Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 3:27:55 GMT
nobody is policing your thoughts on what you count as canon. Unless they're Grel data pirates. Why do the people in Doctor Who fandom who believe in 'canon' spend so much time trying to convince others that it exists? If it exists in your head and you are happy with that, fine. Writing lengthy posts is not going to convince others who don't believe in it, that it exists. For me it doesn't, and I am happy with my POV. Mumbo jumbo comparing people's personal ideas to art is just a waste of time as nobody is going to change their own beliefs regardless. In this case, do you mean an objective canon or the merits of their own canon?
|
|
|
Post by sherlock on May 18, 2017 9:32:16 GMT
Legally the BBC cannot say what is and what is not canon regarding Doctor Who. But where's the fun in that? Can they not? The charter as I understand it, currently says something along the lines that no program the BBC make from licence fee money can rely, in narrative form, on something only available to licence fee payers for an additional fee. i.e. they can't make a TV episode that only really makes sense if you had listened to a particular BF audio. This gives the BBC a huge amount of room, should they so wish, to say what is and is not canon. It should also be noted that the BBC have said that BF are cannon (actually, explicitly said) during The Wilderness Years. And also of note, this requirement of the charter is a fairly new addition, introduced after a period of time when the BBC had got into the bad habit of running commercials for BBC worldwide products. It's a grey area, but I suspect declaring stuff canon would potentially fall into that definition. There's also the fact that Big Finish is a separate company and the BBC's not meant to advertise for separate companies. (The books are fine since they're done by BBC Books, which is loosely a part of the BBC itself). So I suspect stuff like the references in Night of the Doctor are the closest we're going to get to an official line on canon. The BBC is just very cautious about stuff like this (the media and some politicians are very quick to pounce on it should it be seen to breach its charter)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 14:08:46 GMT
Why do the people in Doctor Who fandom who believe in 'canon' spend so much time trying to convince others that it exists? If it exists in your head and you are happy with that, fine. Writing lengthy posts is not going to convince others who don't believe in it, that it exists. For me it doesn't, and I am happy with my POV. In this case, do you mean an objective canon or the merits of their own canon? It doesn't matter, as in my world there is no Doctor Who canon, full stop. I do have my own personal view about what Doctor Who stuff fits in to my own continuity, but the words continuity and canon actually mean two different things. If people want to read a lengthy philosophical ramble about canon, here is Paul Cornell's take on it... Canonicity in Doctor Who
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 14:34:09 GMT
In this case, do you mean an objective canon or the merits of their own canon? It doesn't matter, as in my world there is no Doctor Who canon, full stop. I do have my own personal view about what Doctor Who stuff fits in to my own continuity, but the words continuity and canon actually mean two different things. If people want to read a lengthy philosophical ramble about canon, here is Paul Cornell's take on it... Canonicity in Doctor WhoMy answer was going to be the same either way -- I'm in agreement. Discussions about canonicity don't really interest me, but continuity does and I think that's a very important distinction to make. Canonicity is deciding what is and isn't authoritative whereas continuity is about how it all slots together and that's far more fascinating to explore for me personally. I'm always intrigued to hear people's thoughts on the old argument of womb vs. loom (or the patented Whiskey-Wolf theory that says it's both without post-departure jiggering ), the TV Comic adventures where the Third Doctor has seemingly slipped into the Amicus universe, the many deaths of the Sixth Doctor and ideas concerning future, alternate and even pre-television Doctors. Why trample over all that creativity and ingenuity by trying to impose what's real and unreal on others? It's fun to speculate. Hell, fun is why we're all fans in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on May 18, 2017 14:38:59 GMT
