Literary Theory and the idea of "Canon"

[Rooks]

OK, so there has been an argument about canon, and it has become quite frustrating to be honest. I talked a bit about the etymology of the word, but let's leave that aside. We will concern ourselves with the usage of the word in three circumstances first: Literature, Theology, and Music.

In Music, a "canon" or more properly in the German "Kannon," is a melody which builds to a crescendo through repetition of it's structure. Listen to the aptly titled "Kannon" by Johannes Pachelbel for an example. Because of this, the piece is often played at weddings as it is interpreted as a metaphor for the fidelity of marriage.

In Theology, "canon" has a similar meaning. For example, the three great monotheisms -Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- disagree on which scriptures are divinely inspired, thus, they have developed their own specific canons of scripture. Note that with Judaism and Christianity, there are many scriptures which have no known author, nor any real means of verification of authenticity aside from traditionally established canon. However, Islam has no issues with canon, as all of the Prophet Muhammad's writings were widely disseminated within his own lifetime. Also, Judaism rejects the assertions that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, but certain sects do elevate the Christian gospels, seeing Jesus as a great and divinely inspired Rabbi. Islam actually acknowledges all of the Jewish and Christian canon, though they are rarely studied in favor of the Koran.

In Literature, canon refers to a collection of different works by different authors, commonly disseminated within academia. For example, the traditional English Literature "canon" would be authors like Shakespeare, Chaucer, Woodsworth, Byron, and others that are commonly taught at virtually every academic institution. A non-canon work would be something along the lines of George Macdonald or Carl Sandburg who are considered to be "outside" the canon of traditional English Literary study. The term canon, though often has negative connotations. Especially since the late 1800's when many academics began to rally against teaching only Shakespeare, Ovid, Homer, and the like to the neglect of latter-day authors like Charles Baudelaire, Edgar Allen Poe, and Goethe. In fact, the term "canon" often became an insult under these circumstances.

The Term canon can also be used in Literature, but only under a very narrow circumstance: When the author of the work is unknown or somehow in question. None of the Genso Suikoden games have any question as to who their authors were, they are listed in the credits of the games themselves. Thus, the term canon cannot apply to the Genso Suikoden games in this context.

For example, there is long-standing argument as to the validity of the last two paragraphs of Thomas Mallory's famous work: "le Morte d'Arthur." (The Death of Arthur) The last paragraphs seem out of place with the rest of the work, as they rather bluntly make a political statement in favor of the Crusades. Many people throughout history have asserted that these were either added by Mallory's editor, or he was forced to write them while in prison to carry favor with the crown. Thus, there is an argument about canon, about whether or not Mallory wrote those lines of his own free will or whether he wrote them at all. Canon always concerns actual fact, and never squabbles over fictional issues.

"Canon" has been established of late, thanks to the internet and the largely imbecilic fans of such works as Star Wars, Star Trek, X-Men, and the like. Let me make this clear: These fans and these sites misunderstand the concept of "canon." If you have learned about what is "canon" and what is "not canon" from any arguments regarding modern fictional work of which authorship is not in doubt, then forget it. What you have learned is completely wrong.

What has come to be called "canon" is in fact a type of marketing. By encouraging fanbase interaction with a fictional work, they promote and retain recognition of that work, and thus increase sales. Fan Fiction is thus encouraged, and in the cases of larger bodies of work with multiple authors -DC comics, for example- even official production has led to multiple conflicts of work, incorrectly referred to as "continuity issues." Thus, the discussion of what is and is not "canon" rages among the fanbase, while the producers, creators and investors in these works have a hardy laugh all the way to to bank. Don't misunderstand me, I am all for fan fiction and the like, but being picky about "continuity" and "canon" is just infantile.

This brings me to another point, one I will illustrate without using and kind of Suikoden reference.

