test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fandom, Canon, Immersion, and Gnosis

lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
It's dawned on me that there is a weird kind of connection between fictional fandom and religion, and that is the goal of Gnosis, or in fandom terms, immersion is gnosis with the story/setting.

Why does setting canon (a religious term in its own right) matter? The most common answer in my experience are people saying that breaking canon kills immersion.

What is immersion in a story? Its the state where one becomes so engrossed in a story, that one can escape (as in escapism), from suffering and boredom, by becoming one with the story, you are imersed in it.

Its no accident that so much of fandom uses religious language, even the word fan is short for/derived from fanatic.

Look at how emotionally invested fans become in setting, and the kind of aggressive arguements over canon that occur that take on the character and fervour of religious debates. The reason why its so important is because it's a battle over the qualities of the setting that both shape the immersive experience and the capacity of individuals and groups into engage in the immersion, and avoid immersion breaking elements.

Fandom like religion also builds communities with common values, stories, histories, and points of discussion and debate, and the occasional heresy ( example does X violate canon?)

Many fans gather around the TV or other device like previous generations gathered around Priests during stories and simular story telling, who acted as a possible vechile through which one could immersion ones self in the stories (and in the case of the Priest via the story as intermediary, immersion with the God/Gods).

Of course this isn't the only path to gnosis or immersion, or deeprst, but one of the easiest and most common, it doesn't not even require one belief in it in a literalist sense, just temporarily suspend disbelief so one can surrend one self to the story, effectively becoming united with it.

Comments

  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,180 Arc User
    Excellent thesis, and in general I agree.

    I have stipulated elsewhere that the first human was the first one who believed. Humans have always wanted the world to be more than just animals eating plants and other animals to breed a new generation which continues eating other plants and animals.

    In the modern era, when so many of the mythologies of the past have been rendered obsolete, man still wants to believe and is willing to put aside rational thought and knowledge to achieve that state. And one of the worst crimes you can perpetrate on a person is to shatter his beliefs.

    The canon/non-canon arguments are derived from this self-induced state of belief. Anything that uses the structure upon which the believer has pinned his dreams can threaten to shake the foundations of that belief. Thus threatened, the believer reacts.

    It is why fandom has a hard time with reboots. When my little ones were growing up I told stories which were different from those in the storybook. Hansel and Gretyl opened a candy factory, the three little pigs became construction workers, the big bad wolf actually had a sneezing problem, and so on. (I stole the idea from Fractured Fairy Tales, google it.)

    The kids would correct me: "That's not how it goes!" Because they had a mythology, and the stories had to be consistent within that mythology, no matter their own internal inconsistencies. When we share a mythos, people do not want it arbitrarily changed, unless they were never invested in the mythos, in which case, they cannot see or understand the ire of those who have invested in it.

    They don't 'get' why it matters. Until it's their mythos which is threatened.
  • baddmoonrizinbaddmoonrizin Member Posts: 5,117 Community Moderator
    Let's tread lightly here, folks. It's an interesting discussion. I don't want it to go off the rails with rules violations. Carry on.
    GrWzQke.png
    Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator
    Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of PWE/Cryptic
    Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of PWE/Cryptic
    Contact Customer Support --> https://support.arcgames.com
    Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
    Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 9,918 Bug Hunter
    lordgyor wrote: »
    Why does setting canon (a religious term in its own right) matter? The most common answer in my experience are people saying that breaking canon kills immersion.

    Not to me. Canon is simply an official stance on what is counted to 'has happened' within the internal history of the fiction or mythology.
    Canon doesn't have to be internally consistent and, indeed the religious canon systems that originated the ideas are not internally consistent anyway because they're simply collections of folk tales with a similar theme from different authors and times.
    All canon does is allow the IP owners (or self designated authorities to public domain works like religions) to choose which works are counted and work within the general theme they've decided their franchise has.

    The Gospel of Thomas predates the Gospel of John (by most accounts) but differs even more than the latter from the character the early Church created so it doesn't fit the theme they wanted.
    The Deep Space 9 relaunch novels likewise would do things to characters that CBS weren't directly controlling and could potentially interfere with any plans they had for post-DS9/VGR material (such as the upcoming Picard series).

    Cano is not continuity. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present incompatible continuity but are both canon and TOS gives us starships running on lithium and dilithium or Vulcan having no moon and also being orbited by a large moon shaped satellite. Both are canon but also not in continuity with each other.

