General "Canon/Filler" Debate/Discussion

[Anime Kitten]

My unofficial canon is what I mean.

[rereboy]

- Canon is simply what the author (or the official people) says it's canon. Even if it has some problems or inconsistencies, if they decide and declare that it's canon, it's canon.

- Everything that the author does is not automatically canon because the author (or the official people) are free to do stuff that isn't canon (even if there's no inconsistencies), and only the author (or the official people) can declare what is canon and what isn't.

- Fans saying what is canon or what isn't are merely guessing what should be considered canon and what shouldn't by the author (or the official people). Fans have no validity to decide and declare what is and what isn't canon.

- The notion of personal canon makes sense because the very notion is already telling us that it's not the official canon, it's only a personal preference for what the canon should be. There's no actual problems with that because there's no claim of official validity.

- Regarding Dragon Ball, neither the author or the official people have ever actually stated what is canon and what isn't, so all we have are fan guesses. Some of those guesses are pretty much 100% certain, like the manga being canon, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that only the author (or the official people) can declare what is and what isn't canon.

[Anime Kitten]

Thank you, that's basically what I was implying when I said unofficial.

[ABED]

- Everything that the author does is not automatically canon because the author (or the official people) are free to do stuff that isn't canon (even if there's no inconsistencies), and only the author (or the official people) can declare what is canon and what isn't.

Yes, they can do alternate universe stories, but that's understood to not be in continuity.

[Zephyr]

Yes there is. When Toriyama writes the story, that's canon. You don't need him or his publisher to say "this is canon". It's understood.

Which ending that Toriyama wrote is canon?

And even that to the side, sure, the original manga is canon. I don't think anyone who cares about a serious discussion on this matter would attempt to sincerely argue that the Freeza arc or the Buu arc aren't canon.

When people are talking about head canon, they're generally talking about what counts in addition to the original core story. Nobody has declared what does and does not count in addition to the original core story. Until someone does, it's speculation and head canon. If "everything Toriyama wrote in addition to the original core story is canon" is someone's take on this, well, since that hasn't been explicitly outlined by the rights holders (and Toriyama "wrote" multiple irreconcilable versions of the same stories), then that's just as much that person's head canon as "nothing but the original core story is canon" might be someone else's.

[ABED]

I don't know but that single issue doesn't invalidate Dragon Ball having a canon.

Nobody has declared what does and does not count in addition to the original core story.

And in that case, the only thing that would be canon is the manga. I would also argue that the anime, like any adaptation has its own canon.

Head canon is a ridiculous term.

[Anime Kitten]

The official canon is whatever Toriyama or Toei says, and unofficial canon is what fans think could or should be.

Is it really that difficult? No offense, but it seems pretty simple to me.

[ABED]

The official canon is whatever Toriyama or Toei says, and unofficial canon is what fans think could or should be.

Is it really that difficult? No offense, but it seems pretty simple to me.

Canon is by its nature what some official body says it is. Official canon is redundantly redundant.

[Zephyr]

I don't know but that single issue doesn't invalidate Dragon Ball having a canon.

It also doesn't render the answer to "what is canon?" as simple and at-face-value-understood as "whatever Toriyama wrote". Other details such as Gohan's initial age and the specific Androids Trunks warns about are different between the original run and later releases of the manga. Which is canon?

Head canon is a ridiculous term.

I'm still not seeing how.

Official canon is redundantly redundant.

Making "canon" and "official" logically equivalent? Hereos, Fusions, Xenoverse, and Attack of the Saiyans are canon now?

[Cetra]

- Canon is simply what the author (or the official people) says it's canon. Even if it has some problems or inconsistencies, if they decide and declare that it's canon, it's canon.

- Everything that the author does is not automatically canon because the author (or the official people) are free to do stuff that isn't canon (even if there's no inconsistencies), and only the author (or the official people) can declare what is canon and what isn't.

- Fans saying what is canon or what isn't are merely guessing what should be considered canon and what shouldn't by the author (or the official people). Fans have no validity to decide and declare what is and what isn't canon.

- The notion of personal canon makes sense because the very notion is already telling us that it's not the official canon, it's only a personal preference for what the canon should be. There's no actual problems with that because there's no claim of official validity.

- Regarding Dragon Ball, neither the author or the official people have ever actually stated what is canon and what isn't, so all we have are fan guesses. Some of those guesses are pretty much 100% certain, like the manga being canon, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that only the author (or the official people) can declare what is and what isn't canon.

