made a mistake; an author who violates this canon intentionally has written an AU.
Precious little from JRRT’s texts are canon by this definition. That which qualifies tends to be basic facts that would either be difficult/impossible to distort or lie about (such as the date of a major battle in which a literate culture particpated) or which are so frivolous that no one would logically have motivation to lie about them. Hair color, if definitively stated, is one such detail, perhaps ironically since this fandom is prone to fights over characters’ hair colors. But if Fëanor’s hair color is stated definitively to be black (The Silmarillion, “Of Fëanor,” §6), why would a loremaster or historian have reason to lie about this? Geographical details, dates, and physical descriptions all tend to fall into this category … in other words, mostly boring stuff.
Personal canon. Personal canon is an individual author’s appraisal of what parts of the texts are “fact” and employs any or all of the analyses discussed below and then some. For example, some authors have determined from reading the HoMe that JRRT’s final word on Gil-galad’s parentage puts Orodreth as his father. For these authors, Orodreth as Gil-galad’s father is personal canon; it is not an indisputable fact and so not simply canon, but it is a detail in the texts that these authors have analyzed and found to be true. For other authors, their personal canon is that Fingon was Gil-galad’s father.
It is important to point out that personal canon must come from the text (i.e., is not paracanonical or extracanonical) and is different from personal verse.
Personal verse. Personal verse is the sum total of all that an author believes to be true about the world in which she or he writes. It involves facts from the text (personal canon), as well as facts that the author develops based on and independent of the texts (paracanon, extracanon et al; see below).
For example, a personal verse might use the personal canon that Orodreth was Gil-galad’s father. It might also operate on the idea that Maedhros and Fingon were lovers and that confusion about Gil-galad’s paternity arose because historians associated with the House of Fingolfin were encouraged to conceal Fingon’s homosexuality and so distorted facts when they thought they could get away with it so that it appeared that Fingon had a wife and fathered a child.
Paracanon. In my original comment to Rhapsody about this, I called this extra-canonical. I’ve reassessed this term and think that paracanonical describes better what I mean, but to keep things as confusing as possible, I am using extracanonical elsewhere for something different. Paracanon is arrived at by putting together facts from one’s personal canon and drawing conclusions based on those facts. Likewise, paracanon cannot conflict with other facts in one’s personal canon.
The important aspect of paracanon is that the conclusions are fact-based. They are not merely whims or inventions. The author has analyzed a body of facts from the text and has, from this analysis, developed a personal canon. In putting those facts together, certain conclusions can sensibly be drawn. This is paracanon.
Naturally, for every dozen authors, you will end up with a dozen paracanons!
The Maedhros/Fingon pairing is a paracanon. Any fan of this pairing can tick off a dozen personal canon facts that makes this pairing, for them, a logical interpretation based on these facts. The pairing comes from putting those facts together and deciding that romantic involvement between the characters is the preferred conclusion to draw from those facts.
At the same time, other authors will put together personal canon facts to develop the paracanon that Maedhros and Fingon remained close (platonic) friends throughout their entire lives. Both paracanons are justified with JRRT’s texts and don’t involve any invention on the author’s part.
Some authors will necessarily “stretch” further than other authors in developing paracanons. However, the mechanism is the same.
Extracanon. Extracanon develops ideas outside of but in accordance with the texts. In other words, extracanonical facts in an author’s personal verse do not have any strong basis in the texts. Neither do they directly contradict the texts that an author uses in his or her personal canon.
Original characters are perhaps the best and most common example of extracanon. Their presence does not contradict the texts in most cases, but the texts don’t give us any information about them either.
Pandemonium’s The Apprentice is a good example of extracanon being used in this fashion. Sámaril is not a canon character. But neither does his existence as an apprentice in the Gwaith-i-Mirdain defy canon in any way.
Other extracanons place canon characters in settings other than what JRRT described. Erestor gets a lot of extracanonical treatment. He frequently ends up in Gondolin; in my By the Light of Roses, he ends up in Formenos. There is no canon support for either of these ideas. Neither does canon dispute them, however.
Making Fëanor a chronic nail-biter or Túrin’s favorite color black or Amarië the daughter of an important Vanyarin scribe are all extracanonical.
As with paracanon, different authors will have different comfort levels when it comes to how far they’re willing to go in inventing extracanonical details.