    If people expect to only pay attention to canonical material in a particular fandom and also expect to not encounter anything that can break their immersion then they have either never read any fiction before or are remaining deliberately ignorant through either rose coloured glasses or indoctrination.

    No fiction or mythology ever exists in the same form as what a person has in their head.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 9,600 Arc User
    You are putting way to much thought and bloat philosophy into this.

    "Canon" in terms of fiction just refers to a official stance on events that happened within the fictional universe to provide a common background to allow people to orient themselves in this universe and follow future stories. If there is no such thing then storytelling becomes a mess as the viewer/reader is required to keep track of a myriad of different sources just to understand what happens in the upcoming work. If there is a "canon" then that's the only thing one has to know to understand where the new piece is headed. If something violates "canon" it disregards events that should influence it but for some reason decided to rewrite those past events in order to support a new narrative. That simply feels weird as it doesn't fit what you knew up to this point.

    The fighting among fans over certain aspect of the "canon" or more precisely the gaps in the canonical material just originates from the fact that everyone fills those gaps automatically by their own imagination. Those views may differ from each other (or rather for certain) and if those gaps are finally field in a official capacity will most likely also differ from that, resulting in disappointment.

    That's all there is.​​
    2r2u1s2.jpg
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • khan5000khan5000 Member Posts: 2,590 Arc User
    My view on canon is looser than others. IN MY OPINION Canon is only the event. For example canon for Batman is at a young age Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered and he trained and dressed as a bat to fight crime. It is the expression of this canon through different artist lens that we get such diverse tv and movies. How the Batman '66 tv show expresses the canon is different than how Tim Burton did in Batman and how Christopher Nolan did in Batman Begins. Canon is someone shot Bruce's parents. The expression of that canon based on who the artist is can determine if it was Joe Chill who pulled the trigger or pre-chemical-dip Joker.
    To bring this back to Star Trek, Trek on tv has only really been seen via one lens. TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT all are shot the same, lighted the same and so they feel the same. Discovery feels so off to fans because its not shot through that TNG lens. We've never really seen Star Trek on tv through someone else's artistic expression. (I say on TV because the Kelvin movies are TOS told through JJ Abrams lens...or lens flares), (I also use lens not only as camera lens but through an artists viewpoint).
    Thats just my opinion and I could be wrong...
    Your pain runs deep.
    Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    > @brian334 said:
    > Excellent thesis, and in general I agree.
    >
    > I have stipulated elsewhere that the first human was the first one who believed. Humans have always wanted the world to be more than just animals eating plants and other animals to breed a new generation which continues eating other plants and animals.
    >
    > In the modern era, when so many of the mythologies of the past have been rendered obsolete, man still wants to believe and is willing to put aside rational thought and knowledge to achieve that state. And one of the worst crimes you can perpetrate on a person is to shatter his beliefs.
    >
    > The canon/non-canon arguments are derived from this self-induced state of belief. Anything that uses the structure upon which the believer has pinned his dreams can threaten to shake the foundations of that belief. Thus threatened, the believer reacts.
    >
    > It is why fandom has a hard time with reboots. When my little ones were growing up I told stories which were different from those in the storybook. Hansel and Gretyl opened a candy factory, the three little pigs became construction workers, the big bad wolf actually had a sneezing problem, and so on. (I stole the idea from Fractured Fairy Tales, google it.)
    >
    > The kids would correct me: "That's not how it goes!" Because they had a mythology, and the stories had to be consistent within that mythology, no matter their own internal inconsistencies. When we share a mythos, people do not want it arbitrarily changed, unless they were never invested in the mythos, in which case, they cannot see or understand the ire of those who have invested in it.
    >
    > They don't 'get' why it matters. Until it's their mythos which is threatened.