I think I have never agreed as much with you as I do now.

[Anime Kitten]

Making "canon" and "official" logically equivalent? Hereos, Fusions, Xenoverse, and Attack of the Saiyans are canon now?

...

[ABED]

It also doesn't render the answer to "what is canon?" as simple and at-face-value-understood as "whatever Toriyama wrote". Other details such as Gohan's initial age and the specific Androids Trunks warns about are different between the original run and later releases of the manga. Which is canon?

Inconsistencies was mentioned. That doesn't invalidate the whole concept simply because a writer is sloppy or forgetful.

I'm still not seeing how.

Because it literally makes no sense. Canon is by definition what an official body says happened. How does that mesh with a fan deciding how events play out? Fans are more than welcome to prefer how a story plays out, but it's not canon, so call it something different than "head canon".

Making "canon" and "official" equivalent...

Every elephant is grey, but not every grey thing is an elephant. For something to be canon, it has to be official, but not every official release is canon.

[Sandubadear]

The official canon is whatever Toriyama or Toei says

And they never said what is the canon, and probably never will because Japanese people don't care about canon. I like what Ozotto did last page, just separating everything by continuities.

[Zephyr]

Inconsistencies was mentioned. That doesn't invalidate the whole concept simply because a writer is sloppy or forgetful.

Are there multiple canon versions of the same event?

Canon is by definition what an official body says happened.

And head canon is what you, as an individual fan, would be the most happy to hypothetically see the official body saying happened. This is absurdly simple.

Every elephant is grey, but not every grey thing is an elephant. For something to be canon, it has to be official, but not every official release is canon.

If two terms are not logically equivalent, then their being paired together is not redundant.

Would the term "ideal hypothetical-scenario canon" make more sense to you?

[ABED]

If two terms are not logically equivalent, then their being paired together is not redundant.

Maybe redundant isn't the right word, but if the definition subsumes the adjective, superfluous might be a better term.

Are there multiple canon versions of the same event?

I would argue that adaptations have their own canon. So, maybe?

Would the term "ideal hypothetical-scenario canon" make more sense to you?

That seems long winded and there's still no reason to confuse the issue by calling it canon.

[Zephyr]

Maybe redundant isn't the right word, but if the definition subsumes the adjective, superfluous might be a better term.

I don't see how it's superfluous either. Just because you seem to personally have an axe to grind against the concept doesn't mean that adding a prefix in order to clarify the distinction between "what is" and "what I wish was" isn't necessary for the purposes of discussing "what I wish was".

That seems long winded and there's still no reason to confuse the issue by calling it canon.

How is that confusing the issue? It's not being called "canon". It's being called "head canon". There are two distinct terms there. It's literally "what I wish was canon". If you take out the word "canon", then it gets confusing, because it would be utterly unknown what it is that you're discussing your ideal preferred version of.

[ABED]

How is that confusing the issue? It's not being called "canon". It's being called "head canon". There are two distinct terms there. It's literally "what I wish was canon". If you take out the word "canon", then it gets confusing, because it would be utterly unknown what it is that you're discussing your ideal preferred version of.

It's your version of what you think the story should include. It has nothing to do with canon. It's not canon, it's more continuity.

I don't see how it's superfluous either. Just because you seem to personally have an axe to grind against the concept doesn't mean that adding a prefix in order to clarify the distinction between "what is" and "what I wish was" isn't necessary for the purposes of discussing "what I wish was".

It is superfluous. If the definition already includes the adjective in some way, then it isn't clarifying, it's not neccessary. If I have an axe to grind, it's people trying to put two unlike things together. Is head canon that much easier to say than "what I wish was"?

[Zephyr]

It's your version of what you think the story should include.

Yes, it's your version of what you think should be canon to the story. Hence, head canon.

Is head canon that much easier to say than "what I wish was"?

It's already the term to describe the concept. It already has a colloquial foothold within the fandom. Head canon is the term, "what I wish was canon" is the definition. Of course the term is easier to say in every day conversation than inserting the definition.

[Anime Kitten]

Head canon is the term, "what I wish was canon" is the definition.

I wasn't quite sure what head canon meant. So thanks for that.

[MetaMoss]

Head canon is the term, "what I wish was canon" is the definition.

I wasn't quite sure what head canon meant. So thanks for that.

And if we want to feel official about it, there's an entry for it on Wiktionary. The "real" dictionaries don't seem to have it yet, but it's well defined and has had a few years of use.