Pericanon. Pericanon analyzes and interprets the texts using concepts from psychology, mythology, sociology, science, and other “real world” disciplines. Because JRRT intended his stories to serve as a history or mythology for our world, and Arda corresponds with our solar system, then much of what we understand about our world can also be applied to Arda and, thus, becomes a sort of canon.
Authors using pericanon might use it to choose one text over another for their personal canons (such as using the more scientifically accurate ideas from Myths Transformed in describing how Arda operated outside a mythological framework) or add extracanonical details (such choosing to have Maedhros threaten to kill Elrond and Elros based on his psychological state at the time).
My assertion that homosexuality is canon is based on pericanon: If Elves and Men are human (in JRRT’s own words [Letter 153]), and homosexuality is normal behavior among humans, then lacking anything in the texts that makes an exception for Elves and Men, homosexuality would have occurred in their populations as well.
Pretty much everything Pandemonium writes uses pericanon to develop and explain not only the science of Arda but its cultures. My Another Man’s Cage uses pericanon in that I was often informed by psychology in how I developed the characters extracanonically.
I should note that pericanon uses our understanding of our world to enhance existing information from the texts, not to challenge or contradict them. To challenge the texts requires …
Historiocanon. Historiocanon is the process by which some authors challenge the texts and develop interpretations that do not take the texts at face value. Historiocanon justifies deviating from the texts where historiographical analysis causes concern about authorial bias or inaccuracy.
Pericanon can influence historiocanon when our understanding of how the world works calls us to question the accuracy of the texts. JRRT acknowledges this himself in Myths Transformed (HoMe XII) when he expresses doubt that readers would believe that scientifically sophisticated cultures (like the Eldar) would believe primitive and implausible cosmogonical myths.
Historiocanon is based on an understanding of Arda as our own solar system and, also, the JRRT’s texts as an ancient history/mythology of our own world and so subject to historical analysis. Historiocanon can hinge on the following (please note that this is an incomplete list):
- the narrator possesses bias (such as Pengolodh’s vilification of the Fëanorians in light of his service to Turgon, who was opposed to them)
- the narrator is relying on hearsay or could not possess accurate knowledge about the subject (such as Pengolodh writing about Fëanor’s death, which occurred before he was born, or about Lúthien’s plea to Mandos, during which none from Middle-earth were present)
- knowledge of how the world works makes the event as reported impossible (such as Maedhros hanging on Thangorodrim for fifty years)
Pandemonium’s Risk Assessment uses historiocanon to offer alternate explanations about lembas. My An Ordinary Woman uses historiocanon to argue that Lúthien’s exceptionality in, well, everything was more a case of hero worship and wishful thinking by her people than truth.
Pericanon and historiocanon are both, of course, personal canons as well: They require accepting Arda as our own solar system and a world subject to many of the same natural laws. Historiocanon also requires accepting as personal canon that the texts are historical or mythological accounts and can be analyzed using historiography. I think it makes sense, then, that these forms of canon will be the most controversial in terms of concept alone (not individual use) and won’t be used by everyone. However, they are valid ways to develop interpretations of canon.
Alternate universe. By definition, alternate universe (AU) requires the deliberate changing of a canon detail to affect the outcome of a story. Juno Magic’s Lothíriel is an AU because it adds a tenth walker to the Fellowship. My For What I Wait is AU because it is based on the premise that Fëanor outlived all of his children.
Both of these stories change canon facts. There were nine members of the Fellowship; it is hard to argue–though perhaps not impossible–that a tenth would have been completely overlooked by the many people who observed or were involved with the Fellowship. That Fëanor died shortly after the Battle-under-stars is another fact that would be extremely difficult to argue against. The AU aspects of both stories are not justifiable using any of the above-discussed canons. They are simply changes to the canon that the reader will have to accept and that are essential to the story.
It is important to note that AU cannot be justified by canon. Positing that Lúthien was less than perfect, as I do in “An Ordinary Woman,” is not AU because it makes sense from a historiocanonical perspective, which can be defended using Tolkien’s texts. Deciding that Erestor grew up in Gondolin is not AU because it does not counter a canon fact; it is extracanonical. Writing Maedhros and Fingon as lovers is not AU because it can be defended using evidence from the texts. However, I think that the term and label “AU” is misapplied as often as it is used correctly.