    Many neopagans, including myself would argue, that you are wrong about ancient mythologies being obsolete. Plus look at how much fiction is still inspired by ancient mythology. You example with your childern is a great example.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    > @angrytarg said:
    > You are putting way to much thought and bloat philosophy into this.
    >
    > "Canon" in terms of fiction just refers to a official stance on events that happened within the fictional universe to provide a common background to allow people to orient themselves in this universe and follow future stories. If there is no such thing then storytelling becomes a mess as the viewer/reader is required to keep track of a myriad of different sources just to understand what happens in the upcoming work. If there is a "canon" then that's the only thing one has to know to understand where the new piece is headed. If something violates "canon" it disregards events that should influence it but for some reason decided to rewrite those past events in order to support a new narrative. That simply feels weird as it doesn't fit what you knew up to this point.
    >
    > The fighting among fans over certain aspect of the "canon" or more precisely the gaps in the canonical material just originates from the fact that everyone fills those gaps automatically by their own imagination. Those views may differ from each other (or rather for certain) and if those gaps are finally field in a official capacity will most likely also differ from that, resulting in disappointment.
    >
    > That's all there is.​​

    While keeping things organized gives canon a practical dimesion, it doesn't not explain the passionate responses, it doesn't explain the experience of immersion.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    > @artan42 said:
    > lordgyor wrote: »
    >
    > Why does setting canon (a religious term in its own right) matter? The most common answer in my experience are people saying that breaking canon kills immersion.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Not to me. Canon is simply an official stance on what is counted to 'has happened' within the internal history of the fiction or mythology.
    > Canon doesn't have to be internally consistent and, indeed the religious canon systems that originated the ideas are not internally consistent anyway because they're simply collections of folk tales with a similar theme from different authors and times.
    > All canon does is allow the IP owners (or self designated authorities to public domain works like religions) to choose which works are counted and work within the general theme they've decided their franchise has.
    >
    > The Gospel of Thomas predates the Gospel of John (by most accounts) but differs even more than the latter from the character the early Church created so it doesn't fit the theme they wanted.
    > The Deep Space 9 relaunch novels likewise would do things to characters that CBS weren't directly controlling and could potentially interfere with any plans they had for post-DS9/VGR material (such as the upcoming Picard series).
    >
    > Cano is not continuity. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present incompatible continuity but are both canon and TOS gives us starships running on lithium and dilithium or Vulcan having no moon and also being orbited by a large moon shaped satellite. Both are canon but also not in continuity with each other.
    >
    > If people expect to only pay attention to canonical material in a particular fandom and also expect to not encounter anything that can break their immersion then they have either never read any fiction before or are remaining deliberately ignorant through either rose coloured glasses or indoctrination.
    >
    > No fiction or mythology ever exists in the same form as what a person has in their head.​​

    There are varitians in canon and these are often the source of conflict or creative problem solving to solve the conflict in canon that has arisen. The minor minutia of canon does habe to be exactly pictured the same way in each persons head, for there to a be canon.

    Realistic or unrealistic, people expect reasonable attempts to protect the immersive/story gnosis experience of the setting/plotline. This isn't exclusive to protecting canon, it can be people complaining about a lack of believablity for example, a drop in general quality as an example.

    Its a occurred to me that its a imagination, not cleanliness, that is closest to godliness.
  • ryan218ryan218 Member Posts: 33,823 Arc User
    lordgyor wrote: »
    > @angrytarg said:
    > You are putting way to much thought and bloat philosophy into this.
    >
    > "Canon" in terms of fiction just refers to a official stance on events that happened within the fictional universe to provide a common background to allow people to orient themselves in this universe and follow future stories. If there is no such thing then storytelling becomes a mess as the viewer/reader is required to keep track of a myriad of different sources just to understand what happens in the upcoming work. If there is a "canon" then that's the only thing one has to know to understand where the new piece is headed. If something violates "canon" it disregards events that should influence it but for some reason decided to rewrite those past events in order to support a new narrative. That simply feels weird as it doesn't fit what you knew up to this point.
    >
    > The fighting among fans over certain aspect of the "canon" or more precisely the gaps in the canonical material just originates from the fact that everyone fills those gaps automatically by their own imagination. Those views may differ from each other (or rather for certain) and if those gaps are finally field in a official capacity will most likely also differ from that, resulting in disappointment.
    >
    > That's all there is.​​

    While keeping things organized gives canon a practical dimesion, it doesn't not explain the passionate responses, it doesn't explain the experience of immersion.

