What is canon? Harry Potter and the Cursed Child (SPOILERS!)
Is it a book? Is it a play? Is it even canon?
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is a new play by the BAFTA winning writer Jack Thorne, with JK Rowling credited as co-writer on the story. The play has been praised as thrilling, ground-breaking and a triumph.
But the script has received mixed reviews from fans.
Can the fans define canon? Or is that privilege restricted to the author? Is it still canon when an author licenses another author to write a story set in their world? Does it make a difference if the original author is overseeing the new story? Is a story only canon when it’s in the original genre – do only Harry Potter novels ‘count’, rather than the play or the films?
This is a discussion blog about the nature of ‘canon’ – and, inevitably, discussion involves SPOILERS. However, if you haven’t read Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, feel free to use examples from Doctor Who. This is, after all, a Doctor Who site. 🙂
84 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@Mersey
Yes, they did. And Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonflight was a science fiction story with people who rode on fire-breathing dragons to castles on a quest (and fought sword duels and had premonitions).
It takes some time to figure out that we’re actually in the middle of a lost-colony story with a genetically engineered defence mechanism (the dragons) designed to protect the colonists even after they lost their technology. You can have an SF story with all the trappings of fantasy: you can also have a fantasy story with all the trappings of SF.
I’d say Kill The Moon is a fantasy: to be specific, it’s an intrusion fantasy – as is much of series 8, and, indeed Harry Potter.
As @Pedant points out, it’s a riff off previously established Who canon – our Moon wasn’t always there, in the Whoniverse. It turns out the ‘captured’ Moon is an egg. That fits an intrusion fantasy: the fantastic (the Moon is an egg???!!) intrudes on the ‘normal’ Whoniverse. Okay, it intruded 200 million years ago, and we’ve only just noticed, but still… and that fits with the other intrusion fantasies in the series – Robots of Sherwood, where the legendary Robin Hood is just as real as the Doctor 🙂 and Forest of the Night (also a riff on previously established canon), where the trees intrude on our ‘normal’ world to protect the Earth from a solar flare.
In Harry Potter, a seemingly normal small boy suddenly discovers he’s a wizard. HP has elements of the Narnia style portal fantasy (you get to the fantastic world via Diagon Alley or Platform 8 3/4), but the fantastic increasingly ‘intrudes’ on the normal world as the story proceeds. Harry may get to Hogwarts on the Hogwarts Express, but he first got to King’s Cross in the Dursley’s car.
I think the big problem with Kill The Moon is that we’re extremely used to fantasy that intrudes on OUR normal world or in a historical world – Jadis, or Dracula, turns up in Victorian London? No problem. Wizards are living all around us and a magic steam train leaves from Kings Cross? Fine.
But we’re deeply unhappy when an author chooses to set up a story with SF elements and then introduces ‘fantasy’ elements. David Weber’s ‘Out of the Dark’ novel received a similar amount of outright hatred to Kill The Moon – because it, too, starts with straightforward SF trappings and it takes some time to realise that it’s an intrusion fantasy. He’s got far longer to set up his fantasy creatures than Kill The Moon has, but people still a) get blindsided and b) get really, really angry that the author has dared combine genres.
@mersey—
As I said, there’s a massive discussion on this aspect of Kill The Moon on its own thread but just to add to @bluesqueakpip‘s excellent summation — yes, there is jump from straight SF to fantasy within the first 20-odd minutes of KtM, and, yes, it is jarring for some but the one thing it isn’t is a mistake or a writing failure. Peter Harness knows exactly what he’s doing. It’s a deliberate curveball, playing with and questioning of established tropes (some of which were well-worn and uniquely Who ones).
And as Pip points out, it’s interesting that this switch from SF to fantasy is one that so many find uncomfortable. But to my mind, it makes KtM one of the most interesting stories of the rebooted series…
@bluesqueakpip
So these science fiction elements which I mentioned above and which actually setting up the whole story don’t count? The whole story is based on science (exploration of the Moon which started in Day of the Moon and in this Universe there is NASA and Neil Armstrong). And as I said before I’m fine with the fantastic beasts as the Star Whale is one of my favourites. I’m only disappointed that they didn’t come up with something more propable (which is much more difficult than making up something that didn’t exist or there is no trace of its existence but we are told that it did.
@jimthefish
I know it is. Kill the Moon was the last thing I wanted to discuss here and I made it clear above that I was (at that point) treating the discussion about it as a joke. Maybe I made a mistake by feeling too relaxed here and I letting myself to tell what I really thought. I did never make such bold comments on the forum but I thought it’s a blog and not an official thread.
