(→Bad Fanon: Apologies, that last edit was mine. I also wanted to add that I believe the "Dumbledore is gay" reveal was not a fanon idea made canon, but rather unpublished canon information.) |
DawnFire360 (talk | contribs) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Fanon''' is a portmanteau of |
+ | '''Fanon''' is a portmanteau of "[[fan]]" and "[[canon]]." It refers to fan-generated ideas about fictional world that are held to be as good as (or better than!) canon by a fan or group of fans, or even the majority of a [[fandom]]. This can be good, bad, or so inconsequential as to be neither. |
| ⚫ | |||
| − | The more people follow a fanon, the less refined or complex it usually is. |
||
| + | == The Good, the Bad, and the "Who Cares?" == |
||
| − | Following BAD fanon is a [[charge]], but following good fanon is not, and following inconsequential fanon really isn't worth caring about. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Sometimes, the canon leaves things unexplained, or only hints at certain events or outcomes. When this happens, fanon can fill in the gaps where canon leaves off, and if [[logic]] and respect for canon are used, this fanon can meld seamlessly into the canon and coexist happily. A trademark of good fanon is that it is always supported by clues and precedents in the real canon, and is simply elaboration or expansion. It is not trivial or [[dumb]], but thoughtful and clever. It ''never'' [[Canon Break|replaces canonical elements]], but unites or interprets them to infer other story elements unmentioned in canon. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Sometimes, fanon fills the gap where canon leaves off. There are continua who leave things up to interpretation, or only hint and imply certain events or outcomes. When this happens, sometimes fans will assume what happened, and if [[logic]] and respect for canon is used, this fanon can meld seamlessly into the canon and coexist happily. Sometimes this fanon only applies as one author's interpretation of events and the author will re-use this in-house fanon for many stories... which can be great if it is goodfic. Other times, a whole fandom can agree (or as close to agreement as a fandom can ever come) as to what happened and settle on a common piece of good fanon that explains away a vagueness or [[plothole]]. |
||
| + | Good fanon can appear as one author's interpretation of events, which the author may re-use for many stories. This fanon may be adopted by the author's own fans. If multiple interpretations of canon are possible, there may be several good fanon theories coexisting in the fandom. Rarely, the majority of a fandom may settle on a common piece of good fanon that expands on or explains away a vagueness or [[plothole]] in the source material. |
||
| ⚫ | A trademark of good fanon is that it is always |
||
| − | Good fanon is usually marked as |
+ | Good fanon is usually marked as non-canon, especially when it's one author's personal fanon and they are writing goodfic. Often it's written for a small audience and can be thought of as an elaborate and intriguing AU. |
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | [[ |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Bad Fanon can also refer to a common misconception, such as that [[Avatar: The Last Airbender|Azula]]'s awkwardness in dealing with boys makes her a lesbian, [[Fire Emblem|Marth, Roy, and Ike]] are from the same world, [[Lord of the Rings|Thranduil]] is abusive or [[Elf (Middle-earth)|Elves]] are immune to the cold. They are spread around until people who don't know much about the fandom just assume that they're canon. |
||
| + | [[File:Fanon_Snape_vs_Canon_Snape_by_arabel.jpg|thumb|250px|Many people would prefer to think of Snape as an appealing guy, and thus you have a whole legion of fans who automatically assume he is like this. Art by Arabel.]] |
||
| + | Bad fanon does not fill gaps in canon. It doesn't explain or elaborate meaningfully upon the source material, and it is almost never supported by in-canon clues or hints. At best, it merely adds [[Pepper-jack cheese|tidbits that are stupid]], but at worst it ''supplants'' the real canon, causing [[canon damage]] as it spreads. Bad fanon is purely memetic, never marked, and the source of much [[badfic]]. |
||
| − | Bad Fanon is almost never supported by in-canon clues or hints. Half of the time it is confusion between [[Movieverse|different]][[Bookverse|'verses']] and the other half of the time it can follow [[Fangirl|'but I like it better this way']] [[logic]]. When creators give a 'sure, why not' to bad fanon and make it canon, much drama is had. |
||
| + | Bad fanon typically arises one of two ways: |
||
| − | Bad fanon is often duplicitous and only exists to bring about some other goal such as supporting a pairing, [[bash]]ing a character, or Canon Sueing a canon character. |
||
| + | # From misconceptions or confusion, coupled with ignorance, about the canon. |
||
| − | Bad Fanon is purely memetic, never marked, and is the source of much [[badfic]]. |
||
| + | #* Confusion about what is canon may result when a continuum has [[Movieverse|different]] [[Bookverse|adaptations]], especially when lots of fans have seen one version, but not the other, and assume elements from the adaptation(s) apply to the original. |
||
