Defining Canon
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:28 am
A problem with Comix I haven't noted till now is that it's completely unclear what's canon and what isn't. Comix canon seems to be a vague kind of consensus, but this is very rough around the edges, and nobody seems to have a clear definition.
Does it have to have an article to be canon? If so, some good ideas that never got out of Mad Ideas or Character Concepts for whatever reason would be noncanon, while the poorly-written dreck that made up the majority of my early characters and which everyone would like to forget would be canon. Is canon a personal thing? That way lies silliness and seems to be a rejection of the collaborativity that has been a part of Comix since the beginning.
So, what I would like this thread to be is a place to think about and discuss what the criteria are for canonicity, the location of a clear definition of what something has to be to be considered Comix canon, and a listing of these things.
Does this sound acceptable?
Does it have to have an article to be canon? If so, some good ideas that never got out of Mad Ideas or Character Concepts for whatever reason would be noncanon, while the poorly-written dreck that made up the majority of my early characters and which everyone would like to forget would be canon. Is canon a personal thing? That way lies silliness and seems to be a rejection of the collaborativity that has been a part of Comix since the beginning.
So, what I would like this thread to be is a place to think about and discuss what the criteria are for canonicity, the location of a clear definition of what something has to be to be considered Comix canon, and a listing of these things.
Does this sound acceptable?