@mersey—
No, no, discuss away. It’s all good stuff…
And interesting that KtM continues to be such a hot topic…
@Mersey
Please, discuss away. I’m not trying to beat you up with a big hammer for saying what you really think – I’m just saying what I think, as well.
Now, if that’s the set up for the story, you’d probably be expecting some kind of World War Two mystery, maybe with the kids finding German parachutists and possibly involving a dog. In fact, it’s the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Now, if that’s the set-up for the story, you’d probably be expecting some Game of Thrones style fantasy. In fact, it’s Dragonflight.
Now if that’s the set-up for the story, you’d be expecting it to be about the Dursleys. Of course, it’s Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.
The set-up for Kill the Moon?
Yup, she’s in a space-suit. Yes, there are nuclear detonators. But the central theme – that this SF environment somehow involves an innocent life – is set up from the very start.
The other thing you have to consider are the respective titles. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone tells you from the start that Harry is the main character (not the Dursleys). The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe tells you this isn’t going to be a ‘kids in WW2’ story. Even Weber’s ‘Out of the Dark’ title hints that this might not be SF – because that’s not really an SF title; more something you’d expect out of a horror/fantasy story. Dragonflight is the only one that doesn’t play fair and give the reader a clue – but that’s because McCaffrey’s lost colonists have even forgotten that they are a Lost Colony.
Kill The Moon sets up exactly what it says on the tin – the story is about killing the Moon. Except that you can’t kill something that isn’t alive. Between Clara’s first speech and the title, the set up says that a) the Moon is alive and b) it’s an innocent life. Yeah, we’ve got SF trappings – but they’re not the whole set-up.
Going back to the blog question of ‘is it canon?’, Kill The Moon is riffing off the Whoniverse canon that the Moon wasn’t always there. It’s also riffing off the canon that aliens can be very weird indeed. There are several living suns in the Whoniverse (and spacesuits and spacecraft were involved in those stories) – why can’t there be a living Moon? Are living Moons uncanonical? We’ve got creatures made of silicon, living suns – how can we say that the Whoniverse can’t include a living planet or moon or moonlet?
So, yeah, I’d say Kill The Moon is canon. It’s the genre switch that jars, not whether its premise can be justified in terms of Whoniverse canon.
@bluesqueakpip
According to this extract Kill the Moon is an existentional drama about a woman who is trapped in a situation which is too big for her or a family drama in which a young woman is abandoned by her pseudo-dad and has to make a decission too big for her. And she is not even mentioned in the title. And the dragon is only an excuse to stage this drama. Actually it is. Hmm…
And if Out of the Dark title
what Heart of Darkness (in polish Core of Darnkess) hints?
English is not my native language and I can’t write everything what I want and I have to use a dictionary to check if it’s correct so it takes me a lot of time (I’m sorry if it’s not). And I don’t want to delete my account because of such thing as Kill the Moon (And every further post draws me near to do that) so I admit that you crushed me with your arguments and you rule.
@Mersey
Hey, don’t you leave! 🙂 You’ve offered good arguments. They’re persuasive. @Bluesqueakpip is also providing arguments. You don’t need to delete any account at all -I’m taking a bit of a break myself due to illness, mainly and also a few people have ticked me off but really, you offer a lot of great insight and you always have. As for your beautiful wool work you showed a picture of? That was very beautiful: clearly you are a talented individual who speaks and writes Polish. You also write in English pretty well too. Stick with it! Maybe we can move off the Kill the Moon topic and talk about Harry the Potter? 🙂
Kindest and lots of hugs,
PuroSolo
@Mersey
Don’t delete your account because I debated with you! For me, arguing politely is fun; if it’s not that for you, of course I’ll stop.
I do love a good discussion and people on here will confirm that I do have a habit of carrying on to the bitter end. I blame the philosophy courses I’ve done at both undergraduate and postgraduate level – I’ve effectively been trained to argue a case, almost like a lawyer.
However, I couldn’t manage that beautiful wool work and I can’t speak my other languages as well as you speak English. And your ideas are great: a debate isn’t the same as a criticism and I’m sorry if you’ve seen it that way.
@mersey I can only second what @puroandson and @bluesqeakpip said above. We were having a great debate and it was fun to read and add to and that was down to your good ideas and many others. Stay please!
When I was about 14 years old many years ago our teacher had us read The Guns of Navarone after which we discussed plot, sub-plot, characters etc. I loved the book! Then we watched the movie with Gregory Peck and discussed the differences : characters with totally different personalities and back stories, added characters and even some who changed sex. But it was a great book adapted for the screen into a great movie. I loved the movie too!