When Does “Canon” Become “AU”?
I am hardly the first to tackle this topic. Earlier this year, we had a discussion on the SWG Yahoo! group about how to define AU. This prompted a series of posts and discussions elsewhere (many of which I didn’t even know about until researching this post). I will link these discussions throughout my post, but it seems that they come to some of the same conclusions.
First of all, that the “AU” label is misused in the Tolkien fandom. I’ll discuss this further in a moment.
Second of all, that there is a strong desire, in discussions of canon, to move beyond the “is canon”/”is not canon” dichotomy and to recognize at least a third way to classify ideas used in fan fiction. Marta called this “extra-canonical” in her post On Canon and Fanfic, and this term (and the concept it defines) was echoed throughout the discussions following her post. So my own idea of a continuum between “canon” and “AU” is hardly original to me.
So why so many differentiations when Marta made good use of the single term “extra-canonical”? Mostly as a demonstration of how many different methods fans use to arrive at the extra-canonical (by Marta’s definition of the term) details that they use in their stories. I don’t expect the terms I’m using here to make it into popular usage. They’re awkward and hard to distinguish between for anyone who doesn’t make a regular habit (as I do) of thinking and writing about these things. In other words, for most people, they’re useless.
However, I think there is an important point to be made with them. As I defined each term, I often qualified that different authors would have different comfort levels with how far (or in what direction) they wanted to take various interpretations. Perhaps the most salient example is that of the paracanon about Maedhros and Fingon. Proposing that the texts suggest close friendship requires less stretching than suggesting that the characters were lovers, even though both interpretations utilize similar analyses. Yet I know that readers and authors will consider some details “canon” and others “AU,” even when the same methods were used to construct them. People are fond of lamenting that AU is hard to define. I don’t think that it is, if we recognize that accepting all of the above as legitimate analyses of Tolkien’s texts and understand that our willingness to accept (or not) an interpretation derived from them reflects more about how we see canon than the actual canonicity of the interpretation.
I also wonder if people’s comfort differs between the different ways of interpreting the texts that I’ve mentioned here. For example, maybe I’m not willing to stretch far in terms of paracanon. Maybe I like my interpretations of the texts to as innocent and obvious as possible. But maybe I’m willing to accept more in terms of extracanon: If you want to add all sorts of original characters and off-the-wall facts about the canon characters, then this doesn’t bother me. So Maedhros/Fingon feels wrong to me, but I’m okay with Fingon having, once upon a time, studied herb lore, lived with the Fëanorians in Tirion, and been engaged three times to three different women before the Darkening. Looking at the different ways that we shape our personal canon from the texts will, hopefully, aid me in approaching these questions in the future.
Which brings me to the other point about the misuse of the term “AU.” There is the popular complaint that some authors use the “AU” label to deflect any criticism about the wanton flouting of canon in their stories. Several people made this point in the posts I’ve linked here; Roh Wyn goes as far in Can(n)on Fodder to differentiate between canon deviations: non-canonical, where “some important detail has been altered, and this alteration affects all the downstream activities events or characters so that the entire story is different from canon”; and un-canonical, “stories that essentially break canon. … [T]hey don’t merely change a few canonical details. These fics change the basic premises of canon, so that the ultimate story bears little relation to the original.” My understanding of Roh Wyn’s uncanonical is that these are those stories that change details from the text because the author doesn’t know better (or doesn’t want to do the research to find out) or because the author simply likes the changed version better than the textual version but doesn’t want to think about how to make the work within the general canon framework Tolkien has established; for example (to borrow Roh Wyn’s example) because s/he wants Aragorn and Boromir to be twins but doesn’t want to have to do the work to make that plausible. So it just is–much in the way that Legolas has been married off to many teenaged unicorn-riding princesses–and the reader is expected to accept it without explanation or question.
Others bring up how “AU” is used as a defense against the so-called “canon police” or “canatics,” who are depicted as fans who hunt through stories looking for any detail that does not jive with their particular interpretation of the texts. In a comment on her rantastic Is AU a negative label?, Juno writes,
In my rant I didn’t discuss the validity of labels such as “canon” or “AU” as such. They definitely can have their uses. But they also pose problems. There are no fixed, exact rules about what is and what is not “AU” or “canon”. Actually, there IS no one canon, really; canon is not determined by physical laws or divine laws, canon is always the result of the interpretation of an individual and thus … fluid. Therefore, labels can be misleading. Especially in LOTR fandom, especially about new authors I’ve noticed the tendency to label what I would call “canon stories” as AU, simply because some kind self-appointed canon-police scared them and made them feel insecure about their stories.
