On Canon and Fanfic
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | On Canon and Fanfic |
| Creator: | Marta |
| Date(s): | 29 March 2008 or earlier |
| Medium: | online |
| Fandom: | The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, other Tolkien |
| Topic: | fanfiction vs canon, AUs |
| External Links: | @ AO3 |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
On Canon and Fanfic is an essay about the relationship of fanfiction to canon in the Tolkien fandom by Marta, published in 2008. It was awarded third place in the 'Genres: Non-Fiction' category of the 2008 Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards.[1] The essay was originally published in the author's fiction livejournal, now deleted; it is now archived on Archive of Our Own.
The author summary is:
What exactly qualifies as "A.U.?" Is it a negative term? Is any fanfic really canon-consistent, or is it all alternate universe? In this brief essay I attempt to define what precisely I mean when I use this term, and along the way explore the relationship between canon and fanfic in general.
Contents
Marta argues that:
- The definition of AU is debated; she quotes the definition she wrote for the Middle-Earth Fanfiction Awards
- The only pure canon is Tolkien; all fanfiction adds to canon (otherwise why write it) and so is non-canonical
- There is a spectrum of divergence from Tolkien's canon:
- gapfillers/alternative viewpoints/scenes in different locations
- 'extra-canonical': stretches canon eg events aren't even hinted at by Tolkien
- 'uncanonical': break[s] canon in some regard, contradicts what Tolkien wrote
- There are several canon-related reasons for liking fanfiction, and extra/un-canonical fanfiction may lose readers; on the other hand, there are many other reasons for liking fanfiction eg language, plot, themes, characterisation...
- Contradicting the reader's personal interpretation of characters or widely disseminated fanon is not equivalent to contradicting canon
- Good AUs generally knowingly make a precise change to the universe which often has wide repercussions, eg Lie Down in the Darkness, Rise Up From the Ash by Dwimordene where Gollum dies before the main action
Excerpt
Really, a good AU is like a surgical incision. A story where the author breaks with canon out of carelessness or lack of knowledge is more like a machete cut. The affect of an AU's change is steady, exact; it is predictable and used to good affect. In the latter case (the machete), it can get messy, and the change is usually not under the author's control. As a result the reader usually feels like they have lost a canonical story and often not gained a lot in return, as far as canonicity is concerned. (A good AU can tell you as much about the themes and other elements of the canon as a canon-compliant one does.)
Reception & Reviews
The essay was well received with most reviewers finding Marta's dissection of how fanworks diverge from canon insightful and thought-provoking. Some reviewers praised the essay's informal, humorous approach or the non-pejorative way the author refers to all forms of fanfiction.
This is a thorough essay that as a starting point defines the nature of canon, the role of the fan fic writer as he or she takes on writing a piece based on an existing story. The initial discussion about AU at various places which was the cause of this essay mainly mirrored the frustration of injustice done to those who write AU, but felt like they never got the appreciation they deserve. If you happen to think AU’s do not contribute much, please do read this essay, it might change your mind. Marta’s work rationally dissects all variations of what is canonical and what is not, giving every variation on it the praise and insights it deserves. The essay is built up quite logically points out that no matter how you look at it: almost every ff out there is AU or perhaps not canonical. While (re-)reading this essay once more, I found myself nodding and agreeing with her reasoning and points. I do not have more to add to her sharply written analysis of stories within our fandom, just reminding us all that we all write stories for our own reason even those who take up the challenge to write this genre within fanfic. For why it is such a challenge, I do refer to this piece and I hope it will make the reader and writers amongst to pause, think and appreciate this genre with all its gems it has to offer. (Rhapsody)[1]
One of the first flamewars I observed after joining fandom inspired a list mod to make the claim that there are some subjects in fandom that cannot be discussed rationally. In my years since, AU stories--what they are and, perhaps more importantly, what they are worth as fanfic--have proven themselves worthy of inclusion on that list. Even as some authors flaunt the AU badge they proudly stick to their stories, others grumble about why one would even bother to write a story that ignores canon. AU gets used as a way out of having to read the books and gets stuck on stories by authors who are simply wearied of having their more imaginative interpretations attacked. It's become a complex and controversial label. Marta's essay "On Canon and Fanfic" explores the complexity of this genre and the fandom reactions to it. [Is "AU" a pejorative label?] she asks and goes about breaking down the different uses of canon in Tolkien fanfic to define what is an AU and what is merely a wild or imaginative interpretation. But perhaps what attracted me, as an author who has unfortunately used the AU label to defend my interpretations against canatics in the past, the most to this essay and to Marta's meta in general is her clear thinking and sharp logic where canon is concerned, all delivered with a touch of humor. She writes, [Also, even if a story is uncanonical, this doesn't mean it's a sin against Tolkien. The man is dead, he doesn't feel any more pain. And even if he would blush, fanfic is the production of the fanfic author's mind and imagination, not that of the original canon's author.] Regardless of one's preferences for reading or writing AU stories, the points Marta makes in her essay are a good reminder to all of us, most of whom have, at one time or another, fanatically embraced our favorite canon fact, that Tolkien's canon is a complex and subtle entity, and fanfic is our exploration of that. (Dawn Felagund)[1]