Then we read the sequel ( Force 10 from Navarone) and surprise….. the characters had all been changed to match the movie and not the first book. Words like sell-out and cashing in were used to describe the author Alastair Maclean but the feelings I had were of dismay and betrayal. How could he change these people I liked so much? Why? (shakes fist dramatically at sky) Why?
So I understand how fans feel when an author changes a character or has them acting in a way that they feel is wrong for that character but all we can do is groan loudly and turn off the TV or put down the book in disgust and walk away.
@mersey I never said that people who appreciate Kill the Moon are stupid.
Agreed; you never did. You said you don’t consider KtM canon because “Kill the Moon is rubbish”. Also “nonsense”, in another post (and yes, scientifically speaking it is nonsense). I made the jump from “rubbish” to “stupid” on the grounds that people who appreciate rubbish (as if it were high quality goods) would be demonstrating their stupidity by doing so. This is plainly silly, since everybody has those “guilty pleasures” — stories, films, series, etc. that are widely admitted to be “rubbish” and/or “nonsense” but that are still enjoyable from various points of view. So, definitely, points to you.
As for KtM’s “solution” to the dragon egg idea, you didn’t find it convincing; for me, it worked for what it was — a lightweight framework on which to build a story about serious issues around who makes choices, for whom, and how, and with what validity, as well as offering strong character work about the Doctor teaching a good lesson badly, and Clara showing herself to be a person of principle despite her inclination to tell utilitarian lies.
I remember The Beast Below, and for me it *was* “far-fetched”, but also moving and full of heart so I liked it very much — but my demands for even the surface appearance of scientific coherence varies according to the tone of a given story. I found the turn toward the fantastic in the DW stories under discussion here — KtM, Sherwood, and ItFotN — resonant and satisfying; lots of people didn’t. As for canonicity, a show presented over so much time, and made by so many different talents in varying constellations of collaboration, only works at all if its standard of canon is “loose and baggy”, to quote somebody else here — or, if you prefer, flexible. The show creates what is canon as it rolls out, contradictions and all. I hope to listen to some Big Finish productions one of these days, and I might like some of them enough to wish they were canon, but I don’t see how they can be if only because, per @arbutus —
. . . AG stories have directly contradicted things that happened in spinoff media. Obviously, expecting the TV show runners to keep track of everything ever produced in novel, comic, or audio form would be a big ask. So I’m not sure how those people who have a lot invested in reconciling the different media handle those conflict. Personally, I tend to assume that only the bits specifically referenced in the series would have to be considered as canon. In fact, I really like @JimTheFish‘s description of the “Impossible Girl” arc having rendered canon a more fluid thing [. . .] a move of pure genius.
So I figure the TV series creates canon (and also changes/reinterprets/cancels it at will); it’s up to each of us to decide our own private head canon, and to try, if so moved, to persuade others to agree by argument and example, often in vain; but no harm, no hard feelings, one hopes.
I do want to add a note, though, about canonicity as a writer. There’s a futuristic series of mine that engendered some queries from readers who asked permission to write fanfic using the second volume in particular, because I’d made a culture and society there that they wanted to tell stories in. At the time — the early eighties — I thanked them for asking, but said “no” because an author is bound by contract with the publisher to defend her copyright (use of which the author leases to the publisher for $, so what’s leased has to be exclusive to that publisher and author). 30+ yrs later, I feel more conflicted about that decision. On one hand, I do subscribe to the idea that “publishing” a work means opening it to interpretation by those who read it; the author lets go of a certain degree of control, or finds herself fighting off readers’ interpretations that differ from her intentions (in SF, this happens at conventions where SF works are publicly discussed in detail by readers, writers, editors and critics). I know colleagues who allow precious time to be bled away in quarrels about “the meaning of what I wrote” vs. “the meaning of what I read”.
So when people discuss this particular series of books, there’s no doubt about what’s canon in that story: it’s what’s in the books, because that’s all there is (at least, as far as I know). For those books, the idea of canon is simple, and only varies with interpretation of the words on the page, nothing else.
When I look at the situation with DW — the many authors of scripts, books, comics, radio shows, plus what the creatives say about it themselves at conventions and in interviews — it seems to me that the concept of DW canon comes very close to dissolving away to nothing. except Doctor, blue box, Gallifrey, and companions, in all that whirl of variously-sourced creativity and opinion continually weaving itself into existence as the show moves on. So I think those who just don’t worry about canon and DW are bound to be happier than those who do.