In my original post on the SWG that started this whole discussion, I admit to doing just that. I am not alone in this either. But I’m also willing to admit that this comfortable deflection of attacks from canatics does a disservice to actual AU stories and the very valid approaches to the texts that I and others take in developing personal verses that give thoughtful treatment to Tolkien’s writings.
All of the terms I discuss above are valid ways of approaching and interpretting Tolkien’s texts, and none of them are AU. Yet I’m sure that many of us can think of examples of each where the author or her/his critics would suggest such a label: the Maedhros/Fingon pairing (or Celegorm/Aredhel, for that matter), a story told by an original character or heavily featuring original characters, a story that challenges the truth behind Laws and Customs among the Eldar. I think the temptation–when encountering a story that uses an interpretation unfavorable to us as readers–is to discount that story as “uncanonical” or to suggest that the author needs to label it as “AU” rather than giving thoughtful consideration to the means by which authors use facts from the texts to arrive at different interpretations or conclusions.
And this brings me full-circle back to Pandemonium’s comment about how the study of Tolkien’s texts makes recognizing a definitive “canon” more and more difficult. Personally, in all but a few instances, I’m ready to be done with the term “canon” for good. It’s misleading. It doesn’t exist in the form that we think it does, though it’s a nice idea–that with enough study and effort, we can devise a compendium of facts about Tolkien’s world that allow stories to be graded in terms of canonicity–like many of the fancies to which humankind has been prone over the millennia.
I doubt that one humble heretic like me will ever have such influence, though. In the meantime, though, if I can encourage even a few people to resist the temptation to jab pointy fingers and shriek, “AU!!” and, instead, stop and think and question how the author arrived at a particular conclusion, then I will consider my overwrought analysis a success.
lease, come inside my humble cottage and have a seat by the fire. Many are the stories here, and they are not the sorts of stories you'll often hear beyond these walls. Yes, the world is listening--and judging--but do not worry. You are safe here. I am the Heretic Loremaster. I read the same books as everyone else, but I read them a little differently: I don't necessarily take them at their word. I like to look at the stories that build our mythological history from the eyes of those disfavored by that history.
I really liked your further breakdown of canon in all its variations, trying to figure out where I’d fit in
Of course I went like: oo yeah, I do that too and that and that. Still I liked to read this breakdown because it also shows how people take in information and deal with that accordingly as they process it or try to apply it. Each has their own way of dealing with such a process and even though canon is fluid, it also depends on the flexibility of a person to let another to go about their stuff. How many hissy fits have not started like that, that somewhere someone had enough or simply could not accept that others can’t think otherwise. Freedom in thought & expression suddenly doesn’t seem that transparant anymore.
Anyway, great essay Dawn, gorgeous title too.
Oh, I’ve been waiting for this post for days (or at least, for as soon as I realized what your delicious links were leading up to *g*).
I must admit that I personally don’t agonize over canon, I never have. I take care that my characters and settings are “recognizable”, meaning that they are clearly rooted in Tolkien’s world. But apart from that I take the freedom to do with them whatever I please. To me, that’s the fun of fanfiction. I have written stories that are more canonical that others, but these are usually “character studies” for me – a way to understand a character better. Which in turn would help me throw him into uncanonical situations and have him react canonical. LOL.
Anyway, since we just had a heated discussion concerning canon and AU on Aragorn Angst, I think I’ll link your post.
[...] Vote From Canon to AU: Defining Canon on a Continuum [...]
Rhapsody: First of all, thank you!
I can’t pretend that I got every way of interpretting canon; I’m only aware of those that I use myself or that are used by authors whom I follow! However, I think I’ve gotten a lot of important ones, and I’m glad that they illustrate the many ways that different people can take the same set of texts and read them dozens of different ways. That was what I really hoped to illustrate: that even a three-way breakdown of “canon” will have people who are inappropriately putting legitimate textual interpretations into the “AU” category because they don’t recognize the means by which those texts are interpretted as valid ways to arrive at “canon.” For example, someone who doesn’t consider what I have called historiocanon would probably insist that my “An Ordinary Woman” is an AU story.