Marta navigates the fanfic minefield of canon vs. AU with great skill in this essay, presenting a well thought-out series of definitions without ever seeming judgmental. Even what seems a given to me (perhaps unjustly)--that detailed knowledge of canon is a prerequisite to writing good noncanonical fanfic--is handled with careful neutrality: [For some people canon is important, and if you choose not to focus on this aspect, you will lose some readers. But this is true for any aspect of the writing process. So while some people may criticize you for being uncanonical, you could probably just as easily criticize them for not doing as well as you'd like in some other important aspect of their writing.] I like the distinction made between extracanonical and uncanonical, imagining a sliding scale from gapfiller to AU. To it I might add what I like to think of as "speculative canon" for the stories that *really* stretch canon, and I wonder where Marta would classify such uncanonical but often highly "canonesque" genres like parodies, crossovers, and modern times fics. But that's a topic for another essay! (Inkling)[1]
Marta's "On Canon and Fanfic" is an informal treatise on the subject of the much belitted term, Alternate Universe, and its relationship to canon in Tolkien-based fan fiction. I have often said, "the only person who writes canon is Tolkien." Marta's philosophy is similar, though she expresses her thoughts in her own way. You may feel otherwise. However, the purpose of this review is not to debate the points of the essay, but to encourage you to read "On Canon and Fanfic." Writers and readers in many fan fiction "verses" are faced with similar issues to those that Marta presents. Happily, Marta's style is friendly, not stilted, and is guaranteed to give you food for thought. (stefaniab)[1]
I love this examination of what constitutes AU stories. One of the criticisms I've appreciated least is that a gapfiller I've written is seen as unacceptable solely because Tolkien never indicated what actually happened here, so in suggesting a possible scenario somehow I'm sinning against the man. That you covered so well, Marta! I've written a few AU stories, and now and then I stretch canon at least a little even in my most consistent gapfillers or alternate POV stories. and I don't mind AU stories that are well written and that capture my imagination! Anyway, thank you for writing this--it belongs with Dreamflower's Musings. (Larner)[1]
Very good essay on what constitutes an AU and what is canon, and why even a complete AU should at least make sense and be related to the canon in the original universe. I like the author's stance, although I do not agree with every part of it. Still, kudos for writing such a good and clearly stated defense to that most beloved of my reading and writings genres: the alternative universe. :) Very well done! (Crowdaughter)[1]
This was a very interesting essay! From the view point of a person (me!) who writes both very wild AUs and very canonical, serious pieces, I don't think AU needs to have a negative connotation. I think that there is plenty of fan fiction to go around for everyone's tastes and that we should be grateful to Tolkien for providing such a rich, diverse playground for us to play in! (Claudia)[1]
This polemic by Marta about how terms relating to canonicity are used, misused and bandied about in fandom communities is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Her take is personal, but -- in the spirit of the essay as a whole -- never a lecture to her readers about what is right or wrong, but rather a discussion that helps readers consider their own stance on the matter. Good work! (Tanaqui)[1]
A very interesting and enlightening essay. It clarified some of the thoughts I had about AUs myself. I love that you say only what Tolkien wrote is 100% canonical. Some people need to remember that. I liked the distinction between extra canonical and uncanonical. That is a good way of describing AUs. (Obsidianj)[1]
This is an excellent opinion piece, defining the lines between canon, fanon and AU, or alternate universe. I like the distinctions that Marta makes between _extracanonical_ and _uncanonical_. And I love this description of a good AU: ["Really, a good AU is like a surgical incision. A story where the author breaks with canon out of carelessness or lack of knowledge is more like a machete cut. The affect of an AU's change is steady, exact; it is predictable and used to good affect. In the latter case (the machete), it can get messy, and the change is usually not under the author's control. As a result the reader usually feels like they have lost a canonical story and often not gained a lot in return, as far as canonicity is concerned. (A good AU can tell you as much about the themes and other elements of the canon as a canon-compliant one does.)"] A very thought-provoking and insightful essay! (Dreamflower)[1]