Oddly enough, I do sometimes think that I should have said “Yes” to fans who wanted to write stories of their own in a world I’d created for a story. It would be interesting to see what they’d have made of it, and might still be making of it, if I had (and conflict and discussion is good publicity). I wouldn’t have been the first to do that, although it’s rare: Marion Zimmer Bradley created a magazine in which fan work set in a world of hers was published, and some of those fanfic writers went on to become creators in their own right. The same can be said, tangentially at least, of DW: Diana Gabaldon has said that her “Highlander” series of historical time-travel stories has its roots in fan fiction she wrote re DW, and her books have a sizable fandom of their own now. I do like the idea of doing work that contributes to the creative success of others (but there are other ways to do that — teaching, for example, which I love). And that’s enough ramblin’ for tonight.
@winston
waves!!
i agree totally regarding the guns of navarone. I felt the same way. I watched it first when I was five!
and I get the issues with its sequel too.
@ichabod mum has an issue with fan fix and ownership of material leaning towards changing who owns what – it’s the dreaded post modern argument for her I think. I can’t wrap my head around it.
puros son
@puroandson Son of Puro, not just you; all of this who-should-own-what stuff is still being wrangled over all over the place, thanks in part to the voluminous enormity of the internet and the impossibility of actually *policing* the thing for piracy etc. (while still trying to be a productive writer, which takes up tons of time and energy all by itself, for most of us). It’s a thorny thicket that won’t be untangled any time soon, especially since there’s so much $ involved in the entertainment biz at most levels. That makes people fight *hard* and works against chances of reasonable compromise, unfortunately.
@ichabod
i like the “thorny thicket” 🙂
having to police your writing must be really difficult . I thought if someone copied your writing that publishers had a software program to run writing thru to see if anyone might have plagiarised it.
Maybe I was imagining it? Imagining that happening, I mean.
yes, at home watching TheLeftovers whilst sick, mums said she thinks I must be growing up as, during the shooting of the dogs, I asked “do dogs know they are dogs ?” I wanted to know if they’re conscious of their ‘being ness ‘?
next year I hope to take philosophy as a subject.
back to canon, I wonder if, as others mentioned it, could it be a problem with what people like. If it’s not liked then it’s “it’s not canon” I think that just about anything written in a show that’s many years old is probably canon? If there’s comics, stories and the Dr Who show and the movie won’t speak about then it’s most probably canon in my opinion. I know there was some idea that the Doctor’s mother was human or else the Dr was loomed? I dont think it’s not canon because we don’t like the idea.
I’m not sure what the ‘common belief’ is about that ?
thankyou, puros son
@puroandson Dear Son , you have asked a couple of great questions for which I have no answers but only more questions. I have not read or listened to any of the books or radio plays or even comics so “my” canon is only the series and the movie so am I missing things I should know? Also I will admit to watching….ok ,to owning the movie no-one talks about so should I watch again and consider it canon?
So many questions. Waves to Puro Mum
@winston
gosh, I hope I didn’t offend you about the movie!
people often say ‘ the Film which we don’t mention’ a bit like ‘he who should not be named’ in Harry potter?
my question was also about existentialism which probably isn’t anything to do with the canon question 🙂
Yes, I didn’t,t like the movie all that much but with mcGann in the leading role it was easy to watch.
i don’t remember much of the movie and am not sure about its canonicity – a word which may not exist!
@puroandson Absolutely no offence taken here. I am not thrilled with the movie either but watched because it was filmed in Canada and well it is the Doctor. Since 8 is an accepted Doctor with his own mini-sode I was just wondering about it’s canonicity. ( if it is not a word it should be).
My dog Newton, who is a saucey Jack Russell terrier, thinks he is a real boy. A slightly manic toddler. I sometimes remind him that he is a dog but like my kids he doesn’t listen.
@winston I’ve seen parts of the movie, probably should try to see the whole thing sometime — not much impulse to, though. I have a problem with McGann as a screen presence — for me, he has a weird smoothness to him, like a man made out of butter, and it’s very distracting. I like a bit of grit in the Doctor (well, quite a bit, actually), and this actor just doesn’t do it for me. On the other hand, I haven’t seen the whole thing, so maybe I’m missing something I would like if I watched. I’ve seen him in a few other roles, though, and the damn butteriness has always been distracting — I actually recognized him by it at least once! Very odd; and just me.
