Should Kai be considered as canon

[VegettoEX]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, canon refers to what happens in the story as opposed to things like fanfiction. In that case, Toriyama's story is canon. What would it mean to say there's no canon?

A "canon" is an agreed-upon set of truths. It can either be:

- mandated by some higher authority (such as the Catholic Church for the Bible, or Disney for Star Wars), and/or
- agreed upon by groups and individuals that did not actually create it (for example, literary scholars on the tales of Sherlock Holmes)

With Dragon Ball, no higher authority has ever laid out exactly what is considered canonical. There are half-statements made by certain people (Toriyama's "side-story" GT statement, Toriyama's "dimension" movie statement, and the Battle of Gods press release referring to it as part of the "official history")... but that's it. No outline. No clear declarations. Nothing.

So then it's left up to fans, who generally don't understand the concepts of a canon the first place, and then also generally don't actually understand the production behind all the various works they're trying to define or exclude from canonicity.

These days, we're basically left with "maybe we can agree that the original manga as written by Akira Toriyama in the pages of Weekly Shonen Jump between 1984-1995 could possibly be considered this base level of canonicity"...

.............. and then beyond that, it's a fustercluck.

[Zephyr]

1. Beerus wakes up
2. Goes around doing what he does in Super
3. After a bath (another one), he talks with Whis about Freeza and is told of the SSJ God.
4. BoG happens.

That still doesn't account for:

A: Beerus appearing to be remembering Super Saiyan God for the first time upon waking up in Battle of Gods, while remembering it for the first time out in space in Super.

B: Super officially taking place 6 months after Buu, and Battle of Gods officially taking place 4 years after Buu.

[ABED]

A "canon" is an agreed-upon set of truths.

Difference here is that DB is a story written by one guy. Yes, there are adaptations, but DB is written by one man, so it's not like the Bible where it's a bunch of different stories written by different writers where some body has to agree what goes in. In cases like that, I think it's safe to say that the story by the original writer is automatically canon. Anything else has to be stated explicitly.

I don't know what it would mean for the original story to not be canon.

[VegettoEX]

A "canon" is an agreed-upon set of truths.

Difference here is that DB is a story written by one guy. Yes, there are adaptations, but DB is written by one man, so it's not like the Bible where it's a bunch of different stories written by different writers where some body has to agree what goes in. In cases like that, I think it's safe to say that the story by the original writer is automatically canon. Anything else has to be stated explicitly.

I don't know what it would mean for the original story to not be canon.

You're already starting to operate outside of this "the manga as written by the author" and that's where the holes come in.

What about the kanzenban's new ending? It's the manga as written by the author. But it replaces the old version. Except that it doesn't replace the old version, because the old version is still sold alongside it. So what's the "real" ending? What's the "canonical" ending to the story?

What about new information from Q&As and interviews with Toriyama? Is it automatically canonical? Is it only canonical if it doesn't contradict something that came in the manga? What about information that contradictions previous information in Q&As (the origin of the Kaioshin)? What's "real" information? What should be considered "canonical" information in relation to the manga?

I have endless rhetorical questions that I can go with if you want to take it further, but I'd rather just save it for the giant website feature that can never be finished because they keep making up new stories and then they keep overwriting those same new stories.

The questions never end, which is why I say the conversation has become a fruitless one until the day someone (Toriyama or otherwise) actually outlines the canon from their official standpoint.

[ABED]

I understand the rhetorical questions, and they're all good points, but I mean this in all earnestness, I don't understand what it means that a story isn't canon to itself. Granted that may simply be because I don't truly understand the concept.

[visser]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but as I recall, canon refers to what happens in the story as opposed to things like fanfiction. In that case, Toriyama's story is canon. What would it mean to say there's no canon?

A "canon" is an agreed-upon set of truths. It can either be:

- mandated by some higher authority (such as the Catholic Church for the Bible, or Disney for Star Wars), and/or
- agreed upon by groups and individuals that did not actually create it (for example, literary scholars on the tales of Sherlock Holmes)

With Dragon Ball, no higher authority has ever laid out exactly what is considered canonical. There are half-statements made by certain people (Toriyama's "side-story" GT statement, Toriyama's "dimension" movie statement, and the Battle of Gods press release referring to it as part of the "official history")... but that's it. No outline. No clear declarations. Nothing.

