Branch (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot) wrote2004-07-21 06:31 pm
branchandroot) wrote2004-07-21 06:31 pm
Entry tags:
the meaning of canon
A post by Cathexys came together with the ongoing linguistic laments in one of my own recent posts, and made me think about a phenomenon I've noticed recently.
The common definition of "canon", among anime fans, seems to be changing, particularly as relates to the existence and/or possibility of specific romantic pairings.
At least once a week over the past month or two, while browsing through the ljs of fellow anime fen, I've seen people referring to Pairing X as canon when what they seem to mean is that the source text contains moments or situations or dialogue between the two characters that it is possible to interpret in a romantic fashion.
They do not seem to mean that the source text actually says Y and Z are dating/boyfriends/screwing each other silly. Which is what I have, to date, taken as the meaning of "canon".
This seems related to the jargon use of the word "proof" (also, occasionally, "evidence"). Among good yaoi fangirls the statement that a scene contains proof of a given pairing is used, usually tongue in cheek, to mean that the action can, with great effort and willing suspension of disbelief, be imagined to contain romantic tension. As in "There, see! Y punched out Z, it's proof! They must be in love!" In the less good-natured debates, this can devolve into the sort of double standard that insists one's own "proof" is actual evidence while the other side's "proof" is wishful thinking. The need for legitimazation appears to trump manners, dictionaries and common sense, all three.
The new use of "canon", regrettably, seems headed in the same direction. Pairing X is canon, but Pairing Q is not. "Canon", in both cases, meaning something closer to "possible interpretation of subtext" than "textual statement". At the same time, the person using "canon" in this special jargon sense, is usually taking full advantage of the common use implication of the word. That is, she is treating the favored pairing as established and unquestionable, dennotative rather than connotative.
The whole progression reminds me of the rightening of American liberal parties, where Republican used to mean "liberal" while Democrat meant "anarchist", and then Republican meant conservative, and now it's coming up on Democrat meanting conservative, and we keep needing new names for the far left parties. I do wonder what word fandom will come up with next to indicate "textual statement".
The common definition of "canon", among anime fans, seems to be changing, particularly as relates to the existence and/or possibility of specific romantic pairings.
At least once a week over the past month or two, while browsing through the ljs of fellow anime fen, I've seen people referring to Pairing X as canon when what they seem to mean is that the source text contains moments or situations or dialogue between the two characters that it is possible to interpret in a romantic fashion.
They do not seem to mean that the source text actually says Y and Z are dating/boyfriends/screwing each other silly. Which is what I have, to date, taken as the meaning of "canon".
This seems related to the jargon use of the word "proof" (also, occasionally, "evidence"). Among good yaoi fangirls the statement that a scene contains proof of a given pairing is used, usually tongue in cheek, to mean that the action can, with great effort and willing suspension of disbelief, be imagined to contain romantic tension. As in "There, see! Y punched out Z, it's proof! They must be in love!" In the less good-natured debates, this can devolve into the sort of double standard that insists one's own "proof" is actual evidence while the other side's "proof" is wishful thinking. The need for legitimazation appears to trump manners, dictionaries and common sense, all three.
The new use of "canon", regrettably, seems headed in the same direction. Pairing X is canon, but Pairing Q is not. "Canon", in both cases, meaning something closer to "possible interpretation of subtext" than "textual statement". At the same time, the person using "canon" in this special jargon sense, is usually taking full advantage of the common use implication of the word. That is, she is treating the favored pairing as established and unquestionable, dennotative rather than connotative.
The whole progression reminds me of the rightening of American liberal parties, where Republican used to mean "liberal" while Democrat meant "anarchist", and then Republican meant conservative, and now it's coming up on Democrat meanting conservative, and we keep needing new names for the far left parties. I do wonder what word fandom will come up with next to indicate "textual statement".
no subject
And, yes, there is something to be said for subtext being a geniune factor, but it's not the same as canon... it's too bad we don't have a word for that. (Then again, what fangirl would be satisfied with "subtext" rather than the supposedly untrumpable "canon"?) With a series like Prince of Tennis, it becomes even more murky because you do have those chibi episodes (I mean, Fuji looking for Tezuka, the legendary gunman in the chibi episode, and SPARKLING over him in a very, very romantic way? Tezuka-ojiisan and Fuji-obaasan with a whole little family? Do these count as canon, when the chibi thing is all clearly meant in fun and not seriousness? Though, damn, I'm REALLY inclined to treat that red string as honest-to-god text/subtext, just for the cultural weight it carries.), not to mention the BOATLOAD of fanservice. How do you differeniate between what's just a natural friendship between teammates and what's Hinting At Something More?
It's just... I think you're right that people use it as a self-serving stopper to any argument against them. And it's not that I need to be right all of the time, either, (because, in the end, what does "canon" REALLY get you?), I just don't like feeling like I'm being told that my interpretations aren't "canon" (which we all know means "wrong" or "totally on crack") and someone else's are. *rantyranty*
(Bed? Bed? What is this concept you speak of?)
no subject
Especially with a show that crosses lines the way PoT does. I mean, with Yu Yu Hakusho it's reasonably easy to have recourse to the genre; it's shounen, straight up and down, and while the boys and demons and whatnot are clearly all good comrades who care about each other the way good comrades should, I feel comfortable saying that the genre itself indicates limited romantic themes.
But PoT? Good grief. The anime, in particular, is very close to straight up shoujo as far as the visual and interpersonal conventions go! And between the anime vs the manga, and the filler arcs vs the fighting arcs, and the regular eps vs the chibi eps, to say nothing of the cards and music and info books... well, there's competing subtext strewn all over the landscape! Which is why I love it, of course. But that just makes efforts to lock one or another interpretation in stone all the more annoying to me, because it sells short the delightful, crazy contradictions that make the whole thing so much fun.
Er, speaking of ranty... #^_^#