|
Post by Hope on Jan 12, 2009 15:53:07 GMT
Perhaps, but it seems strange to me that they should make the main pairings so open to interpretation in the original game (e.g. through script choices and different versions of the key romantic scenes) and then make statements that clearly favour one pairing over the other in Ultimanias. The Highwind scene had two different versions, and that happened after Aerith's death. Likewise in AC there's no clear statement about Cloud's romantic feelings. If they wanted to push Cloti so that Cloud could move on I'd have expected to see a bit more evidence in the game after her death, or in AC, but it wasn't there (imo). In fact, many people feel that AC suggests Clerith more, because Cloud and Tifa STILL aren't together, because he moves into the Church, because he's hung up on her death and so on.
I'd go so far as to say that I think the only unambiguous statement that Cloud and Tifa are the canon pairing is in the Ultimania, which is strange since surely the Ultimania is only intended to eloborate on what's already in the game.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Jan 13, 2009 2:02:45 GMT
So, today I was reading the introduction to Volume X of Neil Gaiman's The Sandman, and this passage by Mikal Gilmore struck me as saying pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say on this subject, in far fewer words:
|
|
Alma
Materia Dealer
Look at me still talking when there's science to do!
Posts: 74
|
Post by Alma on Feb 11, 2009 7:04:55 GMT
In some cases, author declarations are simply a way to bring more cash or publicity to the author and/or artwork (novel, video game, etc.). I agree that a great work of art needs no explaining and should be free to interpretation without restraint. Does it help our understanding of FF7 by reading the Ultimanias or watching the movie or playing the prequel? That's all relative. FF7 as a stand-alone is, I feel, a great work of art and doesn't need any additions. I like its ambiguity. The additions of the Ultimania and interviews and official fanfictions and more video games and a movie would have never happened if the original game wasn't popular. And popularity usually means people are willing to pay money for more of something. It's not just the creator's trying to clarify their work, it's Square trying to milk the franchise for all its worth. And that saddens me. Someone mentioned Harry Potter... and I firmly believe that JK Rowling declared Dumbledore was gay simply to gain more publicity for her books. There really wasn't much in the stories (I'll admit I've read every single book) to highlight that he was gay and furthermore what difference did it make? I felt it wasn't essential to the story or relevant at all. And as for the Cloud/Tifa or Cloud/Aerith arguments - I do have my opinion on the couple, but I think the game was making a point by not expressly developing either. The events in the game were of the very-important-life-changing-earth-shattering variety and because of that other less-important events faded into the background, such as "which girl does Cloud like most?!". The game had many messages, and I always thought Aerith's role was to illustrate the suddenness and permanence of death. I did not think she was ever supposed to be "Cloud's girlfriend" from playing the game alone. The subsequent arguments (Tifa vs Aerith) in the fan community may be what prompted the revelation in the Ultimania that Tifa and Cloud are the canon pairing. But, as I stated before, author declarations are really just a way to keep getting publicity and cash for something. At this point, FF7 is a cash cow.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 11, 2009 17:32:30 GMT
I felt it wasn't essential to the story or relevant at all. I think this is the really big point, for me, on Author Declaration. Does it change the story? I don't think Dumbledore being gay changes anything, really (although some might argue with me). Same goes for if Harry's favorite color was pink - sure, it's interesting, but does it change a part of the story? If part of the story changes (For instance - I like Cloti and I always assumed that was where that pair was heading, but the reason I loved FF7, and even AC, was because it was left ambiguous - but the Ultimania apparently - and I cannot personally endorse this as I can't read Japanese - states explicitly that Tifa and Cloud are an item, or at least that Tifa has feelings for him. This changes the story because it was left deliberately ambiguous in the game and movie), then I have a problem with it. Dumbledore being gay had no effect, whatsoever, on the plot of the Harry Potter series. Cloud and Tifa getting married and having babiez together eleventyone!!!1 does. I can't really say I have problems with authors putting out information they always intended to include - for instance, with JKR's Potter encyclopedia, or Tolkien's appendices (BTW Pen, you're not the only one. I HATED the Lord of the Rings series and the movies made them much more enjoyable for me) - but couldn't, for a myriad of reasons. There's several subplots that sometimes just don't reach the mass-market. That doesn't bother me too much, because it's generally information that doesn't change the storyline, just adds interesting bits to it. TL;DR - I don't like Author Declaration unless it's an interesting factoid rather than a whole-out change of storyline.
|
|
|
Post by Tennyo (Nentikobe) on Feb 24, 2009 7:36:46 GMT
It seems to me that there is a lot of not liking or thinking author deceleration has merit simply because it can ruin the story. And I must agree that yes, it can ruin the story. Certain aspects of the Ultimanias may make certain fans want nothing to do with the story anymore. But does that really mean that they bear no weight?
