Just to continue some thoughts from the previous blog, something I rarely am able to do, I discovered a whole other level of "modding" the other day; the concept of "canon" as it relates to fan fiction. I knew about canonical text as it relates to religious discussion about scripture; different scholars representing different sects arguing over which ancient texts "belong" in the bible or as scripture , i.e., are divinely inspired. But in the world of fan fiction, as far as I've been able to tell, "canon" means that a story from a particular story's universe has been published with the approval of the story's author or holder of the legal rights to the story, as indicating a continuation of the story.
So a piece of fan fiction might be published on the web, but could not be sold to anyone or be charged for viewing without the approval of the copyright owner. I think. That's my vague kind of understanding of it. But the copyright holder could suddenly choose a piece of fan fiction and approve it as part of the official storyline, and publish works with characters and plots that refer to the events in the "canonized" story as having happened in their universe. But it seems that in the eyes of the fans, the legal copyright holder is not considered as authoritative, with regard to canon, as the original author. The word "author" comes from "authority" after all. Or the reverse, but my point holds true either way. With The Lord of the Rings, for instance, a work I myself was once quite excited about, people were attentively judging the eponymous movies for their adherence to the original books. I would count myself among these people, who regarded the original books, by Tolkien, as "Canon," although I did not use that exact word. And I watched the movies with a highly critical eye as to their agreement with the books. I would never have considered the movies to be "canon", unless Tolkien himself had written and directed them. I always viewed the movies as a lesser work, to be judged as they agreed with the books, which I now realize is a quasi-religious attitude. I've actually seen movies based on other books, movies that have been given enthusiastic approval by the author of the book them self, that I myself have intensely disliked as much as I loved the book. I would say that this seems to indicate that print holds greater authority over the human subconscious, except that I've experienced the opposite effect, with The Shining for instance, where the movie felt like the canon, and the book, which was the original and parent work, read to me like an inferior novelization. This might be a tribute to Stanly Kubrick's artistry, or it might merely be more simply and disappointingly attributed to my having seen the movie first.
Which makes me wonder what someone's attitude would be if they happened to read the omnipresent fan fiction for a certain universe before they read the canon. You can do this easily on the Internet. I've read and seen many comic panels and illustrations that I didn't even realize were fan fictions because I knew nothing about the original comics. Deadpool for instance. I've never read the canon at all, and the same for all the satirical or fan fiction works based on the manga comics. I'd expect to find the canon markedly superior, of course, except for incredibly rare instances where a gifted person may have the economic freedom and the inclination to devote huge amounts of time to a fan fiction work. But why would they, except as a form of perverse exaggerated humility? Such a person would be a creative, but the opposite of an "author." A sub-author. An under-author. The written version of an inker. A "wrinker": One who insists on composing fan fiction only, for no money even though they have the talent to create excellent original work of their own.
But there's a lower level; someone who mods only the work of unpublished authors. Perverse in reverse, you could say, or "preverse", to use a wording from "Doctor Strangelove" that I've finally found a use for. Preverse, as in Prevert: One who insists on modding only unpublished work. But I'm thinking that maybe Prevert applies more to someone like myself, someone who mods only their own, unpublished work, which is more the reverse of humility, in a kind of endless recursive loop. Preverse, as in; "I find your work preversely solipsistic, especially when you took everything wrong with the original and made it worse."
I guess the whole concept of canon fascinates me because it reveals the hierarchical and religious instinct in the human brain. I understand copyright as a way to protect work and motivate creativity, but only the hierarchical mind could conceive canon and take it seriously. Why did I judge the LOTR movies on the books, really? So what if the original author wrote them? Why couldn't someone make the original better?
What if someone took everything I've posted to the Internet and re-worked it to make high art? Well, that would be insulting and I'd have to sue them, even while acknowledging their genius. But I'll probably lighten up about it after I've died.
This seems to be a ridiculously solipsistic and empty post itself, but I had to work hard to overcome autocorrect while coining the new words. Perhaps Autocorrect is the true preversion.
No comments:
Post a Comment