So then it's left up to fans, who generally don't understand the concepts of a canon the first place, and then also generally don't actually understand the production behind all the various works they're trying to define or exclude from canonicity.

These days, we're basically left with "maybe we can agree that the original manga as written by Akira Toriyama in the pages of Weekly Shonen Jump between 1984-1995 could possibly be considered this base level of canonicity"...

.............. and then beyond that, it's a fustercluck.

Many dictionaries, including the Oxford dictionary list -"The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine" as a definition for canon, now i know a canon usually has to be decided by some kind of governing body, but if the manga isn't canon by definition, then Toriyama has no authentic work, so the manga at least has to be canon, even if we don't have a decided on canon.

[dbgtFO]

Many dictionaries, including the Oxford dictionary list -"The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine" as a definition for canon, now i know a canon usually has to be decided by some kind of governing body, but if the manga isn't canon by definition, then Toriyama has no authentic work, so the manga at least has to be canon, even if we don't have a decided on canon.

That definition is just used to determine, which of his Works are actually confirmed to be made by him, so a Toriyama canon:

All the comics published in Shueisha's various magazines, tankobons, kanzenbans etc.

When people talk about canon, they want to find out, which story/ies is/are the true story/ies in any given franchise.

[visser]

When people talk about canon, they want to find out, which story/ies is/are the true story/ies in any given franchise.

You are saying people talk about a canon, we don't have a decided upon canon for DBZ, but i am saying the manga has to be considered canon as it has to be an authentic work of the author, thus canon by definition. We don't know what work is part of the canon along with the manga though.

[fadeddreams5]

I'll bite...

It all started with the manga, right? And each volume is canon within that story, correct? We can all agree that the 42 volumes make up the story of Dragon Ball. Then, the manga ended. This is canon. This is the source material. When we argue over canonicity, we are arguing over what officially follows the events of this story--the manga! And no, not Kanzenban.

Unfortunately, a lot of official material follow the original story. However, everything that has occurred after or during the manga is ultimately not a part of it, even if it follows its continuity. That includes the anime adaptations, movies, video games, specials, GT, and Super. Until an official canon is released, all of these things are side or standalone stories. And NO, I don't mean through a Toriyama interview; he is not the only one who calls the shots in this topic. Shueisha Inc. or Toei or whomever need to verify and coordinate with him because GT is, like it or not, official.

Speaking of which... the interviews. I'm baffled people take Toriyama's words to heart. If Stan Lee claimed Spider-Man actually obtained his powers because he got bit in the dick by a snake before the spider got him, his words would just be that... words. Officially, in the comic, we see the contrary, and the script confirms it. Toriyama just uttered ideas--that is all. However, if the manga contradicts him, he's wrong. Plain and simple. I don't care if he's the original author. If I'm reading a story, and it says such and such, then the story I have read says such and such. No ifs, ends, or buts. I'm not going to go online and be told otherwise when the comic I have in front of me (i.e. the source material) says the contrary.

But that's just me.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

It all started with the manga, right? And each volume is canon within that story, correct? We can all agree that the 42 volumes make up the story of Dragon Ball. Then, the manga ended. This is canon. This is the source material. When we argue over canonicity, we are arguing over what officially follows the events of this story--the manga! And no, not Kanzenban.

Actually, going by that logic, it's not the 42 Tankōbon volumes that would be canon, but the chapters released in Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995, since there were made changes (for example, in the WSJ issue, Gohan was originally 3 years-old, while in the Tankōbon version, it was changed to 4 years-old).

[fadeddreams5]

It all started with the manga, right? And each volume is canon within that story, correct? We can all agree that the 42 volumes make up the story of Dragon Ball. Then, the manga ended. This is canon. This is the source material. When we argue over canonicity, we are arguing over what officially follows the events of this story--the manga! And no, not Kanzenban.

Actually, going by that logic, it's not the 42 Tankōbon volumes that would be canon, but the chapters released in Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995, since there were made changes (for example, in the WSJ issue, Gohan was originally 3 years-old, while in the Tankōbon version, it was changed to 4 years-old).

Honestly, I was unaware there were changes made in the story between the two. Did Toriyama administer these changes? How many were there? Were they all that subtle?

