| >> |
No. 73618
>>73617
I am saying it is no more or less fictional than Lord of the Rings. Now, obviously, you have come up with a scenario in which the spinoff is inferior to the original, because you want to prove a point about how precious canon is, in the hopes that you can "prove me wrong" by saying that what I'm saying is that poorly written stories should be just as respected as well written stories.
But what I am saying is actually that Wide Sargasso Sea is no more fictional than Jane Eyre. Wicked is no more fictional than The Wizard of Oz. A Study In Emerald is no more fictional than the Call of Cthulu or A Study in Scarlet. The movie version of Starship Troopers is no more fictional than the book version. That the movie, tv, book, radio, and comic book versions of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are all equally fictitious.
Which one is "canon" and which one is non-canon is entirely irrelevant, to everything, because none of it ever happened to begin with, except in matters of internal consistency--which events are canon to the story you're currently reading matters, obviously. All that matters is the quality of what you're reading/watching/playing/etc. Your focus on canonicity is focusing on tangible details of the story instead of the actual strengths and weaknesses of it--it shows a lazy mindset toward critical thinking. Which is fine, you're certainly entitled to enjoy things in a lazy manner--but to act as though you're somehow more justified in your enjoyment because of it, like you're doing the "only rational thing" takes a very special kind of insanity.
|