![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the meaning of canon
Jul. 21st, 2004 06:31 pmA 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".