One of “my” cats knows he’s all cat, no doubt about it, but looks at me as if I am an absolute wonder of dreadfully poor imitation cat-ness who nevertheless has rules the mid-upper spaces in the kitchen where the food lives its mysterious pre-dish life . . . and knows how to turn on the water in the bathtub, which fortunately the cat doesn’t deign to attempt for himself.
@ichabod I know exactly what you mean about McGann , he does a lot of narrating and I can listen to him all day but watching is different. He is a very laid back Doctor in the movie and I like a bit more spice.
I have been cat-sitting a cat and her 6 kittens, yes 6 the poor cat. Even being more a dog person it is hard to resist 4 week old kittens. Pretty cute.
@winston That is a lot of kittens, and you are definitely doomed, dogs or no dogs. Puppies are cute, but kittens are — there is no word for it. Well, “brainless” fits, but that’s par for the fresh-born course with most mammals. The weirdness of cats, though — it’s unaccountable. The siamese cross just drew my attention outside the studio window by making his smallest possible vocal sound, which, of course I heard; my sister and I both have preternaturally keen hearing even now, in our seventies (“What’s that *noise*?” is a standing joke between us, alluding to tiny creaks, scratchings, hums, taps, and whines that nobody else picks up on), and it’s as if this cat is trying to find out just how (relatively) inaudible he can be and still get his snack before sleep.
I think this is because he’s mostly siamese, a breed famously and obnoxiously loud when they want something (or else just for the hell of it), so from the beginning I let him in as soon as I heard him squeaking at me from outside, so he wouldn’t get desperate and start shrieking instead. So now it’s turned into a comedy of minimalism: a single mouse-like whisper from beyond the glass, and I’m up and opening the kitchen door . . .
Ridiculous. I love it. I guess I’m just easily amused, even without actual kittens.
@bluesqueakpip
i noticed your explanation of opening sequences connected with titles and it reminded me of Buffy, of course!
whedon always wanted to connect the title of the show with elements in the plot as a way of hinting what the show would always be about.
as you were saying @mersey titles generally connect with opening sequences like with Harry Potter.
So Buffy the vampire Slayer has all the elements in one title – the vampire, Buffy the cool girl at high school and slayer as the drama element where ‘vampire’ has the mystical or magical element/theme.
purosolo
@winston McGann: not just laid back, to my eyes — *languid* is the word I was looking for, and for me that’s just not Doctor-ly. But I’ve always been drawn to the energetic quality of this character; energy of body expressing energy of mind, even when the body is fixed with tension or tight control. To come back to Potter-land, someone who could do languid with massive and delicious menace was lovely Alan Rickman — see Snape, of course. And a good bit of Whuzzisname, the German chief bad guy in the original “Die Hard”. That sort of style of speech and movement is either menace, or a kind of decadent arrogance to me, and of course the Doctor hates the decadent arrogance of the TLs, hasn’t he? His spikiness is the manifestation of “rebel” Time Lord, not TL making a casual detour on his way to the races or something.
@Ichabod
You see, that’s what I love about McGann.
It was always, always the languid men for me. A mistake. Sometimes. <-_->>
I’ve had wine.
<Hiccup>
Let me offer a few thoughts on ‘canon.’
Canon is essentially a by-product of the story process. It’s not a magical thing on its own.
Formal canon does not need to be logical, or coherent, or even comprehensible. It would be nice if canon made sense and did not contradict itself. But that need not be so. In fact, it is seldom so.
Formal canon is a matter of a creator or an owner conferring legitimacy on ideas, or on a cultural product. Basically, sitting down and saying “this is officially the way it is.” That does happen, but not nearly as often as you might think. Harry Potter is probably a decent example of this.
You’ve also got a sort of ‘cumulative canon’ that comes from accumulation of your cultural product. Basically, you set up a world, a landscape, a place. You hire people to come in and create things. After a while, there’s a lot created, and some degree of effort to make it hang together. A lot of that happens.
Most long running cultural productions are hybrids of formal and cumulative canon. Star Trek, for instance. Doctor Who.
Canon doesn’t need to be logical, as I said, or even coherent. Godzilla’s Revenge is part of the Showa Godzilla universe, for example. Star Trek is notorious for taking a bulldozer approach to their own history. Doctor Who…. yikes – Kill the Moon is just the tip of the iceberg.
