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

[Spyrone]

Even gods can be fickle. A recent example was 28 Years Later- during an AMA on reddit, the creators said 28 Weeks Later is non-canon. Yet, parts of the Code Red/Sniper Scene appear in 28 Years Later as part of a montage. I'm pretty sure it's still mostly canon- IMO, the only bit that I think should be retconned is the part where the helicopter pilot flies directly into a horde of Infected, chops them to pieces and miraculously doesn't get infected himself despite flying a helo with an open canopy. While it's great for brutal action, it kinda breaks the realism the series is known for. The rest of it fits perfectly, from the incompetence of NATO authorities in containing the Second Outbreak to Jeremy Renner's badass sniper character pulling off shots like he did (my father is an Army vet who fought in various conflicts as well as getting CBRN training, he can attest to both of these).

In summation, the Word of God isn't always canonical, especially with regards to fiction made by large groups that each put something into it, like movies and video games.

 

[koenigmj94]

Even gods can be fickle.

There's a stronger example from the past. Farenheit 451 is about censorship and the use of tech to monitor/control civilians and it's pretty obvious to anyone who read the book... unless you caught an interview Ray Bradbury did where the interviewer thought it was about TV polluting the minds of the youth or some other bullshit to which Ray agreed. Probably partly to not start a fight on tv/radio (I forget where and when the interview happened) partly to avoid being seen as a copy of 1984 which came out in 1949.

But also to advocate for the Death of the Author thing, I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding about how that works and it's not supposed to be "my reading is right and the authors is wrong" it's "Here's my reading and I acknowledge it's probably wholly different and unintended to what the author intended." Another sci-fi example, we can look at Orson Scott Card's "Enders Game". It's like Starship Troopers for young adults, it's about child soldiers and the horrors of war.

Except you can also read it as an allegory for being gay. Orson Scott Card is famously anti-gay so we have to kill the author for this reading, but it's about a boy who's the same yet different from other children his age, whose othered status is cause for bullying, who eventually uses his othered status to connect with the aliens who in turn are another form of 'othered'. OSC probably didn't intend for this reading, and would probably get upset if you presented this reading, but also he spends a decent chunk of time talking about penises and the relationships between young men on a space station battle school whenever they're not playing zero-gravity laser tag or focusing on the b-plot of the main characters siblings being political bloggers.

Post automatically merged: Sep 18, 2025

There's a stronger example from the past. Farenheit 451 is about censorship and the use of tech to monitor/control civilians and it's pretty obvious to anyone who read the book... unless you caught an interview Ray Bradbury did where the interviewer thought it was about TV polluting the minds of the youth or some other bullshit to which Ray agreed. Probably partly to not start a fight on tv/radio (I forget where and when the interview happened) partly to avoid being seen as a copy of 1984 which came out in 1949.

\

To clarify the end of my first paragraph, Bradbury later said it WAS about censorship and control; hence why he's a great example for 'the gods are fickle'

 

[Ikagura Ikagura]

I see some strong opinions about Death of the Author and while I can understand those points of view I think it's another debate in itself. I think that this is valid when the author is no longer alive to tell more things about their content more than trying to put some meaning they never had in the first place.


I also think that some authors could accidentally ruin their character or story by saying something that totally contradict what people liked.

...unless you caught an interview Ray Bradbury did where the interviewer thought it was about TV polluting the minds of the youth or some other bullshit to which Ray agreed.

What makes you say it's "BS"? TV has been proven to be a tool to make consumers buy products or having news giving people biases they didn't have beforehand.

In a way TV was the "proto-social network" which older people are criticising for the exact same reasons TV has done before.

I've read the book and it's clear that the protagonist's wife prefers spending time watching the TVs on the wall and having meaningless conversation with her neighbours. The books being burnt is just a secondary effect yet I believe that even if they were never destroyed people would still have read less.

A modern equivalent would've been someone spending their days browsing Social Networks or watching Youtube videos all day without being curious to learn actually useful thing or having talks with others that go beyond the basic subjects.

Except you can also read it as an allegory for being gay. Orson Scott Card is famously anti-gay so we have to kill the author for this reading, but it's about a boy who's the same yet different from other children his age, whose othered status is cause for bullying, who eventually uses his othered status to connect with the aliens who in turn are another form of 'othered'.