Now sharing an opinion on a story, yes that is different. If the author feels one thing you may still feel another. JK Rowling saying that girls shouldn't be in love with Malfoy doesn't really fit into the relm of being canon. It can't real be canon that the reader hates Malfoy or loves him. The reader feels whatever they feel.
But in terms of story facts, yes, anything the author says should be taken into account. It is their story. They could have piles of notebooks full of notes on the subject but perhaps it just doesn't fit fluidly in the story. Such as JKR saying that Dean Thomas' father was a wizard and a Death Eater who was trying to get out and that is why he disappeared. Sure, in the books Dean doesn't know this. He doesn't even know whether or not his father was really a wizard. And frankly, there really wasn't any good place to put such knowledge. As a writer you need to know how to "cut the fat," if you will. Making sure you convey everything in the narrative is most desirable, but if it just doesn't fit into the importance of the main plot it may be judged that it is simply best to keep it out. Doesn't make it not a canon part of the story, though. Dean's father is just as JKR said and poor Dean my never know the truth about him. It doesn't even change the story anyway.
That said, as far as the Ultimanias go I don't really see them as being all comprised of opinions. What parts of them do people think are merely opinions? They are meant to state facts. The CC Ultimania saying that Cloud and Tifa realize their feelings at the end of the original game doesn't strike me as an opinion. It has support from both the Lifestream and Highwind scenes as well as the novellas, so it isn't something coming completely out of the blue. SE also doesn't seem to be all up on making it be in your face, so it still doesn't seem like a huge story changer either. The events of the game will still go as originally planned, the novellas are unchanged, and Cloud and Tifa are still living together in AC and he still leaves for a few days to be emo. Some feel they are together based on the actual story alone, some feel that they are not. But whether or not they are does not change any aspects of the story. Therefore, if it is stated that they are together in a factual way, how is that any different than Ron having blue eyes and Dean's father being a Death Eater?
It isn't any different. You aren't being told to like it, you aren't being told to feel happy or sad about it, because you can't be forced to feel things that you don't already. You are just being told the facts, and you can take them as you will.
Now I'm going to use the movie The Notebook as an example. I've never read the books, but lets pretend the the movie is in it's own universe with it's own unique canon for the sake of my point.
I thought that the end of The Notebook wasn't really all that sad. In fact, I think I remember laughing at it and at al the crying people in the theater. But I know that the scrip writers and the director more than likely wanted me to cry, too. Doesn't mean that I have to changed how I feel because I can't. But I also can't go around debating with people that my reaction to the ending is the end all be all reaction and that they all have to feel the same way I did. But if, say, it was revealed as an after thought not revealed in the actual story that the main characters haunted their children and grand children as ghosts afterward, well then I would have to accept that they main characters were doing so. It isn't exactly an opinion that that is what is happening; it's a fact. I may not like it, and I may think that it was an entirely idiotic development on the writer's part but I'd still have to accept it as canon.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 24, 2009 8:32:25 GMT
Ah, yes, but the thing about humanity is that they can choose to accept or deny something as fact and if they believe it, it is so for them. There are people who insist that the Holocaust didn't happen - sure, we all know it did, but to them, it didn't.
Personally, I'm not one to deny absolute facts when they're presented to me, but I don't consider the Ultimania an absolute fact. It was written by a third party, hired on by Square and not involved in the creation of the Compilation, and based on stuff SOME of the creators said. I think that the fact that FF7 was written by a whole slew of people - many of them not working on the projects now - needs to be taken into account with the Ultimanias.
Don't get me wrong, the Ultimanias confirm pretty much everything I ever thought about the series, but I just don't consider them canon. There's too much room for mistranslation and error.
If Square outright came out and said "THIS IS CANON HEAR ME ROAR ARRRRRW!" I'd drop the argument right then and there, but that's really unlikely. They LIKE the ambiguousness. It drives sales.
|
|
|
Post by Tennyo (Nentikobe) on Feb 26, 2009 23:54:25 GMT
Did you know that to deny the Holocaust in Germany (and probably most of Europe since most countries ban the swastika as well) is illegal? You will be thrown in jail for such an act. Looks like the German government deems that particular part of their Ultimania to be canon.
That being said, people who deny the Holocaust are, indeed, wrong. They are ignorant and racist. When it comes to real life situations people can't just make up their own alternate reality of historical events. I'm not quite sure how this can even be applied to the Ultimania situation.