Canon isn’t even fixed in stone. Scream of the Shalka, anyone? Once upon a time, that was Canon. Now it isn’t. Richard E. Grant was once the official 9th Doctor. Now he isn’t. For a while, it wasn’t clear that Paul McGann was the genuine 8th Doctor. Kate Stewart is now canon, but does that mean that Daemos Rising and Downtime, where she first appeared are canon? Is Season 6B Canon? How about all of McGann’s companions from Big Finish Audio, does referencing them in Night of the Doctor make them canon? Does it make the Big Finish adventures Canon? Galactica 1980, was that canon to Battlestar Galactica, the original series? Is Star Trek the animated series canon? One episode of the animated series? Was the Shadow radio series in canon to the pulp magazines.
Things can become uncanon. Things can be brought into canon. New canon can replace old canon, it can morph, revise.
Best advice – treat it as what it is. Canon is a convenience, its an organizational system for volumes of creative work.
For fans, Canon is a game, nothing more, nothing less. It’s the quest to make an accumulated cultural product coherent.
@denvaldron
Ah, but I loved Kill the Moon -and canonically nothing was stuffed up. This was a perfect set up for young Clara growing into Dr Clara. For Earth looking after itself. It underpinned the idea that this isn’t just a sci-fi show but a fantasy one which elaborates beyond collaboration and uses the cultural mores through accumulation -and gestation. On both levels. The creation of the ‘Moon’ egg was a symbol for the projection of a changing show.
The more people dwell on whether the science of the Moon was “wrong” or that it’s not possible for the moon to be a giant egg the more I giggle.
Did anyone ever suggest that the Tardis was nuts because it was too small?
In the Buffyverse did the audience not realise that the monsters were analogous to growing up? No-one seriously complained: “well, hell there are no werewolves and if there are they don’t look like a two buck hairy suit.”
Buffy was never about the monsters just as Kill the Moon wasn’t about the moon being an egg or the fact that spiders don’t leave webs in a space without oxygen. The scientists who came on this Forum specifically to whine about the moon being a specific weight were, frankly, nuts.
I found the whole argument fun: like ‘humans turning into hyenas’ fun. 🙂
So, canon worked here quite nicely.
@puroandson Okay, let me be frank on the subject of Kill the Moon.
First, I believe it’s a big world, and there’s room enough for everyone.
I believe that people like or dislike things in a visceral way, and then we come up with rationalisations for how we feel about things. Maybe not always, but that’s the general rule.
I believe that Kill the Moon is distilled shite. It’s rancid awful stuff. It terrible. It’s an awful, pedantic ham handed script that treats its characters terribly and moves them around, not with any organic relationship to their characters, histories and movations, but simply has them do whatever the plot demands. I think its through line is muddled to incoherent. I believe that it’s the worst the new series has produced. And ranks second to worst in the entire fifty year history of the franchise, and there are some legendary stinkers. For me, Kill the Moon is like a giant steaming dump on a dinner plate. That’s visceral, but it’s not illogical. I’m entitled to feel that way.
I also believe that people are entitled to like Kill the Moon. You love it? Fine with me. Enjoy. I’ll get you the DVD for Christmas. You’re entitled to like it.
Liking something, or disliking something doesn’t necessarily make someone a good or bad person. Disliking it is not a reflection of my personal worth. It doesn’t make me a better person than you. It doesn’t make me a worse person than you. It just makes me a person with a different opinion. You liking it is not in any way a validation or a prejudice against you. You just like it.
Go back to where I started. Big world, room enough for all of us. So I don’t particularly feel like fighting over it. And I don’t see where we need to have a great big flame war over it. I don’t feel personally affronted or challenged if you venture that it’s great. And if I slag it in a drive by… that’s not a personal attack on you, or your personal virtue or integrity or sense of self. I don’t feel that I need to tiptoe around the subject to avoid offending you, any more than you need to go quietly for fear of affronting my distaste. It’s fine to like or dislike.
So are we good? Because I have nothing against you, and I would like us to be good and on friendly terms. On the other hand, if the fact that I sincerely believe that Kill the Moon is a steaming turd which, setting aside all the technical issues of plausibility, fails because of its contemptuous violation of basic storytelling and characterization is a deal breaker for you…. Well, sorry.
Oh and if someone decides that they don’t like it because it messes with the laws of conservation of mass, or webs in space being kind of pointless …. well, they’re entitled to dislike it for that reason. It doesn’t make them bad people, or stupid, it doesn’t make them geeks or nerds or losers. They aren’t nuts for having a different reaction for different reasons than you. Big world. Room for everyone.
Now, within the context of my drive by mention of Kill the Moon in the context of a discussion of canon…. Kill the Moon poses a challenge to the concept of canon.
Why? Because of the Moonbase. 2nd Doctor Patrick Troughton era, 1967, 4th Season, 6th serial, 4 parts. Basically, there’s a base. The base is on the moon. The base is under siege from Cybermen. Set in the year 2070.
