Nagini uproar

Subject: Nagini uproar Sat Sep 29, 2018 11:28 am

I hadn't even heard of this 'controversy' til I ran across it this morning.

https://www.bustle.com/p/jk-rowlings-response-to-the-nagini-controversy-isnt-going-over-well-with-harry-potter-fans-on-twitter-12033524

this is a no-win, as fans are fickle on what they get hypersensitive about esp on the net.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Sat Sep 29, 2018 2:25 pm

I guess it's complicated since the source is Indonesian, the source word is Sanskrit, the actress playing the snake woman is Korean, but in the JK universe the snake was found in Albania. I personally don't care about the movie future of the HP universe because I couldn't watch more than ten minutes of Creatures. But it must be difficult for fans when the creators don't remember things from earlier on. It would be the same if oh GRRRRRRRRRR Martin in books six and seven contradicted facts in the earlier five. But we'll never know that. This only discussion worth having is the politics of having the woman becoming the snake servant vis-a-vis diversity in film but even there it's more important to look at films overall than to focus on this one event. As I said, maybe if the one film I couldn't stand was as good as the HP franchise? I lean towards folks finding other creative outlets if they're unhappy with this one. I certainly recommend that with GRRRRRRRRRRRRR Martin.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Sat Sep 29, 2018 3:21 pm

this brings up a very interesting point. when did we decide authors should not retcon their works? it is their fiction, and they are free to do with it as they wish. if the readers wish to impose canon-ism on prior works that is their option (and granted as a fiction reader, it does make understanding a series of books 10x easier if there is consistency in the history), but i don't find a writer should feel constrained to bend their realities if they wish to. esp in terms of sci-fi, where you can posit multiple realities etc.

Posts : 118 Join date : 2018-03-22

I’ll stay away from the Nagini problem, but I’m glad to throw in my two cents on retconning. I think it’s like “sexual content” in any media– if it’s done well, it’s art but if it’s done poorly, it’s smut.

Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes but was forced by his public to undo the murder. That was a retcon if there ever was one, but I’m grateful for it. Joss Whedon killed off Buffy when he thought her series was cancelled but when it was uncancelled, he came up with a smart way to bring her back (and deal with the aftereffects.) Part of why it worked was that a couple of characters did die, and stayed dead. He even made fun of the way comics characters have a tendency to undie in the final episode of Buffy, when Principal Wood played possum with Faith.

When the original iteration of Neverwhere was broadcast on the BBC, there was a significant continuity error, but when Gaiman wrote the novelization (which he began writing almost from the beginning of production on the tv series) he didn’t solve the problem, which was less glaring on the written page. He promised, in the commentary on the tv series’ dvd among other places, that some day he’d write about how the Marquis got his coat back between episodes, and he eventually did, quite charmingly. (IIRC, Carey and Fabry dealt with it in the excellent comics version by changing the Marquis’ clothing so his missing coat, and its deep pockets, weren’t relevant.) So for me, that's art.

Whedon shoehorning in a sister for Buffy when he (or his masters) decided that the Slayer was getting a bit long in the tooth for the teen audience wasn't so successful. I learned to live with it, like Buffy did -- with protest, then acceptance. So that retcon was a sort of middle ground. But the way he monkeyed around with characters in the final episodes of Dollhouse (a series I liked a lot) in order to create surprise villains -- sorry, Joss, that felt like smut.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:23 pm

so....if it's an agreeable retcon, we're good with it, but if we disagree, it's not?? again, we are back to this is the author's work. the author creates the character, by reading you are gaining insite but really have no input into the character (aside from of course if you write the author and plead your case, in which case yes you've cracked into the source of the character at least slightly by contacting them.) I am not one to say authors are automatically locked into canon by publication of their work - if they wish to re-imagine a character or their motives/etc, i'm fine with that. just as people can change in a day if they have a near death experience, so can a character change if they have some experience we're not privy to.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Sun Nov 04, 2018 3:57 pm

They can always do what JJ Trek did - set it an alternate universe so that any inconsistencies can be explained away and retain the original canon. It comes down to what the readers or viewers are willing to buy and there's always fan fiction to fill in the holes, if they can be filled and if it's worth saving.

Posts : 620 Join date : 2018-03-03

You are really scraping the bottom if you cite what JJ did to Star Trek as an example of an acceptable option in sequels.

For the record, saying that JJ's version is set in an alternate universe to the original series is just a fanciful term applied to an interpretation, which is nothing new. In fact, it's quite old. Once we learned to read Babylonian Cuneiform we discovered that it was common in Bronze Age cultures for great epic tales to be rewritten with the founder of this city or that as the hero.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:01 pm

Pi-O-My wrote:: I’ll stay away from the Nagini problem, but I’m glad to throw in my two cents on retconning. I think it’s like “sexual content” in any media– if it’s done well, it’s art but if it’s done poorly, it’s smut.

Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes but was forced by his public to undo the murder. That was a retcon if there ever was one, but I’m grateful for it. Joss Whedon killed off Buffy when he thought her series was cancelled but when it was uncancelled, he came up with a smart way to bring her back (and deal with the aftereffects.) Part of why it worked was that a couple of characters did die, and stayed dead. He even made fun of the way comics characters have a tendency to undie in the final episode of Buffy, when Principal Wood played possum with Faith.

When the original iteration of Neverwhere was broadcast on the BBC, there was a significant continuity error, but when Gaiman wrote the novelization (which he began writing almost from the beginning of production on the tv series) he didn’t solve the problem, which was less glaring on the written page. He promised, in the commentary on the tv series’ dvd among other places, that some day he’d write about how the Marquis got his coat back between episodes, and he eventually did, quite charmingly. (IIRC, Carey and Fabry dealt with it in the excellent comics version by changing the Marquis’ clothing so his missing coat, and its deep pockets, weren’t relevant.) So for me, that's art.