The made-up terms were a rather heavy-handed way of calling attention to that point.
Michelle: Uh oh, someone has found out my HL preparations on Delicious … of course, that is my fault, since I added you to my network.
Believe it or not, I’ve never concerned myself over canon too much either. I realized pretty early on that it is possible to justify all kinds of wonky stuff as canon. When I wrote Another Man’s Cage, I knew very little about Silm canon, at least compared to what I know now and what my peers, at the time, knew. So a lot of the ideas in AMC were real and true extracanon: I just made them up because they worked in the story. As I was called to explain certain details later on–once I knew a lot more about canon–I was amazed at how easy it was to fit my extracanonical ideas into a canonical framework after the fact. That may well have been the first dampening of my enthusiasm for establishing a definitive “canon”!
My favorite stories combine excellent writing with believable characters and cultures. Canon is relatively low on the list. When I enjoy canon in a story, it is because the writer has developed really unique ideas by turning canon a little differently than anyone else has. I hear readers sometimes say that canon deviations “throw” them from the story. In my case, it makes me curious and want to read more to figure out how the author is going to fit things together.
My least favorite stories, by contrast, tend to be those that are so concerned with sticking like glue to what Tolkien wrote that they show me nothing new, don’t take my thoughts in any novel directions, and sometimes go so far as to reuse Tolkien’s own words! If I want that sort of experience, I will just reread the original author.
And thank you for the linkage!
Came here from a weblisting. I’ll definitely be linking this on my LJ; it’s a fascinating read.
Thanks, Ainu Laire! I’m glad you found the post valuable.
Although I am invariably a sucker for neologisms, you had me with the diagram.
The comment I have in mind for this fascinating and well-argued über-geek ish essay (I say this affectionately as one über-geek to another) veers into essay material, so, if you don’t mind, I’ll whip up an op-ed piece and shoot it your way in a week or so. Well, OK, hopefully before Xmas.
I’m mightily amused to construct a classification of my corpus of hackery as extraperihistoriocanonical. “AU” is shorter.
I do tend to slap up AU on nearly everything I write. I do this not because any individual piece can be accurately (or not) classified as such, but because I know the entire “mythos” of the Pandë!verse and it’s all interlinked. My ‘verse’s central concept, which is not unlike JRRT’s tying his Middle-earth into the contemporary one, e.g., The Notion Club Papers and The Lost Road, is properly considered AU if “canon” is an operative definition.
On the other hand, I did not label (SSP here! Whee!) my recent “Ulmo’s Wife” as AU, and after reading this, removed the AU label from “Chosen.” After all, the Ainulindalë is a myth and ripe for interpretation. I’d better be consistent with my ranting.
This was all really interesting. I had long wanted to write something on this line (a more robust and interesting breakdown of canon modes than what I initially wrote in “On Canon and Fanfic”), and now you’ve made it so I don’t have to do that. The one element of canon that I think now requires further work is presenting the textual history for the Red Book and other sources for readers, so that they can better interpret those canons historically if they choose to do so. But this piece is a big step in the direction of proper education so people know how to structure the canon debates.
I recced this over at my blog, btw.
What to say? Impressive breakdown. You’re kicking in an open door here for me. I think I would have found this satisfying and encouraging when I first starting writing Tolkien fanfic. I personally don’t need to think of it in such explicit terms at this point. If people don’t like my stories there are thousands of others to read.
Working within the canon is the challenge for writing fanfic for me, but the story comes first. My bottom line in reading is that I am drawn to works that show a knowledges of canon. By guideline is know what you are changing before you change it. Ignorance of the canon is the only turnoff for me, not departure in and of itself. I like to say somewhat tongue-in-cheek that I abide by canon slavishly, in full OCD mode, in all of the trivial, superificial, insignificant details, dates, ages, hair colors, geography, etc. (generally footnooting if I vary), and go from point A to point Z without changing the outcome. But within the gaps anything goes. I don’t need a labels. Although I do object to having my work called AU when it isn’t.
Sorry for all of the typos. I should never type on the screen.
