![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ficcish question
Jan. 29th, 2011 12:53 pmWhen considering what is or isn't canon when reading or writing a fic, what do people think of the various 'extras' that are available for a number of series these days?
For example, there's the issue of the various Doctor Who books and audio plays. For Supernatural, there's the comic series and the facsimile (or whatever it is) of John's journal. Buffy and Firefly have comic books that are meant to continue the series or fill in gaps. A number of anime series have audio plays or data books that provide additional backstory and/or character traits. For Sherlock, there's John Watson's blog and "The Science of Deduction."
Does it bug you when a writer contradicts one of these sources? Or do you consider the sources to be a sort of apocrypha or grey canon to be used or ignored at will? Does it vary depending on the fandom or the source?
The reason I ask is that another writer in a fic fest I'm participating in is asking for more details on one of these sources with the aim of incorporating them into their story. I'm working on a story focusing on the same character, but am not drawing from any backstory that wasn't presented directly in the source material. In fact, I am directly contradicting a fairly major piece of that extra-canonical information.
Me, I think both are valid approaches and a total case of YMMV, but I do get annoyed when someone corrects me on a detail I only would have known if I had a bootlegged copy of a CD that came out in 1995. There have also been times when a snippet from one of these sources has jump-started a plot bunny or two.
I was wondering if other people in fandom have strong opinions either way about these 'extras' and how they fit into the creation of fanworks. What's your take on these things?
For example, there's the issue of the various Doctor Who books and audio plays. For Supernatural, there's the comic series and the facsimile (or whatever it is) of John's journal. Buffy and Firefly have comic books that are meant to continue the series or fill in gaps. A number of anime series have audio plays or data books that provide additional backstory and/or character traits. For Sherlock, there's John Watson's blog and "The Science of Deduction."
Does it bug you when a writer contradicts one of these sources? Or do you consider the sources to be a sort of apocrypha or grey canon to be used or ignored at will? Does it vary depending on the fandom or the source?
The reason I ask is that another writer in a fic fest I'm participating in is asking for more details on one of these sources with the aim of incorporating them into their story. I'm working on a story focusing on the same character, but am not drawing from any backstory that wasn't presented directly in the source material. In fact, I am directly contradicting a fairly major piece of that extra-canonical information.
Me, I think both are valid approaches and a total case of YMMV, but I do get annoyed when someone corrects me on a detail I only would have known if I had a bootlegged copy of a CD that came out in 1995. There have also been times when a snippet from one of these sources has jump-started a plot bunny or two.
I was wondering if other people in fandom have strong opinions either way about these 'extras' and how they fit into the creation of fanworks. What's your take on these things?
