Head Canon is DUMB
Moderators: General Help, Kanzenshuu Staff
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Head Canon is DUMB
I hate the term, it's dumb and it's lazy. What is so wrong about asking "what would you consider canon if you were in charge?" Is that so hard to write a complete sentence instead of using a confusing term that lumps together two opposing concepts. And in case someone's going to come in here and say "no one's confused", I say BULLSHIT! I've seen it on this very forum. It's because of things like this that people don't understand what is an otherwise straightforward concept. Head canon makes it seem like it's a type of canon.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
- Anime Kitten
- I Live Here
- Posts: 4271
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:53 pm
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Is "What I consider canon" not the very definition of "Headcanon"? And it is a type of canon: one's own when there isn't one that's been stated by the creators or owners.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
"Headcanon" or "personal canon" is an effective term in transmitting the concept of a subjective preference towards canon.
The words "head" or "personal" ensure the subjective nature that the term implies, and the word "canon" refers, obviously to the canon of the franchise.
Therefore, knowing all this, the term "headcanon" very easily, naturally and effectively transmits the concept of "what is my preference regarding canon, or what I would like to see as canon, or what would be canon if I had the power to establish the canon". In other words, it transmits the idea of a subjective preference towards canon, does it very well, and any confusion that a person might have towards the term dissipates quickly as the person gets familiarized with the term.
So, I disagree. It's not dumb. Especially with no better alternative terms.
Oh, and headcanon is a kind of canon... The canon that only exists as a wish or preference inside your head and not in the actual franchise. Even from that angle (that it seems to be a type of canon), the term has no real problems.
The words "head" or "personal" ensure the subjective nature that the term implies, and the word "canon" refers, obviously to the canon of the franchise.
Therefore, knowing all this, the term "headcanon" very easily, naturally and effectively transmits the concept of "what is my preference regarding canon, or what I would like to see as canon, or what would be canon if I had the power to establish the canon". In other words, it transmits the idea of a subjective preference towards canon, does it very well, and any confusion that a person might have towards the term dissipates quickly as the person gets familiarized with the term.
So, I disagree. It's not dumb. Especially with no better alternative terms.
Oh, and headcanon is a kind of canon... The canon that only exists as a wish or preference inside your head and not in the actual franchise. Even from that angle (that it seems to be a type of canon), the term has no real problems.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
This is what I'm talking about. It's not a type of canon because by definition, canon isn't anything to do with what you personally believe.Anime Kitten wrote:Is "What I consider canon" not the very definition of "Headcanon"? And it is a type of canon: one's own when there isn't one that's been stated by the creators or owners.
Just because there isn't a better term doesn't make it a good term, and that's what terms should be. They should convey the idea and be clear. This fails that test.So, I disagree. It's not dumb. Especially with no better alternative terms.
But canon isn't subjective at all. Head or Personal works as an adjective saying that it's some type of official pronouncement when that can't happen by the very nature of canon, just like cronyism isn't a feature of capitalism.The words "head" or "personal" ensure the subjective nature that the term implies, and the word "canon" refers, obviously to the canon of the franchise.
Last edited by ABED on Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
As I've explained in detail, it does.ABED wrote: They should convey the idea and be clear.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
So you think, but that doesn't make it so. Canon isn't subjective. Head/Personal Canon implies that it's a type of canon, but since they are opposing ideas, that can't be so.rereboy wrote:As I've explained in detail, it does.ABED wrote: They should convey the idea and be clear.
I question the very need for a term like the one you want.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
I didn't simply state that I think it does so it does, I've explained in detail why it does, going as far as to address each of the words that make up the term.ABED wrote:So you think, but that doesn't make it so.rereboy wrote:As I've explained in detail, it does.ABED wrote: They should convey the idea and be clear.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
You've addressed it, but not satisfactorily. You have addressed both words but don't understand that the two words don't go together. Head canon isn't a type of canon.
If there isn't one stated by the owners, there is none. I don't know why you don't understand that, nor why you seem to think there has to be one.And it is a type of canon: one's own when there isn't one that's been stated by the creators or owners.
Last edited by ABED on Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Which is why it's named "headcanon" and not "canon", aka it's not the same thing.ABED wrote: But canon isn't subjective at all.
"Head" or "personal" implies that it's an hypothetical, subjective take on the canon, our wish for the canon, existing on our heads and preferences only. The fact that it doesn't actually exist in the franchise, only in our preferences, is a given, and therefore there is no contradiction or inconsistency.Head or Personal works as an adjective saying that it's some type of official pronouncement when that can't happen by the very nature of canon, just like cronyism isn't a feature of capitalism.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Yes there still is a contradiction. There can not be any subjective type of canon. You can have a preference for what you wish it would be, but that isn't a type of canon, it's just your preference."Head" or "personal" implies that it's an hypothetical, subjective take on the canon, our wish for the canon, existing on our heads and preferences only. The fact that it doesn't actually exist in the franchise, only in our preferences, is a given, and therefore there is no contradiction or inconsistency.