Why do the people in Doctor Who fandom who believe in 'canon' spend so much time trying to convince others that it exists? If it exists in your head and you are happy with that, fine. Writing lengthy posts is not going to convince others who don't believe in it, that it exists. For me it doesn't, and I am happy with my POV. Mumbo jumbo comparing people's personal ideas to art is just a waste of time as nobody is going to change their own beliefs regardless. I don't believe that there is a canon Who that exists somewhere out there that can be seen, touched or in some way quantified, however I do have what I personally regard as canon, it's far from a comprehensive canon, but there are things that are clearly in and things that are clearly out, and this distinction makes me happy, but I would never suggest that my own canon was in anyway coherent or suited to everyone or that others should in some way toe the line of my canon. On the ontology of words and meaning, for me, words (sounds) have whatever meaning we (that is the individual) assign to them, although that in of itself is not that useful as, in of itself, it offers no opportunity to communicate, to convey ideas, so words/sounds have shared meaning, but this shared meaning comes after the personal meaning, the overriding meaning is the personal meaning and personal meanings can and often are different to one another, and so the shared meaning is also at same time not shared, there are parts of the shared meaning that cannot be communicated (by the word/sound) to an individual because that individual does not personally assign that meaning to the word/sound. I think it a mistake to think or classify meaning as being something out there, tangible, measurable, classifiable. The specifics of meaning, such as they are, are personal, the shared meaning is always going to be generalisations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 11:39:25 GMT
On the ontology of words and meaning, for me, words (sounds) have whatever meaning we (that is the individual) assign to them, although that in of itself is not that useful as, in of itself, it offers no opportunity to communicate, to convey ideas, so words/sounds have shared meaning, but this shared meaning comes after the personal meaning, the overriding meaning is the personal meaning and personal meanings can and often are different to one another, and so the shared meaning is also at same time not shared, there are parts of the shared meaning that cannot be communicated (by the word/sound) to an individual because that individual does not personally assign that meaning to the word/sound. Yes. Probably.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 11:59:57 GMT
Why do the people in Doctor Who fandom who believe in 'canon' spend so much time trying to convince others that it exists? If it exists in your head and you are happy with that, fine. Writing lengthy posts is not going to convince others who don't believe in it, that it exists. For me it doesn't, and I am happy with my POV. Mumbo jumbo comparing people's personal ideas to art is just a waste of time as nobody is going to change their own beliefs regardless. I don't believe that there is a canon Who that exists somewhere out there that can be seen, touched or in some way quantified, however I do have what I personally regard as canon, it's far from a comprehensive canon, but there are things that are clearly in and things that are clearly out, and this distinction makes me happy, but I would never suggest that my own canon was in anyway coherent or suited to everyone or that others should in some way toe the line of my canon. On the ontology of words and meaning, for me, words (sounds) have whatever meaning we (that is the individual) assign to them, although that in of itself is not that useful as, in of itself, it offers no opportunity to communicate, to convey ideas, so words/sounds have shared meaning, but this shared meaning comes after the personal meaning, the overriding meaning is the personal meaning and personal meanings can and often are different to one another, and so the shared meaning is also at same time not shared, there are parts of the shared meaning that cannot be communicated (by the word/sound) to an individual because that individual does not personally assign that meaning to the word/sound. I think it a mistake to think or classify meaning as being something out there, tangible, measurable, classifiable. The specifics of meaning, such as they are, are personal, the shared meaning is always going to be generalisations. *puts on best Geoffrey Bayldon voice* To expand, this ties into the ever-baffling philosophical quandary of what is considered "normal". "Normality", as humans recognise it, is merely defined by a majority agreement upon a unified ideological approach. We all agree that red is a colour resembling blood, cherries or rubies and through repetition that becomes an established fact. To do otherwise, would prompt needless confusion and anger. The Earth people of the twenty-first century called such attempts at seeding misinformation and meaningful blocking ideological exchange: "trolling" after the angling practice of the same name. However, in spite of both this and more extreme measures of information suppression such as historical revisionism, the human race continues to negotiate beliefs and values ranging from something as mundane as visual properties to the nature of their own actuality.*cough* Which would seem to point to "meaning" being a subjective human construct. A chair is only identified as a "chair" because most of us agree that's what it is. And then there's art, which pokes and prods at preconceived notions of meaning all the time. There are even instances where art challenges its own criteria.
|
|