the meaning of canon

[branchandroot]

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".

Comments

[cathexys.livejournal.com]

i think you might enjoy this post (http://www.livejournal.com/users/angua9/132488.html) that actually is a perfect example of what you're arguing (and i hope you weren't reading what i was saying a supporting that...i just wanted someone to be able to make that choice and point toward canon and day that it doesn't immediately contradict).

[beckymarie.livejournal.com]

"Canon" is such a nebulous word these days (in an ironic sort of way, given that it's supposed to be something irrefutable) that you'll find differing meanings from one fangirl to the next. "Canon" is used by fangirls to describe pairings and I just... yes, okay, I have probably done this myself (It's usually meant as tongue-in-cheek humor and not meant to be taken seriously, mind.), but "canon" should be exactly what appears on the screen or in the pages, nothing more, nothing less. Canon shouldn't be (in my opinion), "Ohhh, it's SO OBVIOUS that's what they mean!" Canon is exactly what they said with the exact way their face was drawn. Everything else is up to interpretation.

I mean... let's take Prince of Tennis, since it's a series we both share. ^_~ I can jokingly say that Tezuka/Atobe is "canon" because of the incredible amount of hints, but if I tried to say it seriously, I'd be wrong, no matter how much of a heavy hand I feel Konomi-sensei is using to portray them or how thinly he's veiling it. (I admit, sometimes I'm seriously starting to wonder what's going through Konomi-sensei's head, but I don't think it's actually "canon". Just... holy shit, what ELSE am I supposed to label Atobe's reactions as??)

It does seem like more and more fangirls are using it to describe what they feel is canon, but dismissing it as fangirl interpretation in others, because it's just so obvious to them, but they don't like that other pairing over there, so that's just fangirling, even if they can see where the person gets it.

Of course, this isn't touching on the sticky mess that is UST and what's being canonically hinted at and what's not and I think that's where fangirls get into trouble. No one's really trying to say that Character A and character B definitely ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP in the current time and place, but more that they're arguing that the feelings/attraction/SOMETHING is canon, I think? Or at least most are, I suspect. It's like... no one really argues that Sakuno has feelings for/attraction to Ryoma, right? But where can you point out that it's definitively canon? I think that is what most fangirls are arguing that their favorte *whatever* is "canon"?

[solitude1056.livejournal.com]

Well, I think discussions of canon beg the question: "canon what" - as in, let's see. It's canon that Hakkai and Gojyo are friends, even damn good friends that put up with each other's crap. And it's canon that Heero and Relena share mutual respect and admiration, while discounting their own abilities. So in those instances, one could say, "these relationships are canon." Because, hello, friendship is a relationship. I think it's a variety of words that are getting mangled - 'relationship' meaning only sexual or pre-sexual; 'canon' moving from 'what happened in the original story' to being used mostly as an adjective for the word 'relationship' or the dreaded 'pairing'.

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.