Essay: The Nature of Star Wars Canon. - Torvus

Disclaimer: My essays on the subject of Star Wars are written in a spirit of mutual exploration and cooperative understanding. They are not intended as attacks or criticism. Please note that I do not always have direct access to canon materials and that certain conclusions may thus be based on memory (this may or may not be noted in the essay). If you disagree with any of the conclusions drawn in my essays, or if you find factual mistakes, please contact me or open a discussion on the forum. My goal is to reach reasonable conclusions through collective discussion, not to force an agenda on the franchise through rhetoric and debate. I think.

The Nature of Star Wars Canon
by Torvus

In the world of science-fiction franchises, “canon” refers to what is and is not officially recognized as being a true and faithful part of any given franchise. For some sci-fi, determining canon is simple: there may be only one book, game, or movie in the franchise. For others, it gets tangled and confusing: there may be multiple books, movies, games, etc, but without an officially condoned canon structure it proves difficult to sort out what is valid canon and what is exploitative hack work taking advantage of the franchise. Few major franchises have a clearly organized canon structure; Star Wars has one of the most noteworthy, because it is one of the most specific.

This is not to say that the SW canon is intrinsically superior to simpler, more direct canon systems; it has some significant drawbacks. In commercial terms, the SW canon hierarchy makes perfect sense: a “G” grade for absolute, highest-authority canon (basically that which George Lucas produced himself); a “C” grade for the glut of novels, shows, games, comic books, and toys produced as part of franchise merchandising; an “S” grade for older materials which pre-date and often do not conform with current canon; and an “N” grade for materials produced under the Star Wars title but which are in clear conflict with established canon. However, for those of us who like to explore and debate the universe of Star Wars as science fiction (as opposed to a commercial product), some of the specifics of the structure wreck our ability to look at SW objectively.

According to current canon policy, several rules determine priority, or which forms of canon override which others. The rules are as follows: G-level overrides C-level, C-level overrides S-level, all other levels override N-level; newer canon is considered to be more accurate than (if not overriding) older canon, and more popular elements of the franchise are to be considered of higher priority than conflicting, less-popular elements. This overall policy results in a number of issues for those of interested in the serious study of Star Wars as a universe, as opposed to a profit-making enterprise.

Some of the issues result from ambiguity. The statement that newer canon overrides older canon is an example. Assume that there are two canon sources, Source A and Source B. Source A is the older, Source B the newer. The two conflict over a matter of canon; one source makes one claim about a fact, while the other makes a mutually exclusive claim. (I say mutually exclusive because avoiding conflicts via rationalizing the discrepancy is considered a valid approach.) Since Source B is newer, we must follow the policy of accepting its claim over the claim of Source A. The problem: when we say that one source of canon “overrides” the other, are we to suppose that just that one fact is overridden, or are we supposed to say that the entire source containing the invalid claim is tossed out (or loses credibility)? The term “canon” is flexible, and could be construed as either an individual fact or facet, or as the entire work of source material. One could say with equal justification, “It’s canon that the Executor is 17.5 kilometers long” - referring to a specific fact - and that “The Incredible Cross-Sections books are canon” - referring to an entire source. Since the meaning of “canon” is not nailed down explicitly, one could make arguments supporting either the dismissal of specific claims, or of entire works containing even just one invalid claim.

As a corollary, this presents other problems. First of all, many works which provide much valuable source material do, in fact, contain claims which are no longer accepted. To dismiss these would be to dismiss large chunks of established canon - obviously not an ideal situation. On the other hand, if we dismiss certain facts, we are sometimes left with causal “holes” - leaps of plot from which logic cannot escape. As a generic example, let’s say that a character or vehicle destroys an object . . . but does so with a weapon which, according to its firepower, should not be able to damage that object. Many events in the canon will necessarily follow from that incident; that is, if this incident had not taken place, neither would have many other consequent ones. There are two options at this point.

1. Rationalize that the event took place under unusual, but unspecified, circumstances. This may not always be possible, and may often prove vague.

2. Say that the event could not have taken place as described, due to the discrepancy. This is a problem, because without that one event, then a logical consequence of causality would be that every event resulting from it could not have taken place. We would thus be left with a plot gap, without any (official) explanation for how those consequent events could have occurred.

The existing canon system has no means to address unresolvable conflicts such as these. By default, most fans ignore them and the causal holes they produce.

The real problem in the SW canon structure , for those who want to treat SW as an objective reality, is the “more popular = more canon” clause. This statement, while making perfect sense for a commercial franchise interested in not alienating its fans/customers, renders it impossible to study the SW universe in an objective fashion. The reason is simple: popularity has nothing to do, scientifically speaking, with truth. In science, popularity can never be considered, in and of itself, a legitimate basis for determining what is and is not accurate. More than that, though, is that reality is not subject to mob rule: group consensus cannot turn a falsehood into a fact. While ideas like the universe revolving around Earth, disease not being caused by germs, and powered flight being impossible were all believed to be true by a majority of scholars at different points in history, none of them proved correct. Thus, the existence of a “more popular = more canon” clause immediately throws unbiased objectivity out the window. It gives fans free reign to alter the canon (to some degree) at their whim, instantly precluding the possibility of a concrete and stable standard for study. It is a statement which ultimately makes the SW universe accessible only to those who enjoy it as a commercial entity, and not to those who would like to view it as a subject of in-universe study.

Regardless of the disagreements which other Warsies are bound to have with the above, I find that I cannot, in good conscience, attempt to write ostensibly objective essays about SW while using the official canon system. I refuse to conform to a standard which allows vaguely defined group opinion to alter the nature of what is to be studied. Note that this is not strictly a condemnation of the canon system per se; it is merely a personal preference which acknowledges that the canon hierarchy is a matter of merchandising and not of objective research. As a substitute, I will be employing a system based on modern historical study. All sources of canon will be considered pieces of evidence, with no absolute rank being applied. Instead, sources will be treated as historical evidence: the video footage from the movies will be considered the highest, naturally. Reference guides, being thought of as more objective in our society, will be considered highly accurate but not infallible sources of canon. (I have noted that works such as the Essential Guides and Incredible Cross-Sections are not collaborations of multiple expert opinions, but instead are written by one or a few authors whose work is not strictly subject to extensive peer-review. In this respect, such titles are not analogous to encyclopedias or academic papers, but instead to coffee-table books written for the interested layperson, rather than for professionals. Hence the accuracy of their technical details, while presumably reasonably high, is not going to be without flaws.) Novelizations will be considered serious dramatizations of the historical events portrayed in the films, while novels will be treated as either commercial dramatizations (with various liberties having been taken), or as historical fiction (if they prove difficult to reconcile with other evidence). Video games and TV programs will be taken as the next-best source of canon, as they can reflect real events but are often tweaked for entertainment value; and finally sources such as toys, collector cards, and comic books will be regarded as the least-reliable sources, as these are by their nature exploitative commercial products without a vested stake in historical accuracy.

Since this, I feel, is the approach which would be taken by any historian or anthropologist studying SW as a real universe, I believe it is justified as a standard for comparison. The SW canon structure is remarkable for its organization and specificity, but in my opinion it is inadequate for serious technical study of in-universe phenomena. The inconsistencies brought about by certain clauses in the policy simply chafe me too much for my purposes here; the conclusions I draw, derived from my own system, are left to stand on their own merit. Let the reader decide whether they make sense or not.

Questions or comments can be PM’ed to me or brought up on the Science Fiction Discussion Forum.

Record 1528 - ship - Last update 21 Nov 2007, 00:03:41

Entry written by: Torvus

Update this entry - Your update will be submitted for moderation.