Take the case of the Harry Potter series: J.K Rowling recently -after the final book in the series was released- made a statement saying that Professor Dumbledor was gay. Immediately, the right wing -which already hated the work- blew up in rage, and gay rights advocates cheered Ms. Rowling's "courage." I of course, reacted by saying: "No, Dumbledor isn't gay," shrugging my shoulders and proceeding to lose what little respect I had for Ms. Rowling. If Ms. Rowling had actually finished college, she would likely have heard of a man named Roland Barthes, who is one of the most influential literary critics and semioticians of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Barthes

In 1967 Mr. Barthes published an essay called "The Death of the Author."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

I will summarize the essay here, if you are familiar with Barthes, then you will be correct to say that this is an oversimplification, but my apologies on that, as the space I have it limited. In this essay, Barthes argues that the interpretation of "text" is free, and that as individuals, we are free to interpret things however we would like to. In this sense, the word "Text" can mean anything that is disseminated. It can be a play, a piece of music, a film, anything related to communication, including of course a video game. Barthes says essentially that you cannot believe that which you do not want to believe and you will believe the things that you do believe. This sounds simple enough, but has major ramifications in the interpretation of texts when considered closely. He goes on to state that in this vein, you have an absolute right to interpret text as you see fit, irrespective of what your professor, your friends, critics and even the author say about the text itself. Everything that is not contained directly inside the text is considered to be "contextual" and largely inconsequential.

This brings us back to Ms. Rowling. Inside the text of the Harry Potter books, there is no absolute confirmation that Dumbledor is a homosexual, thus, his sexuality in not textually established, thus he is not gay. Although, he is not straight either, because -to put it bluntly- he does not exist. He is a character, and all that the character contains is described within the text, and even Ms. Rowling has no right to challenge your interpretation of that text. Moreover, her assertion that Dumbledor is gay is clearly contextual, and thus irrelevant to the text itself. If there had been a scene where Dumbledor announces his sexuality to the student body, then his sexuality would be textually established. However, even then, you as the reader have an absolute right to interpret the text as you see fit, and you have every right to believe that Dumbledor is still a heterosexual if you wish to do so. In short, your freedom to interpret as you see fit trumps the author's commentary, even assuming that they have a right to contextual commentary in the first place. You cannot believe what you do not want to believe. Barthes goes even further to assert that the very intent of the author is meaningless compared to what the text means to you, and that the author has no right to establish any kind of contextual argument as to their own intent.

Pachelbel's Kannon is used most commonly for weddings. But, we have no idea why he wrote that piece. We do not know what his intent was, however, it is a lovely piece, and makes a fine metaphor of repetition and fidelity. So, we use it at weddings,

Barthes specifically sites the canon argument of le Morte d'Arthur, saying in essence: Since the fact of authorship cannot be established, then it follows that the author's intent cannot be established, thus all we have is the text, and the text must be judged independent of contextual arguments.

With that said, why do you love the Suikoden Games? I can assure you, none of us love them because Roundier Haia was mentioned in passing something like three times over the course of five games. None of us love Suikoden because of minute textual details. We love Suikoden because of what it makes us feel. So, wake up. Roundier Haia does not exist. Jeane does not exist. Harmonia does not exist. Flik, Dunan, the Soul Eater, Viki, Zexen, Kanakan, none of these things actually exist, thus there can be no "facts" surrounding them because they are -at their core- fictional. Most of the main characters do not even have textually established names. Nothing in the world of Genso Suikoden has objective reality. Thus, what the game makes you feel, what the game makes you think, and the similarities you see between the game and the real world have far more objective reality than any portion of the text of the game or even the text of all the games put together.

What is real is you, and what you feel and what you learn. Until you realize this, you are simply deluding yourself. This is why arguments about so-called "canon" are meaningless, and why I am so frustrated at the situation. Just as Konami has no right to tell you how to feel about the games, you have no right to complain that something is not in your flawed idea of canon just because it did not make you feel like the other games in the series did. Because it did not make you feel the way you wanted to feel.

If you disagree with Barthes and believe that the author's opinions and commentary have merit, you are not alone. The academia is still split on whether author's have a contextual say about their own work, or whether the can and must simply speak for itself. I personally largely agree with Barthes, but still become frustrated when, say, people like Glenn Beck grossly misinterpret wonderful authors like George Orwell. I feel that the author's intent does have some merit, but not enough to change my thinking about their work, and really, the text should speak for itself.