I am just incorrigible. Marta recommended your essay with some comments on her LJ and I couldn’t resist throwing in my opinion. So, I am cutting and pasting my remarks below:
“I have read both of your versions a few times and I can’t say I prefer one over the other, although Dawn goes into a lot more detail. I find the entire discussion more than a bit defensive. I think I could personally qualify by almost anyone’s standards as somewhat of a canon nerd when it comes to knowledge. But to quantify and breakdown in minute detail and label the ways in which one might handle canon, when one fills the gaps, departs, or varies doesn’t really appeal to me.
I do strongly agree with you that I also read fanfiction because I have a passion for the original, so it had better be in evidence for me to enjoy a story. Blatant ignorance or flagrant disregard for the canon in a story generally leaves me cold. (But, never say never: I could name a couple of entertaining writers of pure movieverse whose stories I have greatly enjoyed.)
I find more often than not that the term AU is used incorrectly and with a tone of disparagement. I particularly dislike my own work being called AU by people who have not studied all of the possible canon extensively and would be unable to defend their position on what they might see as my departures.
My impulse is that people should loosen up. Your story is its own defense, or not, as the case may be. Bottom line: know what you are changing before you change it. I do footnote if I change a date, detail of geography, or similar hard facts, and cringe from fanon cliches. But when it comes to filling gaps in my own work, the reader should beware. I won’t defend what I put there.
An example I cited to you [Marta] once earlier this year is that I love your OTP Boromir/Theodred. But, personally, I am not at all sure they would necessarily have ever met. My attitude is knock yourself out. They’re fascinating together and nothing in canon contradicts it. It’s not AU.
(Don’t even bring up “Of the Laws and Customs Among the Eldar.” It’s been beaten to death. Numerous writers have elegantly proven that it does not say what most fanfic writers think it says–an example of wishful thinking on the part its defenders–and further is purported by Tolkien to have been written by an unreliable source, who did not have first-hand knowledge.)
One last point, Tolkien’s unwritten intentions, personal attitudes and beliefs, or assumptions thereof on the part of readers, are not canon. “
Pandemonium: I wanted to do more diagrams but didn’t really feel that they were necessary to the degree that the one on paracanon was. I thought you’d appreciate it!
You know that I would love the threatened op-ed piece! I’m looking forward to it!
I, personally, do not consider your stories and what I know of your verse as AU, although I’m less familiar than I’d like to be with The Elendimir, so I’m basing this conclusion more on The Apprentice and its related stories. And, of course, this is coming from a fellow “heretic.”
I leave the judgment of “AU,” of course, to each author. But I am through with declaring BtLoR as an AU, much less AMC (as I was encouraged to do when I first started posting it and sometimes did on individual chapters), much less saying that slash is “just another form of AU,” as I also, shamefully, used to do. (In my defense, I was trying to diffuse some of the vitriol that genre was receiving from people who, otherwise, were more than happy to tolerate AU.)
Marta: I still hope that you’ll write that essay. I don’t think that I have the only way–much less the correct way!–of looking at it. I also think that there is a lot of room for how different interpretations are received and treated in fandom, which I didn’t even touch on.
Oshun: I suspect that a lot of people don’t need to think of it in such explicit terms and expected my share of eyerolls for this piece. (I’m actually pretty surprised at the amount of interest this topic and this post, in particular, has generated, considering that picking apart how we write fanfic is probably less important to people than actually writing it and simply going with the story or, in the other camp, refusing anything of a particular type and defending that avoidance as “taste.”)
I think that the discussion tends to be defensive for the same reason that a lot of discussions in fandom are defensive: They often have years of hurt and anger brewing behind them. I’m thinking particularly of Juno’s essay that I linked that was the result of something like four years of disparagement about what she was writing. And the comments on that post show that others who write the opposite of what Juno does–very canon-compliant–have been treated just as hurtfully by AU authors.
I’ve been fairly lucky. I’ve had a measure of comments from people who didn’t know what they were talking about or had the imaginative capacities of rocks; these are easy to dismiss. Unfortunately, I think stupidity also tends to occur in direct proportion to tenacity. I’ve been advised to label different stories as AU; I think Juno may have advised me to label AMC as AU once upon a time in order to deflect criticism from canatics who simply couldn’t/wouldn’t understand how I arrived at my ideas. I do wonder if and how her advice would change almost four years later!