I don't know enough about this to say anything, but I assume the slight changes did not really compromise or radically alter anything. The tankobon volumes are meant to be compilations of the WSJ pages, released hand in hand. It's all part of the same thing, as far as I'm concerned, but considering how rushed WSJ chapters are, I'd use the tankobon version in any argument.

[DBZGTKOSDH]

Honestly, I was unaware there were changes made in the story between the two. Did Toriyama administer these changes? How many were there? Were they all that subtle?

Other than Gohan's age, General White is called General Silver in chapters 63 & 64, Videl is called Devil in chapter 425, and there are other typos here & there. Nothing big, from what I know.

And yes, I believe Toriyama made these changes.

[Herms]

People need to keep in mind that the fandom use of "canon" is relatively recent (it was invented out of whole clothe by Sherlock Holmes fans in the early 20th century), and has fairly little connection to earlier uses of the word "canon" in a religious sense of when referring to an artist's body of work. Shakespeake's works form the Shakespearean "canon" in the traditional literary sense, but they don't form a single fictional universe (ie Hamlet isn't particularly supposed to be set in the same world as Macbeth). And the music of Mozart or Bach forms their canon, but again that obviously has hardly any connection to the fandom sense of the word. On the flip side, the various DBZ movies penned by Takao Koyama would definitely count as the Koyama canon under the traditional use of the term, but probably not under the fandom use.

The religious use of the term is another red herring. Books are included or excluded from the Bible based on whether or not they are considered divinely inspired, and so different versions of the Bible contain different books due to different opinions on what is or isn't inspired. Nobody actually considers anything in DB divinely inspired, so obviously nothing in DB counts as part of any "canon" in the religious sense. But the religious sense is actually where the modern fandom sense originated from, since the Holmes fans picked the term as a joke specifically because of its religious connotations. Picture someone describing the DB manga as "Holy Writ", "Scriptures", etc, and you'll get the tongue-in-cheek sense that was originally intended when people started applying the term "canon" to explicitly fictional stories like Sherlock Holmes.

I understand the rhetorical questions, and they're all good points, but I mean this in all earnestness, I don't understand what it means that a story isn't canon to itself. Granted that may simply be because I don't truly understand the concept.

Any story with an unreliable narrator would probably fit the bill. Beyond that, the modern fandom use of "canon" is pretty much exclusive to, well, modern fandoms, so it doesn't really come into play for anything that hasn't acquired a "writing fanfiction and debating continuity on message boards"-type fandom for itself. It might be technically accurate to say that (for instance) All Quiet on the Western Front is canon to itself under the fandom use of the term, but it also seems a bit pointless to categorize it that way.

[Deathbringer]

If Toriyama went out of his way to change a story detail for the collected versions of his works (changed Vegeta ending for example) then isn't it pretty obvious that that's what he wants people to see as "what actually happened", although the Vegeta ending always felt like an added extra detail, like an after credits scene.

J.K Rowling says stuff all the time about her Harry Potter world and it's immediately accepted as canon, for example she said that Dumbledore was gay, there wasn't anything in the books that proved this, but at the same time there wasn't anything in the books that disproves it so it was accepted as canon because it's non-contradictory to the existing story.

Toriyama has said things like the old Kai was trapped in the Z sword because of Beerus, and that Kuririn is the strongest human, I don't think that statements like these are completely outlandish because they don't interfere with important established story elements.

Seriously if people just accepted Manga+Non-contradictory filler+Super as canon then it would make our lives easier, it seems that people are all just sitting and waiting for the day when they hope for Toriyama to announce the "official canon", even though the same people seem to be arguing that statements from Toriyama do not affect canon...isn't the entire manga one big statement from Toriyama though?

As I mentioned earlier, having a canon is a good thing because then it lets people be creative with the series outside of the established canon and come up with whatever they want without having to make it work around Toriyama's story.

Arguing if Kai is canon or not is like arguing if the dragon boxes are more canon than the orange bricks, or if a guy on the street corner describing the events of the Namek arc is more canon than your friend from school excitedly telling you the plot of last night's DBZ episode that you missed, it's the same story from a different source.

[Kamiccolo9]

If Toriyama went out of his way to change a story detail for the collected versions of his works (changed Vegeta ending for example) then isn't it pretty obvious that that's what he wants people to see as "what actually happened", although the Vegeta ending always felt like an added extra detail, like an after credits scene.