| + | #* Misconceptions turn into bad fanon when they spread around until people who don't know much about the fandom just assume that they're canon. Examples of common fanon misconceptions are that [[Avatar: The Last Airbender|Azula]]'s awkwardness in dealing with boys makes her a lesbian, [[Lord of the Rings|Thranduil]] is abusive, and [[Elf (Middle-earth)|Elves]] are immune to the cold. |
||
| + | # From a desire to bring about a non-canon story outcome and "but I like it better this way" reasoning. |
||
| + | #* If a fan doesn't like something in the canon, they may invent fanon to change or replace it according to their whim. For instance, bad fanon may be employed to support a preferred pairing, [[bash]] a disliked character, or [[Sued|Sue]] a canon character in fanfic. |
||
| ⚫ | [[Ship|Shipping wars]] can be said to be conflicts between different groups' fanons, and sometimes really terrible examples of bad fanon crop up when people write fanfic using the fanon created in someone else's fanfiction. This may be because bad fanon contains "easy" plot ideas that a lazy or unimaginative writer can steal, avoiding [[plagiarism]] only by citing that "[[Excuse|everybody in fandom has this idea!]]" |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Creators leave things out, and the things people make up to fill |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Creators leave things out, and the things people make up to fill in the blanks sometimes are so minor that they are neither good or bad. For example, some names in canon are never said, or ages are never elaborated on, or an exact height or body type is never given. Often there are fan standards for these details to prevent confusion. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Some fanon details may become canon, thanks to their harmless nature. For example, [[Pirates of the Caribbean|Captain Barbossa's]] first name was made "Hector" in fanon due to comments in a DVD extra—and later he was actually named Hector in subsequent movies. A background elf in the [[LotR]] [[movieverse]] now known as Figwit was named by fans, and even got a fandom nod in the form of a single line in the movie. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Many fans forget what is canon and what is fanon. Much [[Serious Business|internet rage]] can be had from a show, new book installment, comic update, or other things shattering or contradicting fanon. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | Sequels usually outdate fanon by exploring elements the fanon previously covered. |
||
| + | [[File:Ember_Island_Players.jpg|thumb|300px|The Ember Island Players cast Toph the powerful earth-bender as a hulking giant, but she's actually a tiny blind girl. (Toph thinks this portrayal of herself is awesome.)]] |
||
| + | The relationship between canon and fanon is a variable thing. In older or more complete canons, such as ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', fanon is less acceptable than in younger or still-in-progress canons. In some cases of the canon being really stupid or terrible (sometimes due to a series jumping the shark, a change in writing staff, the introduction of a brand new [[canon Sue]], or other shenanigans), fanon can be said to be ''better'' than canon, or "more canon than the new canon." |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Some creators of canon like to play with their fandom and make fun of established fanon by overturning it or satirizing it. [[Joss Whedon]] is famous for this, as well as the episode of ''[[Avatar: The Last Airbender]]'' "The Ember Island Players." When creators give a "sure, why not" to bad fanon and make it canon, much drama is had. |
||
| − | In older, or more complete canons, fanon is less acceptable than younger or still-in-progress canons. Fanon of Lord of the Rings is far less acceptable than fanon of a still-airing TV show or a book series still incomplete. |
||
| ⚫ | Sometimes, fans forget what is canon and what is fanon, which can lead to [[Serious Business|Internet rage]] when the two come into conflict. Particularly in still-developing canons, new movie, episode, book, game, or other releases regularly outdate fanon. A mature fan can deal with their particular fanon or interpretation being outdated and may even continue to write their own fanon for their existing audience. Indeed, they may even tweak their fanon to [[Canon Love|nod at the new canon and respect it]]. An immature fan, on the other hand, may re-write [[Rose Potter|whole books]], seasons of shows, or movies to make their now-debunked fanon the star of the show. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | It can be said that expanded universe writers create fanon—especially when the creation of the work was not heavily overseen by the creators of the canon. These ascended fanwriters may make up their own "canon" and, because it's released under the franchise, it really ''does'' become canon, despite it being created by a fan and not the creators of the continuum. |
||
| − | In some cases of the canon being really stupid or terrible (sometimes due to a series jumping the shark, a change in writing staff, or other shenanigans) there are times when some fanon can be said to be 'better' than canon, or 'more canon than the new canon'-- usually in the case of goodfic juxtaposed with a really terrible canon release or a brand-new [[Canon Sue]]. Unfortunately, it is the PPC's duty to protect ALL canon, even stupid canon, no matter the opinion of the agents in question. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | It can be said that |