But as far as a thorough trouncing of what I choose to write, I’ve seen very little, but I know it goes on, and it has been directed at some of my friends, so I suppose that I am a bit defensive on their behalf.
However, my main interest–as with many things “fannish”–is in the social aspects of fandom: How people receive one kind of story over another, i.e. my example about how the Maedhros/Fingon pairing and Maedhros & Fingon friendship fics rely on the same textual details and just draw different conclusions … yet we both know that one is more despised than the other and wont to have an “AU” label placed upon it. In order to begin to understand that, I needed to understand how the texts are used to develop canon.
Personally, I’m willing to buy anything in a story … the author just has to sell me on it. So I’m with you on “never say never”; I’ve found that, when I do, I’m eating crow before long.
I am not thinking of canon or fanfiction as a sociological phenomenon or an interesting discussion of philosophical differences. I think of it as an entertaining and engaging way of combining the study of the original work with creative expression. I feel like I have popped into a discussion about apples here and at Marta’s LJ, and throwing in my ten cents worth on how I feel about oranges.
Although I think you and Marta actually have quite different perspectives, I think the two of you might have more in common with one another, than I have with either of you about why I care about the discussion and what it means to me. One further note that I left on Marta’s LJ, that kind of summarizes the perspective I bring to discussions of canon is the following:
“I would love it everyone felt comfortable to just let everyone else write and enjoy what they enjoy. I personally have never had any desire to write for a tiny, niche audience. But I don’t think anyone who doesn’t like the way I approach my stories is ever going to be convinced by how well I can defend my use of canon. I think the people who get all upset and bent out of shape over what other people write are not going to be convinced by any defense that anyone else can make, however logical or brilliant.
Possibly, and I have seen this happen, time and time again, their ability to appreciate a broader range of stories can be influenced slowly over time by recommendations of different types of stories from people they trust or accidentally stumbling on a story and reading it and finding it is not what they assumed it would be, but not by analytical articles on the question of what are the different possible (legitimate?) uses of canon.”
Generally, when I have heard people begin talking about canon, what they usually mean, is I don’t like what you write and I don’t think it’s a legitimate use of canon either! I have seen other writers dismiss the whole dispute with a note in a story summary: “If Tolkien read this, he would roll over in his grave.” Well, unfortunately, I can’t take that attitude either, because I put a strong emphasis on canon research in writing my stories and expect a fair amount of canon knowledge for a reader to fully appreciate them. Tolkien probably would roll over in his grave if he read my work, but he ought not. He ought to be flattered that his life work is taken so seriously and studied in such detail.
I agree that there is a bit of apples and oranges going on here. I just reread all of your comments on this post as well as my replies to you to get a better idea of how you and I vary in our approaches. I thank you for your patience with me!
To summarize what I think is going on: The “apples” that Marta and I are bringing to this discussion is an attempt to understand how canon is used and perceived and argued by people in fandom. The “oranges” that you are bringing is an enjoyment of fiction that has nothing to do with that. Am I correct here?
I do think that they’re separate entities and, for me, they’re really separate roles–both of which I enjoy–in fandom. I love writing and reading Tolkien-based stories, and I agree absolutely that they must stand or fall on their own independent of how one defends one’s “canon.” That, for me, is completely separate from discussions such as these, which appeal to my desire to understand human behavior in the fandom community. They really satisfy different desires for me … or, I don’t go into reading (or writing!) stories with such analysis as this in mind. I agree with your earlier statement that the story must come first, and it does.
However, I also have an interest in human behavior that is independent of my interest in the texts as an artist.
I replied to your last comment yesterday on Marta’s post, but it got lost when my Internet shut down. So I will attempt to reconstruct my reply as faithfully as possible here.
But I don’t think anyone who doesn’t like the way I approach my stories is ever going to be convinced by how well I can defend my use of canon. I think the people who get all upset and bent out of shape over what other people write are not going to be convinced by any defense that anyone else can make, however logical or brilliant.
I agree with you here, especially if you’re speaking of the people who I’m thinking of.
I think that the worst of the froth-at-the-mouth “canatics” don’t base their so-called “canon” on logical analysis of the texts at all; it is based more on a combination of personal morality, social influence, and wishful thinking. These people–like any fanatics–are not going to be swayed by anything resembling logic because their opinions weren’t formed by anything resembling logic. I’m done even bothering with these people; posts like this are not addressed to them and, although they are as welcome to comment as anyone, I don’t think we’d have much to say to each other before long.
