Re: Canon or no?
Posted: 12 Sep 2011
The character was "The Hunter" at first until he was adopted as old Travis.
Everything is indicative that it's canon.Let me clear something up: “Canon†is anything in the Silent Hill games that was produced by Konami. For SH2, 3 and 4, that means anything written by me. Period. End of story. In fact, that is the definition of Canon. If Tomm says it, it is canon. If I say it, canon. Devin? Canon. If a former actor says it or if some kids in their mom’s basement say it, not so much. Pretty clear?
According to Wikipedia's definition, the fanbase dictates if a conceptual materal should be canon. That is why we have different terminology for this. Canonicity is for the fanbase to accept as "official", and not because one of the developers say that it is. In fact, even Team Silent has no say in this.In fiction, canon is the conceptual material accepted as "official" in a fictional universe's fan base. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction, which are not considered canonical. It is used in two slightly different meanings: first, "it refers to the overall set of storylines, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text". In this sense, canon is "the original work from which the fan fiction author borrows," or "the original media on which the fan fictions are based." Secondly, it is used "as a descriptor of specific incidents, relationships, or story arcs that take place within the overall canon"; thus certain incidents or relationships may be described as being canon or not.
Wikipedia is alright to use as long as there are reliable citations and sources at the bottom of the page. It's really just a summary of all those sources, which makes things much easier to find, especially if you want further reading on the subject and Google is giving nothing but crap.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:^Your point pretty much became invalid because you used Wikipedia as a source. You could be completely correct, but nobody is going to listen to a site where it's edited by its own users. :\
Same here. I'm more inclined to believe someone who worked on the game than people who regularly ignore simple facts that are either present in game or other official material.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:I don't care what the 'fanbase' says. If the fanbase ruled what was canon then we would have a bunch of TP cultists running the whole Silent Hill freak show. I'm gonna take my chances on listening to the creators rather than 'fans.'
I suppose, though there's been times where I've went on Wikipedia and seen the most outlandish information on there, so I think it's pretty reasonable for one to be skeptical of it. Why can't someone just use Webster if they want a definition?Soulless-Shadow wrote:Wikipedia is alright to use as long as there are reliable citations and sources at the bottom of the page. It's really just a summary of all those sources, which makes things much easier to find, especially if you want further reading on the subject and Google is giving nothing but crap.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:^Your point pretty much became invalid because you used Wikipedia as a source. You could be completely correct, but nobody is going to listen to a site where it's edited by its own users. :\
Exactly. We just saw this in action a few days ago on Facebook! Having faith in the fanbase for information is just a big, nasty mess. Theories would be our base of foundation, for the most part.SoullessShadow wrote:Same here. I'm more inclined to believe someone who worked on the game than people who regularly ignore simple facts that are either present in game or other official material.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:I don't care what the 'fanbase' says. If the fanbase ruled what was canon then we would have a bunch of TP cultists running the whole Silent Hill freak show. I'm gonna take my chances on listening to the creators rather than 'fans.'
Not really.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:Also, I can agree with that, Kenji. I'm not trying to fight, if that's leaning towards me.
But it's always been like that, though, and we managed fine. The only difference is that now the creators are saying something about it.Kenji wrote:Personally, I sometimes think people just aren't happy if they don't have something to fight about. What defines a fan if there aren't heretical non-fans (who aren't merely the disinterested masses)?
I checked Webster and the other dictionaries, but their definitions were traditional definitions. When fans talk about the term "canon," they're not using the term as it applies to those definitions strictly. The term has a different meaning in this context and I happened to find Wikipedia that cited sources with a modern definition.Aerith Gainsborough wrote:Why can't someone just use Webster if they want a definition?
One can be a fan and bash the fandom at the same time. In each fandom there are different kinds of fans. Some take things more seriously than others, some are more level-headed, some are insane, some are casual fans, etc. Generally when one bashes the fandom they are a part of, they're either making a joke at their own expense, or bashing a certain subgroup of the fandom. Besides, I don't think one can really have any idea what they're talking about re fandom insults unless they are a part of that fandom. That way they have an intimate understanding of that fandoms faults.Burning Man wrote: But it's strange to me to see a supposed fan bashing on the fanbase. Do people not know that they are part of this fanbase?
Hey, it passes the time. ^_^ I'm always looking for interesting conversations, though I don't always mean to argue. >_>Kenji wrote:Personally, I sometimes think people just aren't happy if they don't have something to fight about.
Huh, you must wiki some odd things then, because everything I've searched for has been pretty spot on.Aerith Gainsborough wrote: I suppose, though there's been times where I've went on Wikipedia and seen the most outlandish information on there, so I think it's pretty reasonable for one to be skeptical of it.
I'm quite happy to take notice of what some fans say. For example, The Adversary and Ryantology. They always put a lot of effort into their theories, and even link to their sources, etc.Aerith Gainsborough wrote: Exactly. We just saw this in action a few days ago on Facebook! Having faith in the fanbase for information is just a big, nasty mess. Theories would be our base of foundation, for the most part.
^This^Ryantology wrote:I would think that, going by those descriptors, 'official' would trump whatever the fanbase considers 'canon'.
I think good canonicity is mostly based on official material. Many people here are actually talking about fans "making shit up." Of course, it's a no-brainer if you're talking about the latter.Ryantology wrote:I would think that, going by those descriptors, 'official' would trump whatever the fanbase considers 'canon'.
The primary reason Origins and Homecoming are often put on trial for questionable canonicity is really more an indictment on the overall games than, specifically, any contradictory elements in their stories (which is the only important element to consider in such a discussion). I don't like Origins very much, either for its gameplay or its story, but I still don't dispute it being canon simply because it does not contradict the other games in any important way.
I'm not going to lie. When Kenji mentioned different "factions," I busted a gut laughing.Soulless-Shadow wrote:One can be a fan and bash the fandom at the same time. In each fandom there are different kinds of fans.