||
| − | The canonical value of expanded universe writing varies from canon to canon: for [[World of Warcraft]], it's |
+ | The canonical value of expanded universe writing varies from canon to canon: for ''[[World of Warcraft]]'', it's released as supplemental "lore" and is almost entirely considered to be canonical (though WoW itself takes precedence if conflicts arise). Back before the ''[[Star Wars]]'' EU material was made the separate ''Legends'' canon, it had variable weight. On the opposite extreme from WoW, all of the ''[[Star Trek]]'' EU is considered non-canon—the only things that're canon are the shows and movies. |
| + | == Fanon and the PPC == |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | As it supports all good writing, the PPC supports good fanon. Who doesn't want to fill in the gaps and expand on tantalizing yet unexplored tidbits in their favorite canon, or explore an interesting "what if?" scenario, or imagine a world where that one annoying shark-jumping thing never happened? As long as it's respectful and well-written, the PPC is all for it. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | Bad and stupid fanon, on the other hand, will be mocked without mercy. The PPC does ''not'' support claiming to be a fan of something while ignoring or mangling the components that make it up, especially while failing to respect it enough to so much as spell-check the story you wrote about it before putting it out in public. The PPC also does not approve of the arrogance of some fans who think they know better than the canon's author and preface their fixfic with things like "J. K. Rowling got it WRONG!" or "George Lucas is an ''idiot!''" |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | However, it is not acceptable to charge for fanon you simply disagree with on the basis that you prefer some other fanon, and frothing at the mouth over obscure little details that most people won't know about is just silly. Also, outdated fanon written before the new canon was released (such as PotC fics written before the second and third movies were even announced) should not be made fun of unless it's really very stupid. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | *[[Fandom]] |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | |||
| + | * [[Alternate Universe]] |
||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
[[Category:Terminology]] |
[[Category:Terminology]] |
||
[[Category:Charges]] |
[[Category:Charges]] |
||
Revision as of 10:34, 9 February 2020
Fanon is a portmanteau of "fan" and "canon." It refers to fan-generated ideas about fictional world that are held to be as good as (or better than!) canon by a fan or group of fans, or even the majority of a fandom. This can be good, bad, or so inconsequential as to be neither.
Although the PPC supports canon and reviles bad fanon, those who have a hatred for logical, interesting, or minor fanon theories should really just relax.
The Good, the Bad, and the "Who Cares?"
Good Fanon
Sometimes, the canon leaves things unexplained, or only hints at certain events or outcomes. When this happens, fanon can fill in the gaps where canon leaves off, and if logic and respect for canon are used, this fanon can meld seamlessly into the canon and coexist happily. A trademark of good fanon is that it is always supported by clues and precedents in the real canon, and is simply elaboration or expansion. It is not trivial or dumb, but thoughtful and clever. It never replaces canonical elements, but unites or interprets them to infer other story elements unmentioned in canon.
Good fanon can appear as one author's interpretation of events, which the author may re-use for many stories. This fanon may be adopted by the author's own fans. If multiple interpretations of canon are possible, there may be several good fanon theories coexisting in the fandom. Rarely, the majority of a fandom may settle on a common piece of good fanon that expands on or explains away a vagueness or plothole in the source material.
Good fanon is usually marked as non-canon, especially when it's one author's personal fanon and they are writing goodfic. Often it's written for a small audience and can be thought of as an elaborate and intriguing AU.
Bad Fanon
Many people would prefer to think of Snape as an appealing guy, and thus you have a whole legion of fans who automatically assume he is like this. Art by Arabel.
Bad fanon does not fill gaps in canon. It doesn't explain or elaborate meaningfully upon the source material, and it is almost never supported by in-canon clues or hints. At best, it merely adds tidbits that are stupid, but at worst it supplants the real canon, causing canon damage as it spreads. Bad fanon is purely memetic, never marked, and the source of much badfic.
Bad fanon typically arises one of two ways:
- From misconceptions or confusion, coupled with ignorance, about the canon.
- Confusion about what is canon may result when a continuum has different adaptations, especially when lots of fans have seen one version, but not the other, and assume elements from the adaptation(s) apply to the original.