However, I don’t think that fandom is a neat dichotomy of froth-at-the-mouth canatics and happy-go-lucky “heretics” who will accept anything that is well-reasoned. In fact, I think that a lot of intolerance in fandom has nothing to do with the actual beliefs of the person expressing the intolerance but with social influence. There are certain corners of fandom that have made intolerance a major part of their identity. I’m thinking specifically of those that are vehement in their dislike of slash and certain AUs (tenth walker, “Mary Sue”). And, being human nature, to endear themselves to certain people and fit in with certain communities, I think that people often take to repeating certain ideas without pausing to give much consideration to how they really feel about those ideas.
I am actually (sadly) a perfect example of this. I was, once upon a time, a very intolerant reader. I had a narrow set of “canon compliant” interests that didn’t include slash or AU or anything too “out there.” Now we both know that I am not an intolerant person in real life; I was merely mimicking what I thought were the “right” things to say based on what I had observed about the community where I found myself. That’s unfortunate but evidence, I suppose, that I am human.
Of course, these things changed over time, and my views of fandom came more in line with my beliefs in real life. How? Well, I met people–like my first SWG co-mod Uli/ford_of_bruinen–who wrote things that went beyond my “comfort level” at the time; in reading their work, my tastes expanded beyond the narrow confines into which I had forced them. This is what you expressed in your comment on Marta’s post. However, I was also directly challenged on some of my misguided beliefs; Juno, in particular, never shied from making me stop and think about why I liked or disliked what I did. Because I am a logical person, my beliefs were open to being shaped by what I saw as her superior logic.
So I think that some people are receptive to having their opinions shaped via discussions on canon. Or maybe I’m just a pie-eyed optimist. 8^)
I’m thinking specifically of those that are vehement in their dislike of slash and certain AUs (tenth walker, “Mary Sue”). And, being human nature, to endear themselves to certain people and fit in with certain communities, I think that people often take to repeating certain ideas without pausing to give much consideration to how they really feel about those ideas.
Ah, thank you for that comment. I very much agree, especially in regards to my recent (very frustrated) LJ post about the terrible term “nonslash”. I’m still pondering why it infiltrated fandom so much and what this obsession of gen-ficcers with teh slash is supposed to mean.
Thanks for responding, Dawn, and doing so thoughtfully and with patience. I am quite certain now why I got so wound up and wanted to respond at length to your post with my thoughts on things that were only peripherally related to what you were actually talking about. It all boiled down to the aspect of judgment and intolerance that hides under the label of adherence to canon. I find it disturbing that people feel it necessary to assert their taste as gospel and call it canon compliant. Reading your piece was like waving a red flag in front of a bull, less because of anything you wrote and entirely because of being lectured and judged in the past for my own choices.
Michelle: You’re welcome, and thanks for pointing out your post to me. I don’t read too much on ff.net (which is where this “nonslash” trend is mostly showing up, iIrc?), so I hadn’t noticed it, but it’s an interesting–and disturbing–trend, I think. I absolutely believe that a lot of fannish behavior has to do with social influence; people see others using certain labels and assume it’s the “right” thing to do, and want to fit in or show their hip with the trends or don’t want to stand out for the wrong reasons. Personally, I wish that better summaries would become trendy, but hey, we’re all allowed our wish lists, however unlikely.
Oshun: You are also welcome. And you are welcome also to speak out here whenever you’d like, no matter how peripherally related to the topic at hand. I know you well enough not to interpret your replies as rants directed at me. (Unless I’m deserving … in which case, rant away!
) You know (I hope!) how much I agree with you here. In my own study of the texts, and now in writing about them, I have come to the conclusion that the term “canon” in the Tolkien fandom is almost meaningless. I hope that more people eventually come to accept that idea and to stop hiding behind it to deflect criticism of their personal tastes.
[...] already discussed at length elsewhere that this is not the same thing as AU. Yet that still does remove all of the squirmy discomfort [...]
[...] by confusing unpopular interpretation with distortion of the canon. I’ve discussed this elsewhere, so I won’t say much more here except to note that it is unfortunate that a term intended to [...]