General "Canon/Filler" Debate/Discussion

[ABED]

It doesn't give it a new context, it changes the meaning completely. It's not a type of canon. Canon is by definition not something in a fan's head. Your peanut butter example is a reach because as I said, there's no ambiguousness about peanut butter, there's only one thing that's considered peanut butter. It doesn't have multiple ill defined definitions. It's also a complete stretch to consider a fan's opinion as an authority.

[MetaMoss]

It doesn't give it a new context, it changes the meaning completely. It's not a type of canon. Canon is by definition not something in a fan's head. Your peanut butter example is a reach because as I said, there's no ambiguousness about peanut butter, there's only one thing that's considered peanut butter. It doesn't have multiple ill defined definitions.

What is "multiple" and "ill-defined" about "a canon a fan made in their own head"? I (and some others) have been spending many posts attempting to define this clearly for you, but it appears our efforts are for naught.

It's also a complete stretch to consider a fan's opinion as an authority.

Which is why I put authority in quotes and specifically mentioned that a fan's head "is not very authoritative at all", but I guess you must have missed that.

[ABED]

What is "multiple" and "ill-defined" about "a canon a fan made in their own head"? I (and some others) have been spending many posts attempting to define this clearly for you, but it appears our efforts are for naught.

Not THIS particular definition, but there are a lot of people that think canon means essentially whatever sticks over time like in DC or Marvel comics. Others have said headcanon is both where you think the story should have gone or how you fill in the blanks or what you think should be officially included. Some think all of the above. Even people on this forum have used all these different definitions.

Which is why I put authority in quotes and specifically mentioned that a fan's head "is not very authoritative at all", but I guess you must have missed that.

Okay, maybe I did, but in that case, it's still not a good argument because if they have no authority, it can't be canon by its nature.

[Zephyr]

Others have said headcanon is both where you think the story should have gone or how you fill in the blanks or what you think should be officially included. Some think all of the above. Even people on this forum have used all these different definitions.

Every word in the English language is ill-defined, then, because there isn't one single, strict, uniform definition that every single individual will universally be able to rattle off at the drop of a hat, with complete consistency.

Making this a non-issue.

[TheGreatness25]

Look:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =Headcanon

This isn't a question anymore. People on here are using the phrase as it is used in society. If it was called "chocolate-covered cotton candy," then that's what people would use. If you have a problem with "headcanon," take it up with the society. Nobody here defined the term; we're using it the way it is used.

Cute little FYI: dyslexia is a disorder regarding to reading, words, letters, etc.; not necessarily seeing "132" when it's really "123." But society uses "dyslexia" when someone rearranges letters or numbers. That's how it's used, so that's how people use it. Much like bats aren't blind, but we use "blind as a bat."

Basically what I'm saying is if you have a problem with the use of a term like "headcanon," you're arguing with the wrong people. Nobody here created it. We're just using it the way it's used in society. And it's pretty obvious that nobody thinks that "headcanon" is the same as "canon" ... hence why it's not the same word.

[ABED]

Look:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =Headcanon

This isn't a question anymore. People on here are using the phrase as it is used in society. If it was called "chocolate-covered cotton candy," then that's what people would use. If you have a problem with "headcanon," take it up with the society. Nobody here defined the term; we're using it the way it is used.

Cute little FYI: dyslexia is a disorder regarding to reading, words, letters, etc.; not necessarily seeing "132" when it's really "123." But society uses "dyslexia" when someone rearranges letters or numbers. That's how it's used, so that's how people use it. Much like bats aren't blind, but we use "blind as a bat."

Basically what I'm saying is if you have a problem with the use of a term like "headcanon," you're arguing with the wrong people. Nobody here created it. We're just using it the way it's used in society. And it's pretty obvious that nobody thinks that "headcanon" is the same as "canon" ... hence why it's not the same word.

Urban dictionary, really? Also, society doesn't use anything. Society is a group of individuals. Some misuse words, some don't.

And your argument is ridiculous, I'm not arguing about who created or why or that it's the same word. I'm arguing that it's a dumb term.

Every word in the English language is ill-defined

No it's not. If every word was ill defined how would anyone be able to communicate, much less clearly?

[Anime Kitten]

This argument is going nowhere. No one is giving up their opinion and instead are trying to force theirs on others. I agree with MetaMoss, this isn't letting anyone else debate, because everyone would just ignore what they throw in here.