So, if you believe the author's intent means something, and that Suikoden should follow the creator's vision. Great, so that leads to the question: Who created Suikoden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Margin

OK. So, according to the wiki, the canon of the original work is in question. It appears that it was started by a Chinese man named Shi Nai'an and then the final chapters were written by the same guy who wrote Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Or, at least that is the consensus of many scholars, for there is no way to possibly know who the author or authors are at this point. Especially because we do not know when it was even written. So, there is actually a legitimate argument about factual canon in the original work of Water Margin.

Then, somewhere between five hundred and eight hundred years later, some Japanese guy named Murayama comes along and decides to make a video game that is so loosely based on Water Margin that it is almost unrecognizable. He completely ignores what many would see as the "canon" of the existing text, in preference of his own story, set in his own world that he designed. This of course is completely arbitrary, and I doubt he consulted Shi' Nai'an for his advice regarding the adaptation of his work into the Video Game medium.

Konami then continued to make Genso Suikoden games, even after Murayama departed from the company, with various writers and directors. Then a few years later, some people have the audacity to complain over the continuity issues in a short preview for a Genso Suikoden title that has yet to be released.

Are you seeing my point yet? Even if we are to assume that so-called "canon" could exist inside of a fictional world, there is absolutely no way that Water Margin or Genso Suikoden could have such established "canon." There are far too many problems with the original work as it is, and any attempts to establish norms of "fact" are already undermined from their very foundation.

If you still think that Murayama's "vision," whatever you assume that to be, has been violated but subsequent titles, look no further than Suikoden III and the words of the Flame Champion, during the flashback sequence where he is speaking with a young Sana. To paraphrase, he grows weary of other people placing all of their hopes onto his shoulders, and believes that is everyone's responsibility to work together for a brighter future. He denies that he is a hero, and that people often use the idea of a "hero" to relieve themselves of responsibility for their own situation. Rather than waiting for a hero to save them, people should take action themselves.

It can be dangerous to closely align authors with their own characters, but somehow, I feel that this is as close as Murayama ever got to speaking directly to the fans of the series. I doubt that he wants people to fuss over minute things in the details of his fictional world, while completely ignoring the dialogue of his characters.

And here I am, trying to discern the author's intent. I realize the contradiction, but you too, are free to interpret the Flame Champion's words however you would like to. Or, you can simply choose to ignore them entirely. But suffice it to say, I took great meaning from them, and from the games as a whole. And I don't see any reason to doubt that I can continue to do so, even if a few bad titles make it into the series, or the games do not make me feel inspired like they used to.

Thanks for reading. And I think the Suikosouce staff should take my advice and ban the word "canon." I don't think it does anyone any good here, and I think I settled the argument.

[Darkbeat]

Wow.

Yeah that pretty much settles the canon debate.

[Hirathien]

Well, if you think your wall of text would fix anything, I'm sorry to say you wasted your time. The people that already knew the definition have nothing to gain from it, and the people that doesn't want to understand it won't bother to read. So, in theory, you put a lot of time into doing this... Why? To prove you were right? Do you need such approval by the general audience?

While I can't argue that you clearly know what you are talking about, I just don't see the need for this topic, at all.

[Nikisaur]

Well it's a topic under much debate at the moment throughout the forum, it seems only fitting that the debaters are given a place to do it... Not saying you're being overly hostile, but there's no need to jump into a thread and post saying it's pointless, that just creates an unpleasant environment. And I know several people who have turned away from Suikosource because of the constant hostility from people being antagonistic for the sake of it...

If it's not your cup of tea, don't post?

[Rooks]

Well, if you think your wall of text would fix anything, I'm sorry to say you wasted your time. The people that already knew the definition have nothing to gain from it, and the people that doesn't want to understand it won't bother to read. So, in theory, you put a lot of time into doing this... Why? To prove you were right? Do you need such approval by the general audience?

While I can't argue that you clearly know what you are talking about, I just don't see the need for this topic, at all.