No, but it says it's a type of canon.Which is why it's named "headcanon" and not "canon", aka it's not the same thing.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
I've addressed it fully, while your arguments consist of simply saying that it's "dumb" and "silly" and insisting that canon isn't subjective, like somehow "headcanon" meant the same thing as "canon" or had to mean the same thing as "canon".ABED wrote:You've addressed it, but not satisfactorily. You have addressed both words but don't understand that the two words don't go together. Head canon isn't a type of canon.
That's like arguing that "virtual reality" has to mean exactly the same thing as "reality" because reality is in here, or any other similar example.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
You addressing it doesn't make you correct. It simply means you've written about it. You aren't even correct about what I've written. I never said that headcanon is the same thing as canon, just that the term "headcanon" implies that it's a TYPE OF canon.rereboy wrote:I've addressed it fully, while your arguments consist of simply saying that it's "dumb" and "silly" and insisting that canon isn't subjective, like somehow "headcanon" meant the same thing as "canon" or had to mean the same thing as "canon".ABED wrote:You've addressed it, but not satisfactorily. You have addressed both words but don't understand that the two words don't go together. Head canon isn't a type of canon.
That's like arguing that "virtual reality" has to mean exactly the same thing as "reality" because reality is in here, or any other similar example.
Virtual reality is about the only good argument you've made. I haven't given that enough thought, but my gut reaction is they aren't opposing concepts.
Last edited by ABED on Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
It's an hypothetical take on the canon, or an hypothetical canon, if you will. What you are saying amounts to saying, for example, I can't write a fiction book and call the events in my book an hypothetical history or reality because I'm not the one who defines reality or history.ABED wrote: Yes there still is a contradiction. There can not be any subjective type of canon. You can have a preference for what you wish it would be, but that isn't a type of canon, it's just your preference.
And afterwards, the fans of my book can't call my fiction "rereboy-universe" or "rereboy-reality" because that's dumb and reality and the universe aren't subjective.
Last edited by rereboy on Mon Nov 28, 2016 7:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
You are saying that "headcanon" has to mean the same thing as "canon", which amounts to the same thing.ABED wrote: I never said that headcanon is the same thing as canon, just that the term "headcanon" implies that it's a TYPE OF canon.
Virtual reality is only an example of what I've been saying all along.Virtual reality is about the only good argument you've made.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Huh? Within the world of your stories you do.rereboy wrote:... I can't write a fiction book and call the events in my book an hypothetical history or reality because I'm not the one who defines reality or history.ABED wrote: Yes there still is a contradiction. There can not be any subjective type of canon. You can have a preference for what you wish it would be, but that isn't a type of canon, it's just your preference.
No, I didn't say they are synonyms.You are saying that "headcanon" has to mean the same thing as "canon", which amounts to the same thing.
So you think, I would have to give this more thought.Virtual reality is only an example of what I've been saying all along.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
And within the head of a fan, a fan also can have his own take or version of the "reality" of a franchise, of the canon of a franchise. That doesn't mean that the actual reality or canon of the franchise will change or start to be subjective.ABED wrote: Huh? Within the world of your stories you do.
You said that "headcanon" can't refer to something subjective because "canon" doesn't refer to something subjective. AKA, you were saying that they can't refer to different things.No, I didn't say they are synonyms.
I can't speak for you and what you understood or not, but what I can say is that the example I gave is not different from what I've been saying. It's just an specific example of it.So you think, I would have to give this more thought.
- TekTheNinja
- I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
- Posts: 1647
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:36 pm
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
You are WAY too worked up about this. Headcanon is a perfectly fine term. It means your own canon. No one's confused by it.
- ABED
- Namekian Warrior
- Posts: 20276
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:23 am
- Location: Skippack, PA
- Contact:
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
But you can't have your own canon. The fact that you think so, shows that it's a term that leads to confusion.TekTheNinja wrote:You are WAY too worked up about this. Headcanon is a perfectly fine term. It means your own canon. No one's confused by it.
Not what I wrote.You said that "headcanon" can't refer to something subjective because "canon" doesn't refer to something subjective. AKA, you were saying that they can't refer to different things.
The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Language is a living organism, not stagnating and which gets a lot of multiple meanings by common usage. You have to accept that there is a thing such as head-canon. Just as you have to accept that a strawberry is called a berry even though it is scientifically wrong.
The only dumb thing is when people say "won't accept it even if its canon" and therefore ignore what is true which can get annoying in arguments. Because that is what really is a waste of time. But that's it. As long as people don't annoy in such arguments or at least understand that authority decides what the real deal is, it is fine.
The only dumb thing is when people say "won't accept it even if its canon" and therefore ignore what is true which can get annoying in arguments. Because that is what really is a waste of time. But that's it. As long as people don't annoy in such arguments or at least understand that authority decides what the real deal is, it is fine.
"Citation needed."
"too lazy
feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"
"too lazy
feel free to take it with grain of salt or discredit me altogether, I'm not losing any sleep"
- TekTheNinja
- I'm, pretty, cozy, here...
- Posts: 1647
- Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:36 pm
Re: Head Canon is DUMB
Why the fuck not? -_-ABED wrote: But you can't have your own canon.