Should "Word of God" in any form of fiction be taken as undeniably canon?

[Ikagura Ikagura]

The definition can be seen there: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director or producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone making a mistake.

I'm opening a small debate about any fictional universes and their author (or authors) saying things about the characters or canon outside of said material.

In a con or in an interview sometimes the show or game creator can tell things you don't see in anything done for the series.

It can be useful to explain some inconsistencies or adding details when they didn't have time to implement them (I love seeing drafts and previous scripts for something) but what happens when they say something either ridiculous or goes against the established canon? Should a simple word wipe the in-game/in-show event? Should we take words for words anything said by a creator even if they have stopped working on their thing decades ago?

Also if new authors come how can we make sure they're also counted as "word of god"? What about things never planned to be canon (I personally don't take The Silmarillion as exactly canonical for LotR's story simply because Tolkien never planned to publish it as such, only as a bonus material for the Middle Earth).

 

[RustySK]

Personally I take authorial comments that exist seperately from the work as it stands at the time those comments are made to have the same exact weight as fan theories, whether they're comments made by the original author/s or some new creative team or not.

Narrative holes or details that were not expanded upon in the work itself can be just as meaning- and purposeful as what is definitively stated. Not just for the purpose of discussion, but in general.
Frankly I think it's important that a creative person lets their work stand on its own feet as opposed to chiselling away at it over and over and over - their part is done and that's that.

The way a person interprets a (finished) work is just as valid as the way it was intended, is what I'm trying to say.
I might not agree with another's read, but I also might not agree with an author's intent either - which is to say nothing of the fact that people change and the person that originally created the work is not the same person that comments on it years later. Just look at J.K. Rowling for a modern example.

The truth lies somewhere in-between anyway... Creative work is complicated.

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

Personally I take authorial comments that exist seperately from the work as it stands at the time those comments are made to have the same exact weight as fan theories, whether they're comments made by the original author/s or some new creative team or not.

Narrative holes or details that were not expanded upon in the work itself can be just as meaning- and purposeful as what is definitively stated. Not just for the purpose of discussion, but in general.
Frankly I think it's important that a creative person lets their work stand on its own feet as opposed to chiselling away at it over and over and over - their part is done and that's that.

The way a person interprets a (finished) work is just as valid as the way it was intended, is what I'm trying to say.
I might not agree with another's read, but I also might not agree with an author's intent either - which is to say nothing of the fact that people change and the person that originally created the work is not the same person that comments on it years later. Just look at J.K. Rowling for a modern example.

The truth lies somewhere in-between anyway... Creative work is complicated.

True, sometimes authors may change their mind (hello Georges Lucas) and some would straight up ruin their stuff by telling some of the things that should've been kept (like Ridley Scott telling that Deckard is a Replicant when the entire point of the movie was making it ambiguous).

I am glad Carpenter never said who was The Thing at the very end of the movie.

Doctor Who has an evolving canon since the show is very old but this is why Classic and Modern Who are separated by fans. When a work is vast that people expand on canon in their own way it can get tricky (like Star Wars' expanded universe until it became the Legends one after Disney has bought it).

Many things can also be interpreted as apocryphal instead of canon and it's fine (even if some are badass and deserved to be canon).

I still remember funny word of god like how Devilman's devilmite beam could destroy most of the DBZ cast since his attack could instantly kill people if they have evil within them yet Toriyama said his attack was too slow so that Frieza would obliterate him before he'd even launch it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1394672776812720128

 

[Zeo]

I think that goes more for the fandom to decide and take it as they like

Some times the creator/s actually reveal ideas and stuff that wasnt really important to the plot about "x" but fans could find interesting and expand the lore of their fav series (like a backstory trivia of a place, what the characters like to do in their free time, what "x" weapon can do or not do, if that object we see a lot is actually a memento of the character but never stated it was, etc)

That said, sometimes the creator is well know to forget the stuff it stated as canon before and make a mess of it later. So fans can take it well or in the "he/she forgot" area

Special mention to series that has been around for many years. Cant blame the creator to remember everything like if it was his/her dedication in life

When another author take the place and the original has no relation to the story anymore that can fall into "another continuity". I mean, is hard to take someone that didnt started the original work as canon of said work, just another side of the story for the fans to decide if is good or worse than the original

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

That said, sometimes the creator is well know to forget the stuff it stated as canon before and make a mess of it later. So fans can take it well or in the "he/she forgot" area

Special mention to series that has been around for many years. Cant blame the creator to remember everything like if it was his/her dedication in life

Ah yes, the "Araki Forgot" meme. Sometimes I'm wondering if authors are keeping a book about important events to avoid contradictions.

When another author take the place and the original has no relation to the story anymore that can fall into "another continuity". I mean, is hard to take someone that hasn't started the original work as canon of said work, just another side of the story for the fans to decide if is good or worse than the original.

Dragon Ball and Berzerk comes to mind but Dune as well since other people are continuing the franchises (like the prequel novels).

I also consider that the son of an author taking the work isn't fully the same as their father because they're not a clone and had a different life experience.