    Neither does the fact that one canon in Christianity spawned dozens of denominations. There is one Star Trek Canon: that set by CBS; but how everyone interprets that canon may vary, just as how the interpretation and experience of the different Christian denominations differ despite sharing the exact same canon. The reason organisation of canon doesn't explain people's feelings of immersion and passion for the franchise is because their passion and immersion doesn't come from canon. It comes from their enjoyment of the show: canon is just a contributory factor in that enjoyment.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 9,918 Bug Hunter
    lordgyor wrote: »
    > @artan42 said:
    > lordgyor wrote: »
    >
    > Why does setting canon (a religious term in its own right) matter? The most common answer in my experience are people saying that breaking canon kills immersion.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Not to me. Canon is simply an official stance on what is counted to 'has happened' within the internal history of the fiction or mythology.
    > Canon doesn't have to be internally consistent and, indeed the religious canon systems that originated the ideas are not internally consistent anyway because they're simply collections of folk tales with a similar theme from different authors and times.
    > All canon does is allow the IP owners (or self designated authorities to public domain works like religions) to choose which works are counted and work within the general theme they've decided their franchise has.
    >
    > The Gospel of Thomas predates the Gospel of John (by most accounts) but differs even more than the latter from the character the early Church created so it doesn't fit the theme they wanted.
    > The Deep Space 9 relaunch novels likewise would do things to characters that CBS weren't directly controlling and could potentially interfere with any plans they had for post-DS9/VGR material (such as the upcoming Picard series).
    >
    > Cano is not continuity. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present incompatible continuity but are both canon and TOS gives us starships running on lithium and dilithium or Vulcan having no moon and also being orbited by a large moon shaped satellite. Both are canon but also not in continuity with each other.
    >
    > If people expect to only pay attention to canonical material in a particular fandom and also expect to not encounter anything that can break their immersion then they have either never read any fiction before or are remaining deliberately ignorant through either rose coloured glasses or indoctrination.
    >
    > No fiction or mythology ever exists in the same form as what a person has in their head.​​

    There are varitians in canon and these are often the source of conflict or creative problem solving to solve the conflict in canon that has arisen. The minor minutia of canon does habe to be exactly pictured the same way in each persons head, for there to a be canon.

    Realistic or unrealistic, people expect reasonable attempts to protect the immersive/story gnosis experience of the setting/plotline. This isn't exclusive to protecting canon, it can be people complaining about a lack of believablity for example, a drop in general quality as an example.

    Its a occurred to me that its a imagination, not cleanliness, that is closest to godliness.

    It doesn't matter what's in people's heads. Canon is not set by consensus. People are free to ignore what they want or to include what they want but that doesn't affect canon, it only affects their own headcanon.

    All canons of franchises that consist of works by more than one author and/or over many years will be inconsistent. If people go into them looking for consistency then they have no idea how fictional continuities work.

    If enough people have enough issues with discontinuity then they can headcanon their own version or even set up their own sect and declare their own authority and their own canon. Obviously this only applies to public domain (e.g the different canons of Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Christian sects) it doesn't apply to (for example) Star Trek where the fans can form all the sects they want (and boy, do they!) at the end of the day they cannot legally become an authority or have any affect on canon no matter how much they demand unrealistic continuity.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 8,215 Arc User
    The Gospel According To Thomas may or may not predate the Gospel According To John - but it was a decision by the Council of Carthage (later ratified by both St. Augustine and Popes Damasus I and Innocent I) that set the New Testament canon, thus giving the Gospel of Thomas the same treatment as Star Trek did John M. Ford's Klingon novels as regards canonicity.

    For religions, "canon" is generally defined by formal councils, that meet and consult with their God/gods in whatever fashion they use (prayer, meditation, animal sacrifice, whatever floats your spiritual boat). Fictional universes generally get their canon defined by whoever owns the intellectual property, even when the owner throws the property open to others' contributions (the Thieves' World anthology series, for instance, had its canon set by Robert Aspirin and Lynn Abbey, but allowed the contributing authors to suggest alterations to make their individual stories better). In the case of Star Trek, the canon is defined by CBS, the company that owns the IP, although some fans seem to take that as a personal insult.

