A new thought on how to regard canon

This is an interesting concept on how to deal with expanded universe issues.

2 Likes

Considering we are talking about the nature of canon. I say this would be an interesting view for anyone interest:

Got a TLDW?

1 Like

Can anyone express an opinion, these days, that contains more than just:

“I seent it on the youtube!”

I guess I will start. Be the change you want to see, they say.

A franchise makes the canon and fans work with it. For example :

Star Wars had an Expanded Universe before Disney bought it. Disney kept some, and discarded other bits. Chewbacca being killed by some piece of a moon or planet or something was in the old EU. But in the new canon from Disney, that did not happen. We go from there.

Disney did take in some of the lore from the old EU, found in Tales of the Bounty Hunters/Jabba’s Palace, as well as Characters like Thrawn.

As far as Warcraft… if people want to regard Arthas as the hero, and Jaina as his wife, and Anduin as their kid, and Sylvanas as their Alien Butler… I will probably say that is not the canon story.

5 Likes

The problem with canon as it pertains to Warcraft is, in my opinion, that we don’t have a clear system of precedence;
The Game can retcon books, the books can retcon the game, word of god can retcon either or be retconned by either (although that’s more the problem that we’ve had word of god that just promised things never delivered).

6 Likes

Don’t try to build a house on quicksand.

12 Likes

That we probably shouldn’t care slavishly about canon and care more about how these stories actually make us feel/let stories stand on their own merit.

Well sorry princess, kinda busy with the whole this being the last before the next season.

That is not really the point of the video/s. The point is more like the different versions of canons are all equally valid.

Using say Arthas as an example, certain people here say he is an irredeemable jerk based on all the new lore and Blizzard’s attempt at potraying him in that manner.

But the the Wrath version is equally as canon, in that he may not have totally evil and that he did still love Jaina/that the quest in icecrown regarding Jaina’s locket is equally valid and correct.

Or as another example we can use the titans. When I intially read about how they were all supposely dead and gone, that actually was emotion because I did care about it. The fact Blizzard ultimately retconned it does not change that. And maybe more importantly, I am also quite ok with and enjoy the fact that they were not permanently killed off.

Stories should not lose value because they are “not canon”.

1 Like

The problem with that is we all feel differently. The canon, imo, is like the referee. It is the closest we can come to “facts” and “truth,” even if they are subject to change.

I guess this is why you bring up Hearthstone and the non canon RPG in your Warcraft lore discussions. You are just too busy to learn about the canon lore, and you believe your feelings matter more than the canon.

No, people were saying he was an irredeemable jerk based on his introduction in Warcraft 3, where he culls Stratholm, betrays and murders mercenaries, disobeys his king, sinks his own ships, and picks up Frostmourne despite all the warnings - and that is before he actually grabs the sword and does even worse things.

It depends what you mean by “value.”

It can have value and meaning to you. You had feelings and they might stay with you. But the events have no value to the canon if the Devs/Owners make it so.

My earlier example of the Pre Disney Star Wars EU - I read a ton of those books. I read the book where Chewbacca died saving Han and Leia’s kid. I was sad. Then Disney bought Star Wars, and made most of the EU not canon.

I still had emotions when Chewy died. But he did not die in the new canon like that - he can still be in the new canon stories.

One would appear almost insane if they dug in their heels while watching the new films, and said : “in MY headcanon, Chewbacca is dead! Him being alive is a retcon! I dont see him in these new movies! I dont hear him!”

9 Likes

And maybe that is the problem. We shouldn’t slavishly let it “referee” what we feel. That this is a story first and a collection of facts second.

Oh I bring up hearthstone stuff/other stuff to make a point. For example, I brought up the whole “raven lord in HotS(RIP) tricked the Horde” to prove that the devs do think th Horde are a bunch of easily duped goobers. Even in a multi verse setting. And it is just reinforcing what is already in game.

Side know, I probably know more about this lore and can beat you any day if all we care about are facts.

And in said setting he was also tricked into his path and ultimately had to make choices that would scar anyone mentally and spiritually. I’d also point out Nar’zhul was planning this whole thing since before Warcraft 3 itself and manipulated all the events that lead to Arthas taking his path. Hence why even in Wrath itself Blizzard thought a more “ambiguous” ending for him was warranted by giving Jaina her lines about the locket.

But that was never the point of the videos. The point is we probably shouldn’t let the IP holders determine how feel about lore, both old and new and letting them “referee” things is folly.

You can feel how ever you wish. The canon referees arguments on facts, not on feelings.

If someone says : “I feel like Sylvanas is a feminist Icon, because she turned her victimization into vengeance and power, and she was the only female to become Warchief,” that is their feeling. They may not care about the facts, like she was named Warchief through deception and a plot by Muezhala.

If people think Garrosh is a hero because they agree with Racial Supremacy and a Master Race, and they enjoy that fantasy, they can still cheer for Garrosh - even if the canon has him portrayed as a villain.

People can still have feelings, regardless of what is canon. But there has to be a common framework to discuss these things, and canon is the logical thing.

I would not see it that way. It is both. It is a story in a setting. The facts are part of the story.

8 Likes

It’s both but the facts portion is not as important. Especially when said “facts” can be changed on a whim by Blizzard.

1 Like

I disagree. It is part of the whole, and parts have different purposes, and all are important.

People can not even agree on how important facts are… we make that plain in this thread. But the facts are the facts. So, that is the ground floor to work from.

6 Likes

A lot of the EU stuff was… really bad. Throwing most of it out and keeping the good parts was a good idea even if they may have screwed it up.

1 Like

Warcraft doesn’t have an EU tho.
All books are sold as canon.

3 Likes

Until further notice that is :joy:

7 Likes

Doing that causes actual examples such as this:

There is an actual poster on these forums who believes this, causing her to think that Sylvanas is a hero when she’s a villain, then when the story doesn’t affirm that feeling the poster claims that Blizzard gaslit the players just because her feeling about the story is wrong. Players can enjoy things that are noncanon, but the facts of the story are the truth, not the feelings. Players can use feelings to make speculations, but there’s no guarantee those speculations will be true.

4 Likes

Well, two contradictory things can’t be true at the same time. This is a simple law of logic that is true in the real world, and in any constructed world. In order to discuss what I want the lore to be, I first have to know what it is.

3 Likes

Leave her alone.

1 Like

I think it would be best if we all accepted everything I want to be true as the true version of events.

There’s flexibility, and then there’s rampant inconsistency to the point where the illusion just breaks. I’ve hit the latter phase, I’m afraid.

8 Likes