Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Triceron]

Despite it being written quite late it's hard to consider it "canon" as Tolkien said it was written for "philosophical rather than historical reasons."

It's still way more canon than Shadows of Mordor, the Lord of the Rings Tabletop game, or Rings of Power. Even if it's just notes, it's been well accepted as part of the canon by many people. It's not universally accepted canon, but it's far from 'hard to consider'.

Just like there is plenty of non-Lucas Star Wars material that people would consider canon, even if not completely official or having been rendered non-canon. Stuff like Han shot first is non-canon that is still recognized as canon. Even Solo: A Star Wars Story intends to follow Han Shot First as canon, by the director's own admission.

I personally don't see canon as definitive. I'm more particular to the Wikipedia explanation of the term.
In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base

It's not just the official version by way of the author, but by what is accepted as official by the fanbase. I think that's a very nuanced, yet important distinction to make. And of course, one that builds infinite arguments amongst the fanbase on what is and isn't 'official'. The term is flexible enough to recognize that Han Shot First can be considered official canon, from a certain point of view.

[Dhrizzle]

It's still way more canon than Shadows of Mordor, the Lord of the Rings Tabletop game, or Rings of Power. Even if it's just notes, it's been well accepted as part of the canon by many people. It's not universally accepted canon, but it's far from 'hard to consider'.

Just like there is plenty of non-Lucas Star Wars material that people would consider canon, even if not completely official or having been rendered non-canon. Stuff like Han shot first is non-canon that is still recognized as canon. Even Solo: A Star Wars Story intends to follow Han Shot First as canon, by the director's own admission.

It's hard to consider it canon because almost nothing else in his writings agree with Teleporno/Celeborn being Calaquendi and Tolkien himself didn't bother trying to fit it into his story. If you accept that as canon you might as well say Frodo set out from the Shire with a single Hobbit called Marmaduke, Sauron is Lord of Cats and Galadriel is a gnome.

[Triceron]

It's hard to consider it canon because almost nothing else in his writings agree with Teleporno/Celeborn being Calaquendi and Tolkien himself didn't bother trying to fit it into his story.

Just because you don't accept it as canon doesn't mean it's not either. I mean, like I said, the term is flexible and has many different interpretations. There isn't one single canon when we're talking about something as complex and nuanced as Tolkien's universe, which he himself has changed numerous times over the course of decades.

There's plenty of inconsistencies between Hobbit and LOTR which you touched on yourself, and much of it gets retconned.

If you accept that as canon you might as well say Frodo set out from the Shire with a single Hobbit called Marmaduke, Sauron is Lord of Cats and Galadriel is a gnome.

Fans have a right to consider what material from official sources they would consider canon. Your example here is purely fanfiction.

Like I said above, we do have post-Tolkien, official Lord of the Rings authorized material like Shadows of Mordor, LOTR Tabletop and Rings of Power. These are material that are not widely accepted as canon, if at all, by the fanbase. So even if we're talking about something ridiculous like Shelob being a sexy lady, or the individual identities of all nine Nazgul, what is and isn't considered canon is generally based on what the fanbase accepts. Because the term 'canon' doesn't really exist officially. There is no official authority dictating what is canon and what is not; the entire term is centered around how the fanbase categorizes all Tolkien related material and which material accepted as part of the same continuity.

That is why I used the multiverse example. For example, PJ's movies are clearly within their own universe. The Hobbit movies are an official part of that continuity. Rings of Power aims itself to fit itself into that same continuity. Whether Rings of Power is canon to the PJ movies would be up to the fans to decide. Some people do consider it part of the same continuity, some do not.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I personally don't see canon as definitive. I'm more particular to the Wikipedia explanation of the term.
In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story by its fan base

It's not just the official version by way of the author, but by what is accepted as official by the fanbase. I think that's a very nuanced, yet important distinction to make. And of course, one that builds infinite arguments amongst the fanbase on what is and isn't 'official'. The term is flexible enough to recognize that Han Shot First can be considered official canon, from a certain point of view.

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

[Dhrizzle]

Just because you don't accept it as canon doesn't mean it's not either. I mean, like I said, the term is flexible and has many different interpretations. There isn't one single canon when we're talking about something as complex and nuanced as Tolkien's universe, which he himself has changed numerous times over the course of decades.

There's plenty of inconsistencies between Hobbit and LOTR which you touched on yourself, and much of it gets retconned.

I mean you're basically describing differences between the Hobbit and LOTR at this point. I don't think you're helping your argument much.