Whedon shoehorning in a sister for Buffy when he (or his masters) decided that the Slayer was getting a bit long in the tooth for the teen audience wasn't so successful. I learned to live with it, like Buffy did -- with protest, then acceptance. So that retcon was a sort of middle ground. But the way he monkeyed around with characters in the final episodes of Dollhouse (a series I liked a lot) in order to create surprise villains -- sorry, Joss, that felt like smut.

What a great post. I agree so much.

I thought Whedon really screwed the pooch with Alpha in the final episodes of Dollhouse Season 1, but the season 2 shenanigans made that pale in comparison.

Zaphod wrote:: so....if it's an agreeable retcon, we're good with it, but if we disagree, it's not?? again, we are back to this is the author's work. the author creates the character, by reading you are gaining insite but really have no input into the character (aside from of course if you write the author and plead your case, in which case yes you've cracked into the source of the character at least slightly by contacting them.) I am not one to say authors are automatically locked into canon by publication of their work - if they wish to re-imagine a character or their motives/etc, i'm fine with that. just as people can change in a day if they have a near death experience, so can a character change if they have some experience we're not privy to.

Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. It's art, collaborative art at that.

Subject: Re: Nagini uproar Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:32 am

TBC wrote:: You are really scraping the bottom if you cite what JJ did to Star Trek as an example of an acceptable option in sequels.

For the record, saying that JJ's version is set in an alternate universe to the original series is just a fanciful term applied to an interpretation, which is nothing new. In fact, it's quite old. Once we learned to read Babylonian Cuneiform we discovered that it was common in Bronze Age cultures for great epic tales to be rewritten with the founder of this city or that as the hero.

My point was simply that the only way JJ Trek becomes canon is to set it in an alt-universe otherwise no ST fan would have accepted it. Once a franchise becomes an institution like Star Trek, HP or SW, the creators better not screw with their universe or feel the wrath of the fans, for example, the mess that Star Wars has become. On the other hand, Marvel and DC fans don't seem to mind a reboot or re-imagining or whatever you want to call it every 3 years. How many Hulks, Spidermen and Batmen have there been?

eta: Sad news about Stan Lee. RIP.

Posts : 620 Join date : 2018-03-03

I had a nice discussion in an anime regarding a manga-derived anime entitled Fuuka. Fairly entertaining, the main characters are a social-media obsessed teen who has just moved to Tokyo, his former childhood friend who has become a major singing idol since vanishing from his life a few years previously, and a girl at his school who has decided not to follow in her father's shoes, literally, as a sprinter, but is looking to find her own path in life. The anime was not great, but it was okay, a fun show to watch because the characters were done well, which is my main criterion. It ran for six months and then I decided to check out the manga to get more of the story, was rather put-out that the story in the manga took a left hand turn at a certain point from the story on the anime.

So that's what I was discussing about a month ago on this anime site with a fellow otaku. He was a bit more in the know than I am and informed me that the author had decided to work it that way intentionally as an alternate telling of the story. He was basically saying "Here's one way things happen to my characters and then here's another."

I like this concept. Which one is "canon"? Both are. Or neither. It does not matter because it's not real. If someone made a fanfic of the setting then that would be just as valid on it's own merits.

Yes, it's nice when a franchise has internal consistency, but it's tough to maintain that. It's almost impossible when it gets huge and there are many people providing creative input over the course of decades. Amazingly, Doctor Who has largely done so thus far.

If JJ had just said "This is a retelling" instead of "This is an alternate universe" then he would not have needed to play around with completely eliminating the original universe from existence...if that's what he actually did. I mean, he could just say it was a universe that was a near copy of the one we saw in ToS and TNG and all that and we would only flay half his skin off before we poured on the acid. If Lucas had said all those books written after RotJ was released were an alternate telling instead of decanonizing them to make the Disney/Star Wars movies the "authentic story", when the truth is that he's just sitting on his fat arse collecting royalties for project he hasn't been creatively involved in for 15 years, we might forgive him. It's all fiction so there is no subjective truth, nothing which is actually real. The term "canon" is therefore a convenient lie.

Posts : 643 Join date : 2018-03-03

For Star Trek, I think both universes -- the original (which is NOT fiction; don't even know where you came up with that) and JJ's -- exist simultaneously.

These giant meta-worlds go wobbly when there's no editor around to work with/stand up to the creator. The early books of Harry Potter and Game of Thrones are much shorter and better than the later doorstops in the series bc no publisher wants to annoy a billion-dollar author.

Posts : 620 Join date : 2018-03-03

Maturin wrote:: For Star Trek, I think both universes -- the original (which is NOT fiction; don't even know where you came up with that) and JJ's -- exist simultaneously.

10 points!

Quote :: These giant meta-worlds go wobbly when there's no editor around to work with/stand up to the creator. The early books of Harry Potter and Game of Thrones are much shorter and better than the later doorstops in the series bc no publisher wants to annoy a billion-dollar author.

Foundation. The first three books, which were actually a series of novelas originally published in Astounding in the early 1950s collected and published as a trilogy without further amendment, stood well on their own for over 20 years. Unfortunately, in the last two decades of his life Asimov could not resist the urge to go back and tinker with his old toys. In the late '70s he wrote a fourth book in the series, Foundation's Edge and then two more, one of which was a prequel which tied the Foundation series directly to the classic Robot Series featuring Detective Lije Bailey and his robot partner R. Daneel Olivaw. In that book...

mega frikkin' spoiler:

That whole thing was, as you say, because no editor was going to say "no" to the most prolific and broadly published writer (his non-fiction works are in every main classification of the Dewey Decimal System) in history.