Well truth be told, I dislocated my knee a few weeks ago and am still mostly bedridden. So, I did not really waste any time writing this, I have plenty of time on my hands now. Yeah, this likely won't make a dent in some people's opinions for sure, but if I have knowledge, why not share it if I can, huh? If you want to interpret the text of this thread as me trying to win some kind of approval, go right ahead, that is your right, but I will argue that you are wrong.

Also, this can give people wanting to duke out "canon" issues a place to do it without marring the good news thread about the new Suikoden game.

[tiki]

appealing to the book is silly because the games appear to have very little to do with the book beyond sharing a similar title, Muramaya obviously was not trying to say that the things he was putting in his game were actual changes or additions to the world the book introduced, the world of the book and the world of the game are obviously two very different things that share nothing beyond possibly a few similar plots and title

some people, however, believe that Tierkreis is actually a canonical addition to Muramaya's Suikoden world

and they're wrong

if you respect an author's unfinished works or simply the story put forth, you try to finish the missing pages as tactfully as you can

if you care nothing for the author or the story he created, you completely disregard everything they spent years of their life trying to piece together and inject whatever the hell you want into there and try to ride the cash cow

I guess what I'm trying to say is, Suikoden Tierkreis still isn't canon to anything but it's own world and this new game, if it acknowledges Tierkreis or it's world at all or takes place in a world that isn't Muramaya's, isn't canon either

[LanceHeart]

some people, however, believe that Tierkreis is actually a canonical addition to Muramaya's Suikoden world

and they're wrong

I dare you to find empirical proof that Tierkreis is 100% unrelated to the original world. Find me one Konami staffer or publication that confirmed that it's completely separate from the original world.

[tiki]

I dare you to find empirical proof that Tierkreis is 100% unrelated to the original world. Find me one Konami staffer or publication that confirmed that it's completely separate from the original world.

Konami is a publisher

Muramaya is the creator

find me a quote of Muramaya embracing the world of Tierkreis as having anything to do with the world he breathed life into

[Calvin]

This is a well thought out argument.

My problem with it, however, is that in providing a historical context and definition of canon, it fails to address the changing meanings of words. Canon may well have meant exactly what you described (thank you for the history lesson by the way, I didn't know most of that), but today, it has a changed meaning, or at the very least, has gained additional meanings.

Society creates and changes words all the time. I've done a few minutes of research, and as best I can tell the word "canon" has undergone a semantic change called "figurative extension." That is: "A type of semantic change in which a word gains additional meanings through metaphorical or metonymic associations" (http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/figura ... onterm.htm). Basically, the word "canon" has gained additional meaning through social and cultural interaction. Purists may argue against such changes, but the fact is that if most people agree and start using the change, than it is so. That is, after all, one of the main tenets of language: the ability to successfully communicate with one another.

After confirming my suspicions on the nature of changing words, I decided to look further into the word canon by looking up dictionary definitions to see what they had to say about it. I used the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. My findings are as follows:

As you say, canon, according to Merriam-Webster, includes many of the definitions you provided, including musical composition and church dogma. But it also has two other definitions. These are:

1. The authentic works of a writer
2. A sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>

These are the definitions that relate specifically to the argument in the other thread, and to the idea that modern media has canon at all. My argument will be specific to Suikoden however.

The first definition would seemingly apply, however on close inspection it can’t, because the only authentic works of Suikoden by Murayama are I and II. Suikoden III was started by him but not finished, and we have no way of knowing how much of the writing is his; not to mention the countless other items that contribute to the world, such as the encyclopedias, of which I don’t personally know the authors; I have a suspicion, however, that it isn’t Murayama. So, by this definition the “canon” of Murayama’s Suikoden works would only be the first two games, and nothing else.

The second definition is much more inclusive. It is a sanctioned body of related works; in this case, Suikoden games. The “sanctioner,” as it were, would be Konami. They have developed and published all games with the Suikoden brand, thus they have sanctioned them. There is the argument that Tierkreis is not related to the other Suikodens, so therefore it cannot be considered canon. However, story aside, I believe that because it has been sanctioned by Konami as a Suikoden, it is canon.

[Rachael]

I agree with some of what you said and also with Jimi Moondance.