Unless you are saying that even though the Ultimanias are canon people will still choose to not believe them?
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 27, 2009 0:14:13 GMT
I gave you the exact definition of canon, right out of the dictionary, which proves that I am correct in assuming that the Ultimania is a guidebook rather than canon (the example I gave is that the Catholic Church determines what goes in the Bible. If they published a Guidebook to the Bible, it wouldn't be canon, it would just be an effing guidebook, because it doesn't tell the story of the Bible, it just rehashes it in language people will understand). As writers we are bound by what a definition of a word is - not a one of us is a mastermind at the English language of the likes of Shakespeare, and that means we can't change what words mean. When we, as fandom, adopted the word canon for our use, we didn't change it's meaning, only what it was being applied to. The Star Trek fandom, which essentially created the terminology, acknowledges this and the majority of Trekkies have all of the official guidebooks but admit that it is not canon, because it is not telling part of the story.
Do you get what I'm saying here? This is, to an extent, a matter of opinion, and if you choose to consider the Ultimanias as part of your personal canon, be my guest. In the grand scheme of things, however - looking at all of the rules at hand instead of insisting blindly, and in using critical thinking - the Ultimanias come out being noncanon.
It's not a matter of me choosing which points of the authors to use, and more a matter of me knowing what the freakin' word actually means.
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Feb 27, 2009 0:21:33 GMT
As a matter of fact, Tennyo, my complaint against author declaration has never been that it “ruins the story.” I believe I stated what are perfectly valid points in my first post to the thread, as did several others. If you have not yet read the thread (it doesn’t look like you have) then I strongly suggest you do so to find your issues addressed.
And Costa, even if the authors/creators came forward and said “This is canon, you will accept it. Roar!” that wouldn’t make a lick of difference. So, what, now the debate of whether or not author declaration is canon is going to be settled by whether or not the author declares it to be so? Heh, no.
Look, it comes to this. If the information was included in the original work/publication, then it is canon. If it was added or divulged later, it is ancillary. It is the author telling you how you were supposed to have interpreted the work in the first place, and that’s not cool.
Simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by T. Costa on Feb 27, 2009 1:37:28 GMT
And Costa, even if the authors/creators came forward and said “This is canon, you will accept it. Roar!” that wouldn’t make a lick of difference. So, what, now the debate of whether or not author declaration is canon is going to be settled by whether or not the author declares it to be so? Heh, no. No, I would drop it because that would make it even more pointless to argue. But I agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Youko-Kokuryuuha on Apr 8, 2009 0:53:49 GMT
*blows dust coating off*
So, I actually had an encounter with author declaration, recently. It just sort of snuck up on me, and I didn't really realize it until it'd already happened.
See, it concerns this poem I wrote for a local poetry contest named "Do You Want to Dance?", and I allowed a friend to read it to gauge his opinion of it. In a nutshell, he liked it, but he asked me what the ending was supposed to mean. So I told him my interpretation of it.
Really, it wasn't until a few moments later that I regretted it, because I realized that I'd basically told him what he was supposed to have understood rather than letting him infer a meaning on his own. Which is bad. Sort of like da Vinci coming back from the grave and saying, "No, you're all idiots. It's just a picture of a smiling lady without any sort of subliminal message or greater concept behind it. Kindly throw away your dreams and speculations now, plz."
TL;DR: I sorta kinda wished I'd just kept my mouth shut and left my friend draw his own interpretations on what the poem was supposed to stand for. :/
|
|
|
Post by VulcanElf on Apr 8, 2009 1:06:04 GMT
See? Author Declaration = the antithesis of what Art is.
|
|
piratesrox
SOLDIER Third Class
The use of words expressing more than that of their literal intention! Now that. Is. Irony.
Posts: 712
|
Post by piratesrox on Apr 8, 2009 11:11:44 GMT
See? Author Declaration = the antithesis of what Art is. This is an extremist view, and if you believe it, you are a literary terrorist. Fictional prose and poetry are not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Pen Against Sword on Apr 8, 2009 14:21:13 GMT
See? Author Declaration = the antithesis of what Art is. This is an extremist view, and if you believe it, you are a literary terrorist. Fictional prose and poetry are not the same thing. Attempt To Wank-Bait #10239847546328292947567
|
|
piratesrox
SOLDIER Third Class
The use of words expressing more than that of their literal intention! Now that. Is. Irony.
Posts: 712
|
Post by piratesrox on Apr 8, 2009 14:30:38 GMT
This is an extremist view, and if you believe it, you are a literary terrorist. Fictional prose and poetry are not the same thing. Attempt To Wank-Bait #10239847546328292947567 Troll detected.
|
|