My favorite film series is Star Wars, and it has been since I was very young. Despite this, my interest in the franchise waxes and wanes. Currently, my interest in Star Wars is on the upswing, spurred on by my anticipation of the Disney+ series The Mandalorian and the upcoming film The Rise of Skywalker. As I await these upcoming canonical entries in the Star Wars franchise, I am also reading Han Solo’s Revenge, the middle entry of a trilogy of novels collectively titled The Han Solo Adventures. An early example of Star Wars spin-off media, published between the releases of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, this novel is currently deemed noncanonical.
Awaiting the release of canonical Star Wars material while reading noncanonical Star Wars material has led me to think about the concept of canonicity, pertaining to both Star Wars and fiction more generally. This contemplation has left me with two prevailing realizations: 1) precisely defining canon is difficult and 2) I regard the idea of canon as inherently flawed. In this two-part series of articles about fictional canonicity, I will expound upon these two thoughts. In the second article, I will discuss flaws of the concept of fictional canonicity and offer solutions thereto. In this article, I will attempt to define canon.
The vocabulary around canon that franchises such as Star Wars and Star Trek would adopt originated regarding the Bible. In that context, canon refers to those texts that a given denomination of Christianity holds as sacred and God-inspired. If a text is regarded as having been inspired by God, then that book is held to be true and possess authority. This idea of Biblical authority would later be modified in the application of ideas of canon to fiction.
Over time, ideas of canonicity began being applied to fiction. Consider how abstract and strange this is: terms denoting truth value came to be applied to works regarded by their authors and readers as untrue, at least in a literal, journalistic sense.
Here I offer a simplistic definition of canon—so simplistic, in fact, that it borders on being a straw man: canon refers to those texts that are true. When applied to fiction, this definition falls short. Returning to my Star Wars example, on this definition, canonical Star Wars stories are true, whereas noncanonical Star Wars stories are false. So the events to be depicted in The Mandalorian really happened, but the events depicted in The Han Solo Adventures did not really happen. The obvious flaw of this line of reasoning is that The Mandalorian and The Han Solo Adventures both are works of fiction; as such, neither depicts events that actually happened.
Of course, the above definition is intentionally simplistic. Fictional canonicity does not refer to the degree to which a work of fiction accurately represents real-world events. So let’s modify the definition: canon refers to those texts that constitute the official fictional history of a series or multimedia franchise. This seems closer to what people mean when they discuss fictional canonicity.
However accurate it may be, the above definition raises certain questions, such as the following: Who decides what is official? What does deeming a work of fiction official represent, especially as opposed to a work being merely licensed? What is the benefit of deeming some entries in a franchise official and others unofficial?
I shall address these and other concerns in the following article, wherein I shall propose an alternative to the concept of fictional canonicity.