But my concern is that what you wrote sounded a tad presumptuous, especially:

"Canon" has been established of late, thanks to the internet and the largely imbecilic fans of such works as Star Wars, Star Trek, X-Men, and the like.

and

If Ms. Rowling had actually finished college, she would likely have heard of a man named Roland Barthes, who is one of the most influential literary critics and semioticians of all time.

Why would you call someone "imbecilic" simply because they don't understand a word's original meaning? Maybe they're misinformed. Maybe they're even wrong. But that doesn't make them imbecilic. Not everyone has a college education, let alone a degree in literature.

Same with the second quote. I finished college, and I've never heard of Roland Barthes--at least, not that I recall. And just because she stated something about one of her characters, that doesn't make her an idiot. It certainly doesn't mean you have any place scoffing at her for not knowing who Roland Barthes is.

Other than that, the essay was excellent and I enjoyed reading it, even if I didn't agree with all of it. But it does help to put the whole Tierkreis issue in perspective.

[Antimatzist]

find me a quote of Muramaya embracing the world of Tierkreis as having anything to do with the world he breathed life into

Find me a quote that Murayama liked Suikoden Tactics, IV or V. Maybe he had completely different (or no at all) ideas how to deal with this regions. Maybe he also had the idea to create a multiverse, maybe even similar to the idea of Tierkreis. If you can find me quotes to prove anything of this wrong or right, I really appreciate it, but until then, maybe you can reconsider your position, at least one bit?

Now you will say "But they are in the same world as the others, fu, I'm right and a troll, and you who is trying to discuss with me, I don't care so I will answer your post with the same 3 lines over and over again", but that's ok for me.

[tiki]

the difference is that IV and V clearly made an effort to embrace the existing source material, work with it and tactfully continue it

Tierkreis gives the original material the middle finger and says THIS IS DUMB, I CAN'T MAKE A STORY OUT OF ANYWHERE IN THIS VAST WORLD, I'M GONNA MAKE MY OWN WORLD - NO I'M GONNA MAKE INFINITE WORLDS WITH MY OWN PLOT AND MY OWN STUFF AND WE'RE GONNA FIGHT GOD IT'S GONNA BE GREAT

it's really godawful fanfiction without the fan part

[DoReMi_Vampire]

And the great irony of this whole thing is, that the original Water Margin also has gone through this very same debate. Shi Nai'an is considered the original author but there's been reason to suspect that the ending of the story was made by a completely different person, Luo Guanzhong.

My personal feelings towards canon would be that if it tells the same storyline and adds on top of what's already been told then it's canon in my eyes. Of course I wouldn't disregard the tone of the story and the literary language as part of the canon, if the style of story-telling suddenly became totally inept I would argue that it's not canon since it breaks away from the way it's supposed to be told.

[Darth Lampe]

I've heard most of that before. The only real issue I see is that canon in certain series does indeed exist. Canon isn't used in Star Wars or the like as with authorship, because we know who wrote what. It's used closer to the theological definition, of what is truthful. So for Star Wars, there are plenty of comics and books that get written that are purposefully "What if" in nature. Also instances of where one author disregards another inadvertently, or when a Star Wars film changes something that was in a book. Then you get questions regarding continuity. Canon, at least for Star Wars, is set up to show not only level of credence, but to outline the story. Of course, it's all a bit ridiculous since it's a fictional work, but it has a clear purpose.

[Exophase]

The whole debate feels out of place to me.

Usually this issue comes up when considering whether or not to consider additions to a story as affecting the continuity of the work at a higher level. You want to know if something "really happened" both because it has implications in defining the work as a whole and because it defines the context for both prior and succeeding works. If something is canon then it shapes the direction of what's to come because new works now have to be consistent with what is established, or worse have an inconsistent canon.

In Tierkreis's case the story makes no attempt whatsoever to connect with the other games. Whether or not they both take place in the same existence where they could have interacted is moot because they didn't interact. I think what people are really arguing is whether or not the game is entitled to call itself Suikoden and if it has the same literary value as the other games, and if it deserves any value by association of title. These are completely distinct questions from whether or not it's "canon."