Hacker News Reader

Comment by vslira | Hacker News Reader

It's funny that copyright somehow got mixed with the concept of canonicity over time. That a company or a person has the right to oxymoronically define the reality of a fictional universe is a bit crazy when you think about it.

The word "canon" is also an interesting choice for this concept. It references that the church - sticking to the most popular example - "decided" what was canon when christianity was forming, and so can authors about their works. Cynicism aside, I don't think religious leaders understood canonicity as their favored interpretation, but as actual truth, which is obviously not the case with modern media.

View on HN

If you invent a universe, why wouldn’t you have the rights to it? Doesn’t seem crazy to me.

It’s not like fanfics or theories are illegal.

People always have their “headcanons”

I would more compare it to Disney now owning Star Wars, and retconning/ruining a lot of established canon

I mean… I don’t see acting wrong with that, really. As a fan, it sucks to have the story retconned, but it’s not your story, it’s Disney’s.

Official canon, at that point, is just a marketing tool. If you as the reader don’t like it, don’t engage with it.

The only real restriction placed upon readers is that they can’t sell their alternative stories under the franchise name, which seems fair to me. It’d cause too much market confusion otherwise.

My point is the author's is also a headcanon. What they do have the right to - which fans don't - is to write fiction which can legally generate revenue referencing their previous works. And within those pieces of fiction they will generally refer to their headcanon, but it's no more special than the fans'

edit: using an alt bc I use antiprocrast on may username and wanted to answer. hey, it's a saturday!

> And within those pieces of fiction they will generally refer to their headcanon, but it's no more special than the fans'.

If it's the same author writing these pieces of fiction, then speaking by definition, the author's opinion is more special by being the creator of those works and therefore can create fiction that reinforces their headcanon (which is why it's called canon). So I think calling the author's opinion less special is wrong for the author's tie to the work will always be more special than the consumer by virtue of being the creator.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com