(no subject)
There's been a lot of impassioned wank discussion about whether the S8 comic counts as canon or not. The point people keep making is that the comics aren't the same as the TV show, because comics are OMG and TV shows are WTFBBQ. People then proceed from from the argument that "comics =/= TV" to "Therefore, comics =/= canon."
Canon is a body of information about the characters, the world they live in, and the events that take place in that world, originating from a person or persons who are A) the creator(s) of the story; or B) the legally designated surrogates of those creators. There are a number of factors which go into making a piece of information canonical. Who originated it? What medium is it in? How readily accessible is it? Has it been superceded by more current information, or contradicted by a more authoritative source?
It is arguable which of those factors is the most important. To the people who argue that the comics are not canon, medium appears to be the most important, and in some cases, the only factor. The problem with this position, to my mind, is that it privileges the way a story is told over the story itself. Far be it from me to say that the medium is unimportant; every medium has strengths and weaknesses, and some stories are better suited to some media than to others, and vice versa. But for me, who is telling the story is more important than how it is told. The way in which that information is conveyed to the audience is important, but not primary.
Furthermore, some of the arguments in favor of the comics not being canon strike me as sloppy logic. Case in point:
1. The Buffy movie is in a different medium than the TV show.
2. The Buffy movie is not canon.
3. The Buffy comics are in a different medium than the TV show.
4. Therefore, the comics aren't canon.
However, what is being ignored in this formulation is the fact that the story told in the Buffy movie contradicts the canon of the TV show on numerous points. (Slayers getting cramps when a vampire is near, for example.) The movie cannot belong to the same canon as the TV show because they are mutually contradictory, quite irregardless of their media.
Obviously if multiple versions of the same story exist, even if they are told in the same medium (as often happens in movie re-makes, or comic book retcons, or even occasionally in print, as when Marion Zimmer Bradley re-wrote some of her early Darkover novels from scratch and re-published them) then one has to make a decision as to which version will be considered canon for a given fannish enterprise. But there is a very important distinction between a story being re-told in a different medium, and a story being continued in another medium. A movie re-telling a story originally told in a novel is not the same thing as a movie which is filmed as a sequel to that novel. You are not dealing with two competing versions of the same story, but with one continuing story, which happens to be told in multiple media.
I would not call an issue of the comic canon "for" the TV show, any more than I would call an episode of AtS canon 'for' BtVS. However, I would consider that both TV shows belong to a Buffyverse meta-canon which also includes Fray, the S8 comic books, and might potentially include other works in other media, but which does not include the movie. (Fray has the greatest potential to be pushed out of canon, IMO.) They are all set in the same universe and partake of the same continuity. While each individual series has its own distinctive atmosphere, any major discrepancies between them must, in theory, at least, be explained or retconned by the writers. (As opposed to the differences between the movie and the TV show, which are never explained or addressed at all, nor do they need to be.)
Whether the writers will do so effectively remains to be seen, of course. Should the comics introduce major, unexplained changes which conflict with the continuity of the TV shows (above and beyond ME's usual "Continuity is for wusses!" disregard for consistent worldbuilding) then I'd definitely say that the comics had broken off into their own continuity. Perhaps this will happen in time, but I don't see any reason to believe that it's happened yet.
Does any of this mean that I have to like the comics? Of course not. I'm not shy about criticizing things I like - indeed, it's generally things I like that I feel are most worthy of the analysis that leads to criticism as well as to praise. So far I'm not terribly impressed with the art - as others have said, it's competent, and I've seen, far, far, far worse. I think it's too early to pass judgement on the story.
But whether the comics turn out to be brilliant or awful is beside the point. They're what happens next to some characters I care about. And if I don't like it... well, I'll do what I always do: suck it up and write fanfic.
In other news, genebreshears and miertam sent us chocolate and mini-pens! Squee!
Canon is a body of information about the characters, the world they live in, and the events that take place in that world, originating from a person or persons who are A) the creator(s) of the story; or B) the legally designated surrogates of those creators. There are a number of factors which go into making a piece of information canonical. Who originated it? What medium is it in? How readily accessible is it? Has it been superceded by more current information, or contradicted by a more authoritative source?
It is arguable which of those factors is the most important. To the people who argue that the comics are not canon, medium appears to be the most important, and in some cases, the only factor. The problem with this position, to my mind, is that it privileges the way a story is told over the story itself. Far be it from me to say that the medium is unimportant; every medium has strengths and weaknesses, and some stories are better suited to some media than to others, and vice versa. But for me, who is telling the story is more important than how it is told. The way in which that information is conveyed to the audience is important, but not primary.
Furthermore, some of the arguments in favor of the comics not being canon strike me as sloppy logic. Case in point:
1. The Buffy movie is in a different medium than the TV show.
2. The Buffy movie is not canon.
3. The Buffy comics are in a different medium than the TV show.
4. Therefore, the comics aren't canon.
However, what is being ignored in this formulation is the fact that the story told in the Buffy movie contradicts the canon of the TV show on numerous points. (Slayers getting cramps when a vampire is near, for example.) The movie cannot belong to the same canon as the TV show because they are mutually contradictory, quite irregardless of their media.
Obviously if multiple versions of the same story exist, even if they are told in the same medium (as often happens in movie re-makes, or comic book retcons, or even occasionally in print, as when Marion Zimmer Bradley re-wrote some of her early Darkover novels from scratch and re-published them) then one has to make a decision as to which version will be considered canon for a given fannish enterprise. But there is a very important distinction between a story being re-told in a different medium, and a story being continued in another medium. A movie re-telling a story originally told in a novel is not the same thing as a movie which is filmed as a sequel to that novel. You are not dealing with two competing versions of the same story, but with one continuing story, which happens to be told in multiple media.
I would not call an issue of the comic canon "for" the TV show, any more than I would call an episode of AtS canon 'for' BtVS. However, I would consider that both TV shows belong to a Buffyverse meta-canon which also includes Fray, the S8 comic books, and might potentially include other works in other media, but which does not include the movie. (Fray has the greatest potential to be pushed out of canon, IMO.) They are all set in the same universe and partake of the same continuity. While each individual series has its own distinctive atmosphere, any major discrepancies between them must, in theory, at least, be explained or retconned by the writers. (As opposed to the differences between the movie and the TV show, which are never explained or addressed at all, nor do they need to be.)
Whether the writers will do so effectively remains to be seen, of course. Should the comics introduce major, unexplained changes which conflict with the continuity of the TV shows (above and beyond ME's usual "Continuity is for wusses!" disregard for consistent worldbuilding) then I'd definitely say that the comics had broken off into their own continuity. Perhaps this will happen in time, but I don't see any reason to believe that it's happened yet.
Does any of this mean that I have to like the comics? Of course not. I'm not shy about criticizing things I like - indeed, it's generally things I like that I feel are most worthy of the analysis that leads to criticism as well as to praise. So far I'm not terribly impressed with the art - as others have said, it's competent, and I've seen, far, far, far worse. I think it's too early to pass judgement on the story.
But whether the comics turn out to be brilliant or awful is beside the point. They're what happens next to some characters I care about. And if I don't like it... well, I'll do what I always do: suck it up and write fanfic.
In other news, genebreshears and miertam sent us chocolate and mini-pens! Squee!