Canon vs. Fanon, part 10: Pre-series Daniel

[sg_fignewton]

Finally, the post so many of you have been nagging me about asking for: Pre-series Daniel!

Backstory is a crucial part of understanding and writing a character. When you consider some of the more iconic fictional characters, nearly all of them reference pivotal moments in the hero's childhood or past to help us understand the driving force behind

Comments

[moonshayde]

He looks like a priest in your icon and it's freaking me out...

[sg_fignewton]

As long as we know we are jumping on a fanon bandwagon and can distinguish fanon from canon, what's wrong with that? Fanon is not bad in and of itself.

Well, yes. I said almost the identical thing in a different response to one of your posts. :)

I've tried to make it clear, but maybe it's not clear enough: I don't hate most of fanon, although I do actively dislike fanon that warps the character. I do think people should have a clear idea, when they write, of what's fanon and what's canon. What they choose to do, once they have that distinction in mind, is entirely up to them. (And whether I choose to read their fics, depending on those choices, is entirely up to me. )

I think it's plausible psychology that abuse in childhood could have made Daniel even more outspoken as an adult.

Outspoken, yes. But there's also his self-confidence; his empathy with others; and his amazing ability, up until the last couple of seasons, to still have that clear-eyed optimism about other people's motivations. It's all of that together that I can't

[nomadicwriter]

Many of us like to snark about Daniel's puzzling concept of "half a year," considering that he was unquestionably born on July 8th and 1969 took place in August.

I never quite understood the kerfluffle over this. It's not as if he's calculating, "at this moment in time, August 1969, my other self is four and half" - Jack's talking about a car that's out in 1969, and Daniel's all, 'um, dude, I was four and a half that year.' He's definitely talking in the general case rather than the specific, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that he would count to the turn of the year rather than the exact date.

I have noticed that very, very few fanfic authors have a positive view of Nick.

I have noticed that it's a very, very common point of view in fanfic that any reason whatsoever for not having/raising a child is a form of selfishness and/or irrational anxiety (never rational or justified anxiety) that the character must be educated out of

[sg_fignewton]

it's a more complex issue than "Nick is a nasty evil man who wouldn't take in his poor woobie grandson!"

That is a very intelligent point, and one that I never really considered. Daniel seems to have considered it, though, in that scene with Nick in his VIP room. Of course, as you say, the eight-year-old Daniel might not have recognized it.

Daniel is not just argumentative, but seems quite baffled by the idea that they expect him to accept an order without turning it into a debate.

Ooh, I love this! It makes ever so much sense. And Daniel is so used to keep arguing and arguing that when Hammond gives in to him, he kinda blinks with surprise about it. That's a wonderful insight.

As for the 1969 argument you have there... Ah, but snarking at Daniel is so much fun. :)

[moonshayde]

I never quite understood the kerfluffle over this. It's not as if he's calculating, "at this moment in time, August 1969, my other self is four and half" - Jack's talking about a car that's out in 1969, and Daniel's all, 'um, dude, I was four and a half that year.' He's definitely talking in the general case rather than the specific, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that he would count to the turn of the year rather than the exact date.

Oh thank you. This is actually how I have felt, but always had trouble vocalizing it.

And I love argumentative!Daniel.

[aurora_novarum]

I never quite understood the kerfluffle over this. It's not as if he's calculating, "at this moment in time, August 1969, my other self is four and half" - Jack's talking about a car that's out in 1969, and Daniel's all, 'um, dude, I was four and a half that year.' He's definitely talking in the general case rather than the specific, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that he would count to the turn of the year rather than the exact date.

As someone who does get in a "kerfuffle" over this, I just find it weird for someone to say they're four and a half for the entire year of 1969...that's just...odd.

Less odd if you're thinking specifically about summer of 1969...and Daniel's birth month wasn't established yet. Later canon just contradicts earlier canon in an amusing manner to me. ;-)

[aurora_novarum]

late Season Three, we learn that this happened when he was eight years old and that he has a grandfather, Nicholas Ballard, who refused to adopt Daniel at the time, since he'd already found (and lost) the crystal skull in '71 and was obsessed with finding it again. Since the movie specifies foster parents and not adoptive parents, we can assume that Daniel was never formally adopted. Five years later, in Threads, that we learn that Nick took Daniel to a diner for waffles after the funeral. Threads does not specify that Nick told Daniel that he couldn't adopt him while they were at the diner, although many fanfic writers suggest this.

I have noticed that very, very few fanfic authors have a positive view of Nick.But-but-but, it's so reasonable that Daniel was told it then. ;-) As you are well aware, I have most recently been very guilty of this same fanwank, but I wasn't aware it had become a common fanon. I arrived at it by wondering why the diner had such significance to Daniel, and extrapolated

[sg_fignewton]

I arrived at it by wondering why the diner had such significance to Daniel, and extrapolated.

Like many many bits of fanon, this one doesn't bother me in the slightest - but people should know it's fanon. :)

I think the bad rep re the adoption thing has its roots in fanon as well. I've seen suggestions that the reason why Daniel was never adopted was because Nick not only refused to take him in, but also refused to allow him to be put up for adoption. To be honest, I don't even know if it's true that a grandparent can put the kibosh on adoption papers for a grandchild when that grandparent has refused custody. But I've seen that interpretation more than once, and if you add in that bit of fanon, then Nick's behavior certainly takes a more ugly turn than simply an older guy with his own private obsessions recognizing that he wouldn't be a fit guardian for his grandson

[mark_and_roger]

Thanks for doing these, I really enjoy reading them. The debates that follow are also always very well thought out and interesting by everyone. I was surprised by one point raised about whether Daniel's parents were ever named in canon. I can't actually think of anytime it would've happened in The Gamekeeper since Daniel would just refer to them as mom and dad unless I missed one of the people standing around the display calling out their names. Did Nick perhaps ever mention their names in Crystal Skull? I know their names are everywhere in places like the wiki, IMDB, and tv.com but I'm not sure where they originate from.

I do think it's funny that the book has both Daniel and Katherine breaking into places and going through other people's property.

The only thing I might disagree on a little would be this:

In any case, Daniel's reference to his foster parents suggests that he had only one set of foster parents after his own parents' death.I know you're not saying that we take this as absolute truth but I don't think we can really

[sg_fignewton]

Welcome to the party! Thanks for stopping by and joining us. :)

They're not mentioned by name in Gamekeeper or Crystal Skull, and quite frankly, I don't know where else to look for their names. I think aurora_novarum's discovery of their names in the credits for Gamekeeper is going to have to serve as the ultimate canon authority. :)

I do think it's funny that the book has both Daniel and Katherine breaking into places and going through other people's property.

Yeah, I noticed that too. Maybe Daniel was inspired by Katherine's behavior?

That's an interesting point regarding foster parents - that there might have been multiple sets of them. This is especially true of movie canon, where Katherine waves a 4X6 snapshot at Daniel and there's no way of knowing where she acquired it. The book references a framed picture on his wall, though; that would indicate that even if the foster parents in question weren't his only ones, they were surely the ones with whom he was closest, or at least lived with the longest.

if a fanfic writer wants an abused

[mark_and_roger]

Lastly, about the age thing, I've never really bothered to wonder about his exact birthdate (though I do remember Michael Shanks joking when comparing Daniel and Mitchell's canon ages). But for some reason, I've always thought of Sam as older than Daniel even though I'm told that in canon Sam's younger. I honestly don't know what made me think of her as older but I can't seem to help still thinking that.

[sg_fignewton]

Oooh! We covered this in a previous post. Sam is younger than Daniel, much to my disappointment (because I think she's done too much for her age). You can find the thread here.