    (And not all children insist that their fairy tales must follow "canon" - I loved the variations my mother would put on the stories, such as Goldilocks running away from home after breaking her brother's toy dump truck, which was for unexplained reasons made of glass. If "canon" was insisted upon, the tale of Cinderella would be rated R, for the part where her stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds and her stepmother is forced to "dance" at the wedding in red-hot iron shoes.)
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    edited January 13
    > @ryan218 said:
    > lordgyor wrote: »
    >
    > > @angrytarg said:
    > > You are putting way to much thought and bloat philosophy into this.
    > >
    > > "Canon" in terms of fiction just refers to a official stance on events that happened within the fictional universe to provide a common background to allow people to orient themselves in this universe and follow future stories. If there is no such thing then storytelling becomes a mess as the viewer/reader is required to keep track of a myriad of different sources just to understand what happens in the upcoming work. If there is a "canon" then that's the only thing one has to know to understand where the new piece is headed. If something violates "canon" it disregards events that should influence it but for some reason decided to rewrite those past events in order to support a new narrative. That simply feels weird as it doesn't fit what you knew up to this point.
    > >
    > > The fighting among fans over certain aspect of the "canon" or more precisely the gaps in the canonical material just originates from the fact that everyone fills those gaps automatically by their own imagination. Those views may differ from each other (or rather for certain) and if those gaps are finally field in a official capacity will most likely also differ from that, resulting in disappointment.
    > >
    > > That's all there is.​​
    >
    > While keeping things organized gives canon a practical dimesion, it doesn't not explain the passionate responses, it doesn't explain the experience of immersion.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Neither does the fact that one canon in Christianity spawned dozens of denominations. There is one Star Trek Canon: that set by CBS; but how everyone interprets that canon may vary, just as how the interpretation and experience of the different Christian denominations differ despite sharing the exact same canon. The reason organisation of canon doesn't explain people's feelings of immersion and passion for the franchise is because their passion and immersion doesn't come from canon. It comes from their enjoyment of the show: canon is just a contributory factor in that enjoyment.

    Agreed, that its not canon alone, but canon is important part of that for many people, but not all.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 9,600 Arc User
    > @lordgyor said:
    >
    > While keeping things organized gives canon a practical dimesion, it doesn't not explain the passionate responses, it doesn't explain the experience of immersion.

    Because it doesn't have to. You are trying to explain why people enjoy things and are passionate about things, whoch is pointless. It's a matter of taste. Some people value a organized canon as 'wholesome', being able to look back at a more or less consistent 'history' of events while others simply value the general idea of the universe in question.

    It's like trying to determine why people debate paintings or music. The religious angle is really pointless although it is attention grabbing, making this seem more meaningful than it is.
    2r2u1s2.jpg
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 33,320 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    (And not all children insist that their fairy tales must follow "canon" - I loved the variations my mother would put on the stories, such as Goldilocks running away from home after breaking her brother's toy dump truck, which was for unexplained reasons made of glass. If "canon" was insisted upon, the tale of Cinderella would be rated R, for the part where her stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds and her stepmother is forced to "dance" at the wedding in red-hot iron shoes.)
    Or how someone had the gall to make an R-rated movie based on Little Red Riding Hood. While the movie did embellish the story somewhat, most of the embellishments make logical sense, and the stuff that makes it R-rated is actually part of the original story.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 8,215 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    (And not all children insist that their fairy tales must follow "canon" - I loved the variations my mother would put on the stories, such as Goldilocks running away from home after breaking her brother's toy dump truck, which was for unexplained reasons made of glass. If "canon" was insisted upon, the tale of Cinderella would be rated R, for the part where her stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds and her stepmother is forced to "dance" at the wedding in red-hot iron shoes.)
    Or how someone had the gall to make an R-rated movie based on Little Red Riding Hood. While the movie did embellish the story somewhat, most of the embellishments make logical sense, and the stuff that makes it R-rated is actually part of the original story.
    Yes, too many people raised on the Disney versions of these tales are unaware of just how violent and bloody the stories collected by the brothers Grimm were. These were "bedtime stories" designed to terrify small children into compliance, not soothing words to help them drift off to sleep.
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 9,918 Bug Hunter
    Hey kiddies, wanna find out how Sleeping Beauty was really woken up? Hey, stop, come back, it's not as bad as how Cinderella's sisters got the shoes on.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 10,617 Arc User
    edited January 14
    jonsills wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    (And not all children insist that their fairy tales must follow "canon" - I loved the variations my mother would put on the stories, such as Goldilocks running away from home after breaking her brother's toy dump truck, which was for unexplained reasons made of glass. If "canon" was insisted upon, the tale of Cinderella would be rated R, for the part where her stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds and her stepmother is forced to "dance" at the wedding in red-hot iron shoes.)
    Or how someone had the gall to make an R-rated movie based on Little Red Riding Hood. While the movie did embellish the story somewhat, most of the embellishments make logical sense, and the stuff that makes it R-rated is actually part of the original story.
    Yes, too many people raised on the Disney versions of these tales are unaware of just how violent and bloody the stories collected by the brothers Grimm were. These were "bedtime stories" designed to terrify small children into compliance, not soothing words to help them drift off to sleep.