Kill the Moon, set in 2049. 21 years before Moonbase.
The Silurians – Jon Pertwee, Third Doctor, set in UNIT times – turns out that the Silurians all went into hibernation because they feared impact of the celestial body which became the moon. They was wrong, apparently. So boy were they surprised to wake up. No mention or thought of space butterfly.
Seeds of Death, 2nd Doctor, Patrick Troughton, 1969, 6th season serial. Ice Warriors screwing with humanity. 2nd Doctor goes to the moon to stop them. Late twenty-first century. So set after Kill the Moon.
I haven’t gone poring through 50 years, but I’m sure that there’s episodes with the Moon in the sky, or the moon being mentioned, far future episodes. There’s no mention of the space butterfly, or it instantly laying an identical egg complete with impact craters and maria. Apparently, the whole subject of space moon butterfly egg just vanished from peoples consciousness, and without all the cosmological time frippery that that Dalek/Cyberman incident had going for it.
So some people who are canon junkies are going to go ‘Yikes! This is a poser!’ At some point, this starts to seem contradictory or at least inconsistent. How many times has Atlantis been sunk? How many ways have the unlucky dinosaurs been killed off? How many times has the Doctor been contradictory or inconsistent about his age? When exactly are the UNIT stories taking place?
It would be nice if Doctor Who was utterly coherent and seamless but it isn’t. One of the writers, Terrance Dicks I think, famously said ‘continuity was what we could remember on a good day.’ It didn’t get in the way of a story. It didn’t get in the way here apparently. Kill the Moon’s an official story, part of Capaldi’s season, so it’s officially a canonical part of the Who universe, notwithstanding the impact on story logic, history, science, whatever in the Wh0-verse. Presumably, its a major conceptual rewrite of that Universe and its canon and continuity. It’s a challenge, that’s all I’m saying. The Wh0-verse are very different places before and after Kill the Moon. I’d like to think that’s obvious.
Canon is just a game where we try to fit it all together. The nature of Doctor Who, and the nature of any long running franchise is that canon is going to be a messy and ill fitting thing. Nature of the beast. The more there is of something, the harder it is to keep it all straight, particularly if you have multiple parties contributing. I remember a famous fantasy author with a long running epic, accidentally got a bit lost and inadvertently changed the gender of one of his characters.
Peace.
@DenValdron
In no way did I mean to cause offence. I simply said “as for me, I liked it”. And I did. I also explained that it’s not about the moon egg just as Buffy isn’t about the monsters. These were my words:
You know me well enough, I’m not a youtube flamer. You brought up “KtM” and you were negative about it.
I said “ah…but”
And yes, I’m right: scientists deliberately visited the Forum to complain about that episode; for pages and pages. They disappeared from other discussions. To say they were “whiney” is fair.
However, if you read my comment above after yours you’ll find that I was pretty honest and not rude. However, this?
that’s flaming.
I do understand the Big World stuff. Really. I’m not particularly stupid nor did I throw that your way. I said “I giggle.” I didn’t go on about it being “shit or a pile of shit on a dinner plate.” Once you do that you’re basically implying that those who don’t think this are “shit” in themselves.
Who knows though, maybe I am “shit” or stupid 🙂 Suits me.
Also, if you say it’s shite then explain why. Simply stating it’s incoherent and there’s no through-line fails the empirical test. Saying the characters “move around to suit the plot” is the point of a 44 min episode. Characters move. They do so to serve the plot. That’s television. Ironically, I’ve spent more time arguing for this little train that could when it’s not my favourite episode. I like it but I liked others a heck of a lot more. One has to laugh about this: truly, otherwise at my time of life I’d be flipping crying.
Kindest
PuroSolo
@denvaldron
You’ve upset my mother.
Are you insane? You mixing her up with some fu*ker? Why do you say:
She certainly wasn’t having a flame war over anything at all. The only thing burning is you buddy.
Shit, that’s the first time I’ve gotten pissed on this Forum in the 12 months I’ve been The Hybrid.
<now I have to do penance>
Puro the Younger (and no I’m not 18, I’m 14 so show some manners)
Oh I doubt it somehow.
@puroandson
My apologies. With respect to your considered response to me last night, I spent well over an hour writing back to you with a nuanced and considered and carefully neutral response. And then it disappeared as I tried to post it. So I tried again, spending almost an hour on a shorter response that covered the main points. And it disappeared again as I tried to post it. I was so upset. I was also exhausted.
