Canon fiction

I'm glad someone explained that out, that 'canon' fiction is stuff that fits in with the characters et al as they appeared in the series, (right?) I set up an email on my fiction at the SHADO library and somebody called my stuff 'canonical', so I wasn't sure how to take that. I do agree though that it's a bit misleading, and 'based on canon' is a bit better. Though maybe we need a new term to make the distinction?

Jessica


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"J Ramage" wrote:
> I do agree though that it's a bit misleading, and 'based on
> canon' is a bit better. Though maybe we need a new term to make
> the distinction?
>

'pseudo-canon' seems to work quite well .. :)

--- In [hidden email], "J Ramage" <moonbase804@h...> wrote:
> I'm glad someone explained that out, that 'canon' fiction is stuff
> that fits in with the characters et al as they appeared in the
> series, ...

I thought that in a fiction scenario, canon stories were those
stories that could be treated as authoritative as sources of
information about the scenario and its characters and equipment etc.
In the case of the UFO series, the canon is the 26 movie/TV episodes
and not fan-fiction. I suppose fan-fiction could be divided into:-
- Stories that follow canon absolutely.
- Stories that add non-canon characters and vehicles etc.
- Stories that clash with canon.
- In the previous classifications:-
- - Matter interpolated between the canon episodes.
- - Sequels.
- - Prequels.

That was happening long before SF was heard of. In India in old
times, people wrote large amounts of matter in the Ramayana and
Mahabharata scenarios, including what would now be called fan-
fiction, and sometimes people confuse it with canon. An example is
when the BBC (UK TV and radio) ran the Ramayana and to the canon
matter written by Valmiki they added an unsuitable old fan-fiction
sequel about a judicial separation between Rama and Sita.

The term 'canonical' originally referred to the Bible, and later was coined for
Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I rather doubt that the term will disappear
any time soon.

TAE

On 19 Mar 2003 at 16:15, J Ramage wrote:

> I'm glad someone explained that out, that 'canon' fiction is stuff that fits in with the characters et al as they appeared in the series, (right?) I set up an email on my fiction at the SHADO library and somebody called my stuff 'canonical', so I wasn't sure how to take that. I do agree
though that it's a bit misleading, and 'based on canon' is a bit better. Though maybe we need a new term to make the distinction?

[hidden email] wrote:
> The term 'canonical' originally referred to the Bible, and later
> was coined for Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I rather doubt that
> the term will disappear any time soon.
>

Indeed, but no-one is suggesting that it should not continue to be
used in its proper sense. The suggestion is that a new term should
be coined for the meaning for which it has been misused.

James Gibbon wrote: > Indeed, but no-one is suggesting that it should not
continue to be
> used in its proper sense. The suggestion is that a new term should
> be coined for the meaning for which it has been misused.

The term 'canon' does have it's uses. [boring example] when I worked as a
guide in London we used to refer to the 'canonical' murders of Jack the
Ripper, which gave a good distinction between those killings simply
attributed to him and to those more or less proved to be his, (Polly
Nicholls, Annie Chapman etc..]

But the point is that the term or even qualified versions of it like
'fiction following canon' just don't really apply to UFO fiction. I suppose
you're either traditional, in that you stick to the tone and themes of the
original series, [which can include crossovers at times] or you're
non-traditional. BAsically, whatever feels good!

Jess
----- Original Message -----
From: James Gibbon <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [SHADO] Canon fiction