Read on Twitter
I agree with pretty much everything in this article. (As I& #39;ve said many a time, detail is to shared fictional worlds as entropy is to reality. On a long enough timeline it annihilates the value in everything.)
But I have a dissenting note.
Herein: a thread on Shared Canon: https://twitter.com/io9/status/1245445692736393218">https://twitter.com/io9/statu...
But I have a dissenting note.
Herein: a thread on Shared Canon: https://twitter.com/io9/status/1245445692736393218">https://twitter.com/io9/statu...
By my estimation, MOST fans of these fictions -- the overwhelming majority, in fact -- have the unconscious ability to parse, and sidestep, the levels of self-defeating obsession the article cautions against.
Most Batman fans don& #39;t worry about the fact that the guy& #39;s in thrixteen different teams, on three different planets, all at once. Most Star Wars fans don& #39;t become so mortally offended by a minor contradiction in timelines that they require a canonical explanation.
As long as these reality-bumps aren& #39;t so egregious that they trip up even the most easy-going of readers, they tend to pass without trouble. And we almost never hear about them, because - core thesis - *it doesn& #39;t offend most readers enough to make them angry.*
Of course it& #39;s lovely when everything matches up, and I don& #39;t mean to belittle those who DO insist on granular accuracy. I& #39;d simply say it& #39;s an expectation which will tend to disappoint, sooner or later, and it runs the risk of making folks mistake narrative tidiness for quality.
It seems like a far safer - nay, more rewarding approach - to enjoy a fiction on its own merits in the first instance before worrying about its place in the wider scheme. This, of course, runs entirely counter to the commercial orthodoxy of shared IPs.
And, let& #39;s be clear, that& #39;s the dichotomy that lies behind all this. The comics industry in particular has come to rely overwhelmingly on the instinct to maximize exposure to the Shared World. Completists (justifiably) want their loyalty rewarded by the illusion of authenticity.
To use a slightly uncharitable analogy, if shared world universes are essentially an addictive drug, and completists are addicts, then contradictions in canon are like a Bad Batch. Buyers might take their custom elsewhere. Or, worse, try to get clean.
(No, I& #39;m not literally saying publishers are Drug Dealers. At least, not any more so than ANY manufacturer, who is trying desperately to persuade consumers of their product& #39;s indispensability, could be described the same way.)
(And, credit where it& #39;s due, there IS a very specific emotional reward that comes from immersing oneself in a totally convincing and non-contradictory fiction. It& #39;s a beautiful thing, and I don& #39;t sneer at those who yearn for it.)
I digress.
I digress.
Some IPs try to square the circle by incorporating myth and uncertainty into lore -- the worldbuilding equiv of Plausible Deniability -- which: clever. Fine.
But, for me, it& #39;s far more impressive that readers are able to unconsciously partition stories as units of meaningful narrative, even when their verisimilitude collapses under scrutiny in the context of parallel stories. This is faith in action, in very real terms.
Again: I truly believe that when confronted with a dissonant note, the VAST majority of readers come down on the side of What Makes A Valuable Story, rather than What Fits In Continuity.
The reason we find ourselves talking about this stuff, IMO, ISN& #39;T because so many readers get angry when something doesn& #39;t line-up. It& #39;s because (again, IMO) the only people complaining about it ARE the ones who& #39;re angry. ie: the only ones invested enough to be outraged.
It& #39;s Spurrier& #39;s First Law (sorry): FACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN HERDS.
The louder someone& #39;s shouting, the less representative their group.
This has never been truer than in online fandoms.
The louder someone& #39;s shouting, the less representative their group.
This has never been truer than in online fandoms.
To put this in tl;dr terms, I don& #39;t think readerships are being overwhelmed by canon-obsessives, who demand accuracy irrespective of quality. But I DO think that& #39;s the loudest signal being broadcast online.
Should we keep trying to curate our shared IPs so that they have the illusion of functional, explicable places? Sure. But should that be our first concern? Should we ossify our continuities at the expense of incredible stories with meaning and value?
Absolutely not.
Absolutely not.