J.K Rowling says stuff all the time about her Harry Potter world and it's immediately accepted as canon, for example she said that Dumbledore was gay, there wasn't anything in the books that proved this, but at the same time there wasn't anything in the books that disproves it so it was accepted as canon because it's non-contradictory to the existing story.

Toriyama has said things like the old Kai was trapped in the Z sword because of Beerus, and that Kuririn is the strongest human, I don't think that statements like these are completely outlandish because they don't interfere with important established story elements.

Seriously if people just accepted Manga+Non-contradictory filler+Super as canon then it would make our lives easier, it seems that people are all just sitting and waiting for the day when they hope for Toriyama to announce the "official canon", even though the same people seem to be arguing that statements from Toriyama do not affect canon...isn't the entire manga one big statement from Toriyama though?

As I mentioned earlier, having a canon is a good thing because then it lets people be creative with the series outside of the established canon and come up with whatever they want without having to make it work around Toriyama's story.

Arguing if Kai is canon or not is like arguing if the dragon boxes are more canon than the orange bricks, or if a guy on the street corner describing the events of the Namek arc is more canon than your friend from school excitedly telling you the plot of last night's DBZ episode that you missed, it's the same story from a different source.

But then you have the whole concept of "Death of the Author," which, I admit, until fairly recently I didn't put much stock in, but the more I study, and the more I learn, it makes more and more sense. Essentially, the author's intentions and whatever is said after the fact are irrelevant, and only the work itself matters.

[Deathbringer]

But then you have the whole concept of "Death of the Author," which, I admit, until fairly recently I didn't put much stock in, but the more I study, and the more I learn, it makes more and more sense. Essentially, the author's intentions and whatever is said after the fact are irrelevant, and only the work itself matters.

I read up on that one as well once, that depends on what someone wants to believe of course, as I say earlier the manga is the core element of the whole series (and even that goes through giant contrasting changes and has inconsistencies throughout) and the death of the author idea can be used to just say that nothing else in the series actually counts as Dragon Ball because Dragon Ball will always be a manga series that ended years ago.

However that doesn't really work for something that has become a franchise, in some cases death of the author is just used as an argument to fall back on as a way to feel at peace with a crappy sequel. With death of the author I can say "George Lucas lost his way, Star Wars for me begins and ends in the original trilogy", however even if I said that it wouldn't take away the fact that the proper canon of Star Wars involves the prequels and I have no control over it.

I'm fine with people who want to accept the manga as being the entirety of the Dragon Ball canon, it actually makes perfect sense in most regards, but if Toriyama wants to expand on his story, even going out of his way to place it between two points of the story, then that's just it at the end of the day it's his story and he is adding to it, the hard truth is that it doesn't matter if there are people that don't want to see Super as "canon", it is canon whether they like it or not.



Yeah just realised I didn't mention Kai at all in this post, it seems like every thread with the word canon in its title turns into a canon debate after a while, I've said all I have to say on Kai anyway.

[Kamiccolo9]

But then you have the whole concept of "Death of the Author," which, I admit, until fairly recently I didn't put much stock in, but the more I study, and the more I learn, it makes more and more sense. Essentially, the author's intentions and whatever is said after the fact are irrelevant, and only the work itself matters.

I read up on that one as well once, that depends on what someone wants to believe of course, as I say earlier the manga is the core element of the whole series (and even that goes through giant contrasting changes and has inconsistencies throughout) and the death of the author idea can be used to just say that nothing else in the series actually counts as Dragon Ball because Dragon Ball will always be a manga series that ended years ago.

However that doesn't really work for something that has become a franchise, in some cases death of the author is just used as an argument to fall back on as a way to feel at peace with a crappy sequel. With death of the author I can say "George Lucas lost his way, Star Wars for me begins and ends in the original trilogy", however even if I said that it wouldn't take away the fact that the proper canon of Star Wars involves the prequels and I have no control over it.

Well, I'd argue that there is an inherent difference between actual new content being added, and stuff being said via interviews outside the franchise. If Toriyama wants to make new content for the franchise, that should hold more weight than offhand comments that aren't actually included and contradict established material.

[Deathbringer]

I bet he's even forgotten some of the stuff he said in interviews, but I would say they can be used as a small point of reference, in fact they probably could be taken as fact if they aren't contradicting anything major, even if they mostly seem to be off-hand comments he may or may not have made up on the spot.