Without caring much about OSC's view on the point I always felt like being bullied for being different doesn't only apply to being gay. It could also be because Andrew is indeed someone with a bit more than boys of his age.

People can still have their theories about it that's not an issue but I think that a story can still have vague tropes that it's easier to see that metaphor.

but also he spends a decent chunk of time talking about penises and the relationships between young men on a space station battle school whenever they're not playing zero-gravity laser tag or focusing on the b-plot of the main characters siblings being political bloggers.

In my opinion talking about the member is just because immature teens are often like that (even in college age). Relationship between men isn't also seen in a military setting?

 

[koenigmj94]

What makes you say it's "BS"?

To clarify, yes you're right about that and that is part of the component that TV is used to subdue the masses more what I meant was that the changed opinion was that TV was just a mindkiller. The story is explicitly about books being burned though and the control of society through media. It's not about if they'd 'read less' it's about not having the choice period and the loss of perspectives that brings.

You've read the book so I'm sure you'll recall the poetry scene, where his wife's friend bursts into tears over a simple poem because she'd never experienced it before. Or the fact that they spell it out at the end of the book, where it's explained that the shortening of books down to graphic novels, then eventually tv and so on was an effort to control peoples exposure to opposing ideas.

I think that a story can still have vague tropes that it's easier to see that metaphor.

Right the point is though analyzing these and asking 'how many vague tropes do we spot in a row before it's a possible theme?' and with regards to killing the author, 'did they MEAN to do this or is this something that just kinda happened?" like:

In my opinion talking about the member is just because immature teens are often like that (even in college age). Relationship between men isn't also seen in a military setting?

Yes to both of these but it's about the how and why. In Enders Game there's a part describing how Andrew sees one of his teammates viewing dicks on his device, there's a shower scene in the book that takes notes of their members, any time Andrew attacks someone in the book except for bugs or when he's using a gun it always includes a nutshot, and then there's lines like where his friend Alai kisses him on the cheek, then blushes and turns away (with a note that the kiss and his use of Salaam to say goodbye were somehow forbidden). Or the time Andrew and Bean share a bed. Or the fact that the bed sharing happens while they're naked (Sleep-uniform was "skin, head to toe"). and they did a lot of things in their sleep-uniforms.

Kids talking about members and calling eachother dicks is immature. Men wrestling together, and being weirdly close is also military stuff. Both these things happening a LOT and also wrestling naked and also using prose used for romance novels to describe the relationship between two men is when people start raising eyebrows and proposing unintended alternate theories.

 

[kuroro]

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).

No, if it's not in the work or some other officially published material it should not be taken as canonical.

 

[Mr. SyS]

I've seen enough garbage in interviews to disregard them entirely. You know how wizards in Harry Potter canonically shit themselves and vanish the poo before it hits their undies even if vanishing in the books is considered advanced magic on-par with Patronus? Emi's route in Katawa Shoujo being NTR with Misha even though in-game it's one of the best endings you can get? Things like that.

 

[breremarer]

Yeah, I think that anything the creator retcons after-the-fact can be taken as interesting trivia, but need only be considered canon if you'd like it to be. Once the work is out, it belongs to the world, not just the creator.

 

[Tetronomicon]

Damn. Didn't know I'd incite such a discussion with that "death of the author" line. Wasn't the intention but oh well. Guess it happens!

Anyway, I was just trying to say that the idea of those who consume the media unquestioningly having the ultimate say over it compared to those who create the media was a trend I had started to notice becoming more common. And it was something I didn't really like seeing.

I never would nor want to imply that the author always has the say over those who interact with their work. Often times those who do ARE correct over the author. I just didn't like the idea that the consumers were always the default that would override the author 100% of the time no matter what. It's not something that's universally accepted. Just a worrying trend I've seen overall.

The Orson Scott Card one is an excellent example because while I absolutely believe Ender's Game could have an inherently anti-gay message due to the author making their Mormon faith their entire identity, I can't just dismiss what he personally thinks the interpretation is. I'm absolutely in the right to make that assumption (just like we all could be), but I am NOT in the right to just dismiss his explanation because I prefer mine (despite the obviousness of it all :D).

Hell, even Ender's Game is a tame cakewalk compared to the batshit insanity that is the Empire books. Which... fun fact: the game Shadow Complex is apparently an interquel between the two books.