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: Today at 12:08 AM

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?