Now I don’t have much time, or much inclination to write in detail. I’ll restrict myself to three responses which may be too concise to be satisfactory.
1) Likes and dislikes are visceral, the rationalisations come later. We like the colour red and hate lime green, we like ice cream and hate beans as visceral response. We can reason it out. But you can’t reason someone into liking something they hate, or hating something they loved.
2) I draw my moral boundaries around people, not objects. I try to be very careful not to target persons. As I draw my moral boundaries, dumping on is Kill the Moon, as a work or object is acceptable. I’m within my rights to say that ‘Kill the Moon’ is epically terrible. I don’t believe that’s flaming. On the other hand, if I were to say ‘People (generally) who like Kill The Moon are stupid’ I would consider that flaming and I would try not to do that. If I said ‘Someone is dumb because they like Kill the Moon for a reason I consider worthless or irrelevant’ – I would see myself as flaming them, and I’d rather not do that. But slagging ‘Kill the Moon’ without attacking or drawing inferences about people who hold different opinions is not flaming to my view.
For me the boundary is between things and people. That’s where I draw my line.
I don’t insist that anyone else conform to my moral boundaries. I think its a good boundary and that its logical and balanced enough that I hope others might adopt similar. But I don’t insist on it. It’s a big world.
3) Arbitrarily I suppose, because you said so much worth consideration, I would like to respond to your comment that ‘Buffy is not about the monsters?’ Well…. yes. And…. no. If Buffy isn’t about the monsters, then why does every single episode feature a monster, even when arguably the episode would be better without one. Buffy is about Buffy and her friends, but the monsters are the palette on which Buffy’s stories are given form, shape and color. The monsters are essential to the storytelling. Take them away, and Buffy is simply …. DeGrassi Junior High, or Square Pegs, or Freaks and Geeks, etc…. Nothing wrong with those shows. It’s just that on Buffy, monsters are an essential tool to allow different kinds of stories to be written.
Postscript: I see I’ve upset your mother. I’m not sure why or how. That was certainly not my intent. I don’t have time to plumb or offer something comprehensive as a response. So for now, please let me offer my apology for any misunderstanding, or any errantly harsh words that may have been taken personally.
@denvaldon
I know about the writing of nuanced things and then having them disappear. Beyond annoying. I guess if one sticks to shorter posts it might not happen 🙂
So, I am purofilion (two years ago). Then, after I had a flame-out my son decided to come and join me and so we became Puro and Son. This isn’t especially important -just that he saw the post and went a little ballistic (first time: he’s finding his feet -or his voice).
Now, Buffy.
OK. Whedon has stated in every book, article and comic-con that “Buffy isn’t about the monsters unless the monsters themselves are the coming of age, the beginnings of sexual feelings, the understandings about homosexuality and the concept of love between and amongst people who change, who are different, who are eternal”.
He refers here to Angel who doesn’t age -and Spike. He also references how different people cope with Buffy’s extraordinary abilities: her abilities to fight, to love, to understand and to nurture. Riley barely copes with this; Angel is nervous about Buffy dying -as slayers do whilst Spike (and no, I’m not a shipper and Spike was evil evil evil -most of the time. By that I mean he was insufferably selfish) adored Buffy’s “fighting side” Xander was another case: how he matured through his relationship with Willow and then with and apart from, Anya.
So, yes, the monsters are ‘pull’ -obviously they are there but they are not the prime object as Aristotle would say.
It might be worth mentioning that Whedon’s absurdist belief system is also beautifully intertwined amongst the stories which are parables. Take “The Wish” for example: the incredible beginning, middle and end. How does Willow react? Why does she change? Does she want to and for what reason? No monsters necessary really. It’s an astute lesson for us all. This is why I love Season 3.
Anyway, I apologise as this is not the correct thread. However, there are Buffy lovers here who have known the show since its inception. @pedant @jimthefish. I know you like blogs so perhaps check out Mr Jim’s blogs on Buffy where these items are paralleled in greater detail.
Kindest,
Puro Solo
that’s @denvaldron above. Auto correct to “valdon” for some reason?
@puroandson I will certainly do that. Be well.
Alopecia Areata – this is an autoimmune disease which the immune system of the person prevents the hair follicle from producing hair fibers. This is only temporary. There is no definite diagnostic test to detect alopecia areata. The signs and symptoms of this disease are hair loss that usually 90% baldness and patients may complain of tingling sensation and pain on the site. In some affected individuals, return of hair appears after a year.
best hair transplant in delhi@http://hairtransplantncr.com/
hair transplantation in delhi@http://hairtransplantncr.com/