What the hell is "canon", anyway?

A friend of mine recently brought up an interesting question. How do you know what is considered to be 'official canon' in a fictional universe when there are several supplementary materials and/or the universe spans more than one form of media? Not a simple question, not an easy answer.

First, a little refresher glossary of terms:

The literary meaning of the term canon, as I use it here, refers to what within a series of related fiction counts as "authoritatively correct" to the overarching story and history of the fictional universe. It is essentially the same principle that is used in the Christian religion in terms of Biblical writings - those that are considered "canonical" are official holy scriptures whereas those that are "apocryphal" have questionable authenticity or authorship and are therefore not considered the official Word.

Example: Turk and J.D. from the show Scrubs went to college together. This is considered canon because it has been established several times both via flashback and the characters themselves acknowledging it.

Within the literary universe there is another term, fanon, that has sprung up in the world of fandom. "Fanon", much like canon, refers to facts and details about a particular fiction that are generally accepted amongst the audience of that particular work. It differs from canon, however, in that fanon consists of material that has never been officially established within the canon. Fanon usually arises as a result of the fandom's need to "fill in the blanks" of a particular universe. Most often, fanon is simply the audience supplying details that make the most sense in terms of canon but for some reason or another have never been touched on within the actual canonical writings. Material can also be considered fanon if it comes from a supplemental material that has never been officially claimed as "canon" but the audience holds it to be true, anyway. It is not unusual for fanon to be eventually accepted by a creator as canon although it is not unusual for an author to clarify a detail in later canon simply to eliminate the fanon from the record.

Example: Though a description and gender were never given for the character, much of the Harry Potter fandom took it to be fanon that Blaise Zabini was, in fact, a white male (though there was a healthy amount of debate against this). In book 6, a description and gender are finally given and while the fanon that Zabini was male was now proved to be canon, the fanon that he was white was disproved as it has now been canonically established that he is black.

To a lesser extent, personal canon is what each individual fan holds to be true, their own personal mix of canonical and fanonical beliefs.

To add further confusion to the mix, retroactive continuity, or retcon, is the alteration of past canon into a new form. Retconning generally occurs when an author wants to change some of the history or back story within a fictional universe. Sometimes this is for the purpose of clarifying some conflicting events or details, sometimes this is simply to allow the author the opportunity to completely alter something they did not like within the current story. Retconning is most widely known within comics, superhero comics specifically, where both DC and Marvel have been known to completely change characters, histories, or universes at the drop of a hat both to make things fit together more consistently and to completely change a character's image.

Examples: Retconning can occure slowly over time. Superman originally only had the power to leap very high and did not develop the ability to fly until later. Over time the writers slid more and more powers into his arsenal but they never came right out and declared the change.

Retconning can also occur in one fell swoop. In the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover event in the DC Comics universe, many loose ends were eliminated, characters and alternate worlds killed off, and things were generally juggled around in an attempt to simplify the DC canon.

This all may seem fairly clean-cut but problems arise as a fictional universe sprawls out more and more. Often, when you have many supplemental materials floating about in various forms of media beyond the original canon it is difficult to determine what "counts" and what doesn't. If creators all came out and declared one thing or another to be officially part of the original canon and dismissed the rest then it would make things much easier. The difficulty lies in that authors/creators don't always come right out and declare what's what. Also, sometimes there is more than one author or creator with conflicting ideas on what is canon, which is when you begin to see various camps spring up within fandom for those in favor of one author or the other as being the last-word authority on these things.

Basically, you have to make do with what you have and learn to live in a world full of fanwankery. Fanwank refers to a long, drawn out discussion/argument within fandom. The wank is usually an attempt to clarify canon and justify plot holes or continuity errors but it can also degenerate into a petty, ultra-geeky argument complete with slinging of personal insults. The ultimate purpose of fanwank, however, is to establish that the author/creator had complete knowledge of what they were doing when they wrote something that seems out of step with canon and to explain how it could possibly fit in with everything else.

Before you go wanking away, however, here are some basic guidelines to follow in terms of what can ultimately be considered "canon":

1) If the author/creator declares something to be canon then it is. Bottom line. Example: Generally a comic book adaptation or novelization of a TV show or movie is not considered canon. Neither are ongoing series in those media based on the original canon. However, if the creator of the original canon comes right out and declares them to be canonical then they are and all subsequent canonical material must take all of those works into consideration as part of the universe.

2) If an original pilot episode for a TV show is rejected and a new pilot is subsequently made and picked up then the second version is canon. Anything that has been changed from the first version to the second is considered to be a complete retcon of the original work and is therefore held to be canonical. The first version was like a first draft that was rejected. Example: There were actually two pilots originally made for the television series Star Trek. The first one was rejected and so Roddenberry altered some details and submitted the second one which was then picked up. The first one was rejected and now only exists as a special feature on the DVDs and is therefore NOT canon. It has been retconned out of existance and should be treated as such.

3) In terms of a film based on a TV show or vice versa: if both were made/written by the original creator then any changes made in the second incarnation are considered retcons of the first and are therefore canonical. Even if there are no changes, the second incarnation is considered canonical. Examples: There are a few alterations between the television show Firefly and the subsequent film Serenity. Both were created/written by Joss Whedon and therefore any changes made in Serenity are now considered retcons of things that didn't work in Firefly and are therefore canonical. Just as well, the film X-Files: Fight the Future is to be considered an extended episode in the middle of the regular X-Files show continuity because both were the work of Chris Carter.

4) In the case that rules 1 & 3 cannot be applied then different media incarnations of a text are considered to be alternate universes that exist unto themselves. For example, a book series and a television series are considered separate canons, a "bookverse" and a "TVverse". The one that came first is usually considered the "main" universe while any others are considered alternate or supplemental universes. The main "verse" for The Dresden Files is the book series itself, the main canon. However, the TV series of The Dresden Files is considered to have its own self-contained canon that, while it exists separate from the book series, is still considered "authoritatively correct." Each is independent of the other and each is considered a canon in its own right.

• addendum: In the event that an alternate mediaverse fits in with the main canon and is able to exist as a supplemental material without conflicting with the original text then that verse is to be considered canon until proven or declared otherwise. Example: the forthcoming comic book based on the television series Supernatural has not been declared as official canon. However, series creator Eric Kripke has stated that the comic will focus mainly on John Winchester and not his adult sons. This implies that the comic will be able to serve as backstory for the TV series, touching on events that happened before the show takes place and focusing on characters other than the show's main two. Therefore it is not likely to conflict with the main canon of the show and is also quite likely to be able to serve as background for the show. Thus it can be considered canon until stated otherwise. However, any disparities that arise between the comic and the show should be noted and the show should always be considered the ultimate canon and final word of the text.
  

Even with these rules at hand it can still be tricky to determine what is canon and what isn't. The best you can do, outside of asking the creator(s) themselves (which is somewhat easier in this day and age what with the internet and conventions), is go with what makes the most sense to you, what fits together best in terms of continuity with the fewest discrepancies. Authors are not infallible. Sometimes they miss out on continuity errors that the audience spots easily. And sometimes you need to goose canon along a little so that it all makes more sense. At any rate, take these 4 Rules to heart before you jump into a major fanwank and always bring your crash helmet.