 

[Tonberry]

Personally I take authorial comments that exist seperately from the work as it stands at the time those comments are made to have the same exact weight as fan theories, whether they're comments made by the original author/s or some new creative team or not.

Narrative holes or details that were not expanded upon in the work itself can be just as meaning- and purposeful as what is definitively stated. Not just for the purpose of discussion, but in general.
Frankly I think it's important that a creative person lets their work stand on its own feet as opposed to chiselling away at it over and over and over - their part is done and that's that.

The way a person interprets a (finished) work is just as valid as the way it was intended, is what I'm trying to say.
I might not agree with another's read, but I also might not agree with an author's intent either - which is to say nothing of the fact that people change and the person that originally created the work is not the same person that comments on it years later. Just look at J.K. Rowling for a modern example.

The truth lies somewhere in-between anyway... Creative work is complicated.

I more or less agree, but I think it depends on the way the author kind of puts it forward.
Tolkien was crazy and viewed his work moreso like actual mythology he pretended to sort of prophesize about, like the story and the world came before and he only sort of chronicled it, which is fun because the expanding he did in letters only make for a more interesting read I find.
Same with Toriyiama and Dragonball, how DB is mostly silly in his head, so the silly things he claimed later just makes the entire story more fun.

I read an article a few years back about JK Rowling which I think was interesting (which also was from a queer person's PoV who had grown up with the series), which essentially said that even if you dislike the way she is now, your experiences with reading Harry Potter are your own, not hers, and as such you shouldn't feel bad if you enjoy/have enjoyed them in your life. You interpret the story the way you do, she just put it on paper.

It kind of also depends on how serious a fan takes something, because if they're just anti-fun and take the thing they love way too seriously they're both gonna be really authoritarian on what meets their stupid approval rate or whatever, and always make excuses for the things they view as exceptions.
The most important part is enjoying the thing. I don't care about story in Warcraft of Dark Souls, but I know people do. I'm not gonna rain on their parade but I'll also thank them not to espouse their interpretations of the story or their billions of theories/fanfiction onto me as if they're fact. This goes both ways of course, as being too rigid about change AND too eager for change can come off as snobbish.
The thing I like the least are when fans consider themselves an authority on something they like and feel like they're able to "fix" it or whatever.

Creators are often way more mellow about these things than superfans are, which, as a creative person AND a superfan of stuff, I think is only logical. Brian Lee O'Malley essentially gave Ramona away to the fans, because fan interpretation of the character was so infinitely more varied than he ever set out to make her, which I always found really inspiring.
My conclusion is thus; Relax and have fun with it.

 

[Vexicrypt]

I have a good example of this: Masahiro Ito and Silent Hill fans. Everybody knows that most SH fans don't actually play the games themselves and form their opinions on random video essays on YouTube, so they can go and ask Ito san stupid questions causing him headaches every time. He always answers them in a heated manner, because -- to be honest -- some of their theories are insane and even disgusting at times. I think this is unhealthy for both sides, obviously. This proximity to "God" ruins any "wrong" interpretations, which is bad for any piece of art, because at the end of a day fans can think whatever they want, as its based on personal experience of each individual. But at the same time when creator exactly tells you what was the meaning behind some things, he has all rights to be frustrated when people stay too obsessed with their head cannon. So I guess a good alternative would be David Lynch and how he completely rejected requests to elaborate on any of his works, basically saying that all interpretations are equally valid and nothing is cannon.

 

[Yousef]

Not necessarily, no. It depends on context. It’s one thing if the relevant question has some significant impact on the lore, such as character motives, goals, etc. But sometimes frivolous trivia like saiyan anatomy really shouldn’t be taken literally, like S-cells or saiyan beards.

Another relevant example would be power levels, no one knows for sure what the strongest stand in jojo is, some claim it’s Golden Experience, but power in and of itself is extremely subjective in Jojo due to anyone being able to defeat someone by outsmarting them.

 

[Tonberry]

So I guess a good alternative would be David Lynch and how he completely rejected requests to elaborate on any of his works, basically saying that all interpretations are equally valid and nothing is cannon.

He literally can't stop winning in my book.
Rest in Peace.

 

[Segadude113]

The definition can be seen there: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod


I'm opening a small debate about any fictional universes and their author (or authors) saying things about the characters or canon outside of said material.

In a con or in an interview sometimes the show or game creator can tell things you don't see in anything done for the series.

It can be useful to explain some inconsistencies or adding details when they didn't have time to implement them (I love seeing drafts and previous scripts for something) but what happens when they say something either ridiculous or goes against the established canon? Should a simple word wipe the in-game/in-show event? Should we take words for words anything said by a creator even if they have stopped working on their thing decades ago?

Also if new authors come how can we make sure they're also counted as "word of god"? What about things never planned to be canon (I personally don't take The Silmarillion as exactly canonical for LotR's story simply because Tolkien never planned to publish it as such, only as a bonus material for the Middle Earth).

depends on the lore of that world. Stories can have their own god or what they perceive as god.