- Misconceptions turn into bad fanon when they spread around until people who don't know much about the fandom just assume that they're canon. Examples of common fanon misconceptions are that Azula's awkwardness in dealing with boys makes her a lesbian, Thranduil is abusive, and Elves are immune to the cold.
- From a desire to bring about a non-canon story outcome and "but I like it better this way" reasoning.
Shipping wars can be said to be conflicts between different groups' fanons, and sometimes really terrible examples of bad fanon crop up when people write fanfic using the fanon created in someone else's fanfiction. This may be because bad fanon contains "easy" plot ideas that a lazy or unimaginative writer can steal, avoiding plagiarism only by citing that "everybody in fandom has this idea!"
Inconsequential Fanon
Creators leave things out, and the things people make up to fill in the blanks sometimes are so minor that they are neither good or bad. For example, some names in canon are never said, or ages are never elaborated on, or an exact height or body type is never given. Often there are fan standards for these details to prevent confusion.
Some fanon details may become canon, thanks to their harmless nature. For example, Captain Barbossa's first name was made "Hector" in fanon due to comments in a DVD extra—and later he was actually named Hector in subsequent movies. A background elf in the LotR movieverse now known as Figwit was named by fans, and even got a fandom nod in the form of a single line in the movie.
Fanon and Canon
The Ember Island Players cast Toph the powerful earth-bender as a hulking giant, but she's actually a tiny blind girl. (Toph thinks this portrayal of herself is awesome.)
The relationship between canon and fanon is a variable thing. In older or more complete canons, such as The Lord of the Rings, fanon is less acceptable than in younger or still-in-progress canons. In some cases of the canon being really stupid or terrible (sometimes due to a series jumping the shark, a change in writing staff, the introduction of a brand new canon Sue, or other shenanigans), fanon can be said to be better than canon, or "more canon than the new canon."
Some creators of canon like to play with their fandom and make fun of established fanon by overturning it or satirizing it. Joss Whedon is famous for this, as well as the episode of Avatar: The Last Airbender "The Ember Island Players." When creators give a "sure, why not" to bad fanon and make it canon, much drama is had.
Sometimes, fans forget what is canon and what is fanon, which can lead to Internet rage when the two come into conflict. Particularly in still-developing canons, new movie, episode, book, game, or other releases regularly outdate fanon. A mature fan can deal with their particular fanon or interpretation being outdated and may even continue to write their own fanon for their existing audience. Indeed, they may even tweak their fanon to nod at the new canon and respect it. An immature fan, on the other hand, may re-write whole books, seasons of shows, or movies to make their now-debunked fanon the star of the show.
Expanded Universe Material
It can be said that expanded universe writers create fanon—especially when the creation of the work was not heavily overseen by the creators of the canon. These ascended fanwriters may make up their own "canon" and, because it's released under the franchise, it really does become canon, despite it being created by a fan and not the creators of the continuum.
The canonical value of expanded universe writing varies from canon to canon: for World of Warcraft, it's released as supplemental "lore" and is almost entirely considered to be canonical (though WoW itself takes precedence if conflicts arise). Back before the Star Wars EU material was made the separate Legends canon, it had variable weight. On the opposite extreme from WoW, all of the Star Trek EU is considered non-canon—the only things that're canon are the shows and movies.
Fanon and the PPC
As it supports all good writing, the PPC supports good fanon. Who doesn't want to fill in the gaps and expand on tantalizing yet unexplored tidbits in their favorite canon, or explore an interesting "what if?" scenario, or imagine a world where that one annoying shark-jumping thing never happened? As long as it's respectful and well-written, the PPC is all for it.
Bad and stupid fanon, on the other hand, will be mocked without mercy. The PPC does not support claiming to be a fan of something while ignoring or mangling the components that make it up, especially while failing to respect it enough to so much as spell-check the story you wrote about it before putting it out in public. The PPC also does not approve of the arrogance of some fans who think they know better than the canon's author and preface their fixfic with things like "J. K. Rowling got it WRONG!" or "George Lucas is an idiot!"
However, it is not acceptable to charge for fanon you simply disagree with on the basis that you prefer some other fanon, and frothing at the mouth over obscure little details that most people won't know about is just silly. Also, outdated fanon written before the new canon was released (such as PotC fics written before the second and third movies were even announced) should not be made fun of unless it's really very stupid.
Knowledge of minor fanon and expanded universe material is useful for agents, because it is important to know if an uncanon name or minor factoid adheres to popular fanon, if it is ascended fanon and can be considered canon, or if it is just junk made up by the fic's author.