Well no, I'm describing early drafts, different stories that had parts reused and abandoned nomenclature - things that Tolkien put aside and decided were not part of the Legendarium much like his story of Galadriel and Teleporno. I agree that "canon" gets incredibly woolly with Tolkien's work as we can't be sure which of his notes he intended to be "true" - like his mixed genealogies that make the Three Emissaries anywhere between the third and twenty-somethingth generation of Elves which clearly can't all be canon - but if the author clearly says something doesn't fit we should be able to agree it isn't canon.

We have Elves as incompetent, arrogant, lazy drunks and talking animals in the Hobbit. Just because it's ridiculous doesn't mean it's not canon. It's as canonical as people are willing to accept it to be, and the explanations of such canon can be explained as being 'Bilbo's far fetched tales'. That's how one would consider the Silmarillion as being canonical in the same context; a historic account written from a long-lost historic perspective, one which may have certain imbellishments, yet is still accepted as true to the history of Tolkien's universe.

As I said earlier there are ways to accept the Silmarillion as canonical but the stories it tells are not true to the history of Arda. For that matter though both the Peter Jackson trilogy and Rings of Power can be considered "canon" but not strictly speaking true, you just have to imagine which peoples would have told the stories that way.

That being said, Rings of Power, Shadows of Mordor/War and the LOTR Table Top games are clearly not accepted as being canon whatsoever by the fanbase. That's the very clear difference we're talking about. The ridiculousness of Hobbits named Marmaduke and Sauron being Lord of Cats has nothing to do with whether they are being accepted as canon or not; it's all to do with what the fanbase would accept as canon. There is no argument being made to accept Marmaduke and Lord of Cats as canon. It's a false equivalency here.

The argument to be made for Marmaduke and the Lord of Cats is they were both written and abandoned by Tolkien the same as the story of Galadriel and Teleporno.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

I'm sure you can appreciate the idea of a setting where "everything is canon, not everything is true."

[Triceron]

Doesn’t this definition just make canon a meaningless term?

Every thing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be and nothing is canon if the “fanbase” wants it to be.

It's a loose categorization term. I would see it as relevant as placing any movie into a certain genre, like 'fantasy' or 'science fiction' or 'horror'. Certain movies fit those descriptions very well, certain movies don't at all. Doesn't mean the term is meaningless, since it is useful to determine broad categorizations.

- - - Updated - - -

The argument to be made for Marmaduke and the Lord of Cats is they were both written and abandoned by Tolkien the same as the story of Galadriel and Teleporno.

But you said it yourself, they were abandoned. Never released officially, never recognized by the fanbase as official material. There's nothing to discuss here, it's merely a bad example.

I could just say the same about drunken Elves and talking wolves and trolls. Whether people consider those to be canon or not is really up to them. Some will merely accept it as Bilbo's embellishments, rather than a true accounting of races and creatures within the world itself. Some will merely accept it as a different group or type of Elf, wolf or troll displaying those attributes. Some will not consider it canon at all, and merely ascribe to the latest official depictions of these races. There isn't really one answer to canon here, like saying 'YES ALL TROLLS TALK' or anything like that.

[Dhrizzle]

But you said it yourself, they were abandoned. Never released officially, never recognized by the fanbase as official material. There's nothing to discuss here, it's merely a bad example.

Not sure about Marmaduke but I'm pretty sure the Lord of Cats shows up somewhere in HoM-e as an antagonist in the tale of Beren and Luthien which makes it as canon as Galadriel and Teleporno. Other than your nebulous concept of being "accepted by the fanbase" your criticisms could be ascribed to most of Tolkien's works outside of the Hobbit and LotR. Christopher Tolkien released the Silmarillion to be the most coherent story he could scrape together with minimal additions from himself, it isn't necessarily what JRR would have wanted published if he had chance to finish his work.

I could just say the same about drunken Elves and talking wolves and trolls. Whether people consider those to be canon or not is really up to them. Some will merely accept it as Bilbo's embellishments, rather than a true accounting of races and creatures within the world itself. Some will merely accept it as a different group or type of Elf, wolf or troll displaying those attributes. Some will not consider it canon at all, and merely ascribe to the latest official depictions of these races. There isn't really one answer to canon here, like saying 'YES ALL TROLLS TALK' or anything like that.

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are the only things we can point at as being canon. Not necessarily true as they were written by Hobbits who may not have known all the facts, but they were completed, packaged up and published by Tolkien.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

I'm sure you can appreciate the idea of a setting where "everything is canon, not everything is true."