[ABED]

This argument is going nowhere. No one is giving up their opinion and instead are trying to force theirs on others. I agree with MetaMoss, this isn't letting anyone else debate, because everyone would just ignore what they throw in here.

This isn't like there's a mic where one person can chime in at a time.

And no one is trying to force their opinion on anyone, not in the strictest sense of the word. And how many times have you actually seen someone "give up" their opinion. I think you miss the point of a debate.

[Anime Kitten]

Apparently I do. I'm not really here to debate anymore. I'm just telling you guys that this seems to be going nowhere. Anyway, I'm out until someone says something interesting.

[ABED]

Apparently I do. I'm not really here to debate anymore. I'm just telling you guys that this seems to be going nowhere. Anyway, I'm out until someone says something interesting.

I'll grant you that we're covering the same ground, but it's in slightly different ways. Is the only way for it to go somewhere is for someone to give in?

[Anime Kitten]

Is the only way for it to go somewhere is for someone to give in?

More just for someone to agree. If everyone says what they feel they want to say, good; if everyone disagrees, cool; but I don't see much of a point in trying to convince others when they are bent on their opinion (in cases like this).

[TheGreatness25]

All right, all right. Screw the "headcanon" thing. This is a Dragon Ball forum, not a forum to debate how accurate a specific term is. If we all know what it means, I see no reason to turn it into a big deal. I think that you want some reassurance that when people refer to "headcanon," that they're not trying to say that it's actually part of the canon just because we think it is. That's all well and good.

Anyway, as far as filler is concerned, does anyone know if it's true that Toriyama came up with some of the filler? I feel like whatever he came up with should definitely be regarded as "canon." The anime was like the "special edition" where it had time and room to put in that which wasn't in the manga. The problem is that I don't know (besides Burdock) what Toriyama actually came up with and what he didn't. I'm sure that he didn't come up with the Ginyu Special Forces being pissed on by the dead Z Warriors on Kaio's planet.

[Anime Kitten]

I just figured Toei made all the filler. I include the non-conflicting filler in my headcanon.

[MetaMoss]

I just figured Toei made all the filler.

Not completely true. (Look in the section "Akira Toriyama Had No Part In Filler")

[Anime Kitten]

Not completely true. (Look in the section "Akira Toriyama Had No Part In Filler")

I see, so just some filler here and there. I suppose that answers your question, Greatness.

[TheGreatness25]

Oh no, I know he had a part in some of the filler. I'm just saying it would be interesting to know what was a pure Toei creation and what was really his. Especially for the whole canon debate purposes.

[Anime Kitten]

Oh no, I know he had a part in some of the filler. I'm just saying it would be interesting to know what was a pure Toei creation and what was really his. Especially for the whole canon debate purposes.

Yes it would. But that'd take a while to write and read, as there's a lot of filler.

[TheGreatness25]

Oh I'm sure somebody has time for that. I would totally do it in my spare time (once I free up a little), but it's one thing to pick out all the filler and it's another to actually know what Akira Toriyama was involved in lol

[ABED]

Is the only way for it to go somewhere is for someone to give in?

More just for someone to agree. If everyone says what they feel they want to say, good; if everyone disagrees, cool; but I don't see much of a point in trying to convince others when they are bent on their opinion (in cases like this).

Another way to put that is giving in.

I think that you want some reassurance that when people refer to "headcanon," that they're not trying to say that it's actually part of the canon just because we think it is. That's all well and good.

Partly, but also understand why it's a dumb term. The concept is fine, but no one ever had a problem with saying "I wish..." or "in my head..." There was absolutely zero need to put the concepts of personal preference and canon together to create a word that doesn't have to do with half the words that were combined into one.

[MetaMoss]

I think that you want some reassurance that when people refer to "headcanon," that they're not trying to say that it's actually part of the canon just because we think it is. That's all well and good.

Partly, but also understand why it's a dumb term. The concept is fine, but no one ever had a problem with saying "I wish..." or "in my head..." There was absolutely zero need to put the concepts of personal preference and canon together to create a word that doesn't have to do with half the words that were combined into one.

Alright, so it's a "dumb term". It's still in usage by fandoms everywhere. And sure, there was no need to put those concepts together, but somebody somewhere decided they wanted it, so here we are. I'm just curious at this point: what do you hope to accomplish with this discussion?