    And likely for good reason. Children running off into the middle of the woods could get them killed or seriously injured which just means that they would die slower due to the lack of decent medicine. So having the cannibalistic witch in the middle of the woods would scare the children into staying alive.
    Post edited by starkaos on
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 33,320 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    Hey kiddies, wanna find out how Sleeping Beauty was really woken up? Hey, stop, come back, it's not as bad as how Cinderella's sisters got the shoes on.​​
    Well... Disney left out the second part of the story. The "handsome prince" who marries Sleeping Beauty is the son of an Ogre, and his mother tries to eat his wife and children. :p

    One variant of the story has it that it's not his ogre mother but actually his wife who does that. Yeah, in that one it was a married king who woke up sleeping beauty.

    Then there's one where the prince doesn't stop at kissing her trying to wake her up... and it's actually the act of removing the object she was pricked with that wakes her up.

    Yeah, there is no way to be sure what eh original version of the story was and it may actually be that it started out as multiple vaguely similar stories that got mixed up when re-told. Then of course Disney takes the parts that make a g-rated movie.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    Gnosis in both Gnosism and Neoplaronism is seen as an escape, immersion in a TV show, book, or other story medium is called escapism.
  • mirrorchaosmirrorchaos Member Posts: 9,701 Arc User
    edited February 4
    I apologise in advance for this (:tongue:):

    By the prophets! Star trek has always been steeped in religious context even on occasion wondering why god needs a starship. I mean hell, it gets to a point where even trying to purge those emotions and negative thoughts while on a retreat away to a temple only to get ambushed by more people who don't believe, as if a dal'rock was coming for them from the celestial temple.

    Of course with canon you must believe it as if Kahless himself was in front of you like the texts say when he was expected to arrive, or with the borg's holy grail with omega particles. Sometimes you are such awe of what you are seeing like it's watching you, a most curious sensation.

    Of course you will also find blasphemers as stubborn as Q in a desolate continuum with not everyone taken in by canon as others, and even like those few Jem'Hadar who no longer think of the founders as their gods? or like Weyoun who killed himself to protect Odo? There will always be others who will just see things differently in canon. For this you can either embrace it as a Klingon it like its in your blood and bone as its like a sacred right but you also see things a little differently, or you take it like the wise Ferengi sages where things are rarely free to give.

    I just hope there aren't fanatics out there like those of the Terra Prime party or Voth Doctrine who believe the word of canon like it was cast down like the first Bat'leth from the Kri'stak volcano and would do anything to kill a debate and end up like that Boraalan guy who saw too much?
    T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW.
    Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
  • lordgyorlordgyor Member Posts: 2,325 Arc User
    > @mirrorchaos said:
    > I apologise in advance for this (:tongue:):
    >
    > By the prophets! Star trek has always been steeped in religious context even on occasion wondering why god needs a starship. I mean hell, it gets to a point where even trying to purge those emotions and negative thoughts while on a retreat away to a temple only to get ambushed by more people who don't believe, as if a dal'rock was coming for them from the celestial temple.
    >
    > Of course with canon you must believe it as if Kahless himself was in front of you like the texts say when he was expected to arrive, or with the borg's holy grail with omega particles. Sometimes you are such awe of what you are seeing like it's watching you, a most curious sensation.
    >
    > Of course you will also find blasphemers as stubborn as Q in a desolate continuum with not everyone taken in by canon as others, and even like those few Jem'Hadar who no longer think of the founders as their gods? or like Weyoun who killed himself to protect Odo? There will always be others who will just see things differently in canon. For this you can either embrace it as a Klingon it like its in your blood and bone as its like a sacred right but you also see things a little differently, or you take it like the wise Ferengi sages where things are rarely free to give.
    >
    > I just hope there aren't fanatics out there like those of the Terra Prime party or Voth Doctrine who believe the word of canon like it was cast down like the first Bat'leth from the Kri'stak volcano and would do anything to kill a debate and end up like that Boraalan guy who saw too much?

    You are forgiven my child , walk with the prophets.
Sign In or Register to comment.