I wouldn’t quite say making more then liberal use of unreliable narrators is quite the same as letting the fanbase decide the canon.

If that’s was the case the space wolfs might actually be cool.

[Dhrizzle]

I wouldn’t quite say making more then liberal use of unreliable narrators is quite the same as letting the fanbase decide the canon.

If that’s was the case the space wolfs might actually be cool.

I remember when Space Wolves were cool. Their first appearance in HH was super-cool. Even Ragnar Blackmane cosplaying as Marvel's Thor was cool compared to Wolfy McWolfson the Wolf-wolf. *stops himself before going off on a major rant*

[Triceron]

Not sure about Marmaduke but I'm pretty sure the Lord of Cats shows up somewhere in HoM-e as an antagonist in the tale of Beren and Luthien which makes it as canon as Galadriel and Teleporno. Other than your nebulous concept of being "accepted by the fanbase" your criticisms could be ascribed to most of Tolkien's works outside of the Hobbit and LotR. Christopher Tolkien released the Silmarillion to be the most coherent story he could scrape together with minimal additions from himself, it isn't necessarily what JRR would have wanted published if he had chance to finish his work.

And that is the point.

Canon would be what fans regard as the officially continuity.

Authors are prone to mistakes, and in certain cases they pass away before any clarifications can be made concerning contradictions. Canon is, IMO, the continuity as fans regard it to be.

That is why something like whether the Fantastic Beasts movies are considered canon or not is completely debatable. Just because JK Rowling says they are canon doesn't exactly mean they are. There are plenty of inconsistencies, retcons or contradictions to the HP universe which makes it questionable at best, and it's really up to the fanbase to decide what is and isn't canon. There's no singular answer, it's absolutely up to debate.

So when someone like Spaghettimonk comes along and talks about canon, it's in context to what he regards as canon. And if you counter that, it's in context of not aligning with what you consider canon. There is no objective answer to what is true canon and what is not. You are both right, you are both wrong, because ultimately it is a debatable topic.

The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings are the only things we can point at as being canon. Not necessarily true as they were written by Hobbits who may not have known all the facts, but they were completed, packaged up and published by Tolkien.

Right, but we're not talking about the Hobbit and LOTR being non-canon, we're talking about the other works such as Simarillion. If that's what we're talking about, then whether it is considered canon or not is really dependent on who you are talking to. It's absolutely debateable, not just merely dismissable as 'non-canon' like you are trying to imply it to be.

It doesn't matter if it is completed, packaged up and published by Tolkien or not. Would you say the last books to Wheel of Time are non-canonical just because they weren't written by Robert Jordan? It'd be debateable, right?

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It's a loose categorization term. I would see it as relevant as placing any movie into a certain genre, like 'fantasy' or 'science fiction' or 'horror'. Certain movies fit those descriptions very well, certain movies don't at all. Doesn't mean the term is meaningless, since it is useful to determine broad categorizations.

But putting say predator into hero because it fulfils some of the same troops as other monster movies don’t actually effect the worlds like trying to describe a canon does.

Like what if the fan LoTR fanbase has a second wind on shadow of Mordor in 20 or so years and think it as good as the Jackson movies or even the books, would SoM become part of the LoTR canon with every thing else even if it doesn’t make any sense in the world?

[Triceron]

Like what if the fan LoTR fanbase has a second wind on shadow of Mordor in 20 or so years and think it as good as the Jackson movies or even the books, would SoM become part of the LoTR canon with every thing else even if it doesn’t make any sense in the world?

I mean, then it's a what if.

What if Tolkien was cloned in the future to write continuations of the LOTR in the far future? What if an AI replicated his writing style to mimic his entire persona and memories to continue the franchise in the way he intended? What if? What if?

Well, if we're talking about Canon, then it'd all be in the context of what the fanbase regards it to be. Because the terminology isn't just specific to 'the writings of a singular authoritative source'.


And if we're talking about PJ movies, then they absolutely exist within their own canon. And the Hobbit movies exist within that same canon. And try as it may, even Rings of Power aims to set itself within that same (shared) universe. And yes, that can happen even without PJ's involvement in the material. So is it canon to PJ's movies? Debateable, because it's really up to fans to decide whether they are or they aren't. Even if an authoritative source set the record straight as to whether it really is or not, canon would only be as relevant as how the fans accept it. Just like the JK Rowling-confirmed Fantastic Beasts canonicity is