Branch (
branchandroot) wrote2004-07-21 06:31 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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 btw, you completely forgot about the other horrendous fangirl cry, the one that makes me really cringe:
"BUT IT'S CANNON!"
Right. And I'm going to SHOOT you with it.
*kaBAM*
Sheesh.
no subject
Definitely agree about the flattening of everything into sex. I think GW was the first place I really saw that happening. <--latecomer (gives thanks) I've written about it in a couple other places, trying to get some insight into why fans do that. I think the three major answers I came up with were the black-and-white worldview of teenage fans, the rampant hormones of young fans, and over-reaction against other opinions. Which doesn't excuse anything, but does make me slightly more patient, provided I stay out of the actual screaming debates.
Actually, I like to take advantage of the tendency, sometimes, to screw with people's heads. I mean, here am I, writer of porn in good standing, so when I write something like the Success arc, even if it's clearly labled Gen, nearly everyone assumes that the intimacy is UST. Which allows me to torture them with their own expectations. It's very diverting. *evil smile*
help! i want a glossary!
Is there a good glossary of all these terms (OTP,PWP,UST,etc?)
Re: help! i want a glossary!
You were pretty close, actually. Unresolved Sexual Tension. One True Pairing (ex: Harry/Draco or Ron/Hermione or etc.); this can be used either facetiously, to indicate that the speaker knows it's her personal opinion/preference, or seriously, to indicate that the speaker should be shot with the cannon. Plot? What Plot? or Porn Without Plot. Gen is an abbreviation of General, meaning not romantic.
Which is to say, if I'm established in the audience mind as a writer of porn, they will expect everything I write to be sexual. And, since this is me, that means that, just as I started writing porn to prove it could be done with some particular characters, I also write Gen to prove that I can do that just as well. It's also why I write as many different pairings as take my fancy--to mess with people's heads, who have taken me to be a fill-in-the-blank-shipper. Loyalty to a particular pairing or two is pretty common, and I think it's silly.
Re: help! i want a glossary!
*hugs back*
you sound like you're in a cheerful mood today. just got back from lunch with Ms L (who got the job). we should be home soonish. I think I need to sic the Other^4 Emily on a job when she takes over at the ref desk in a few minutes and then should be free to vacate the premises.
The OTP & PWP came from other recent posts in others folks' journals on which I've had to get clarification. I had suggest Pandas Wearing Pajamas for PWP and Ang though perhaps she'd have to write a fic involving such stuff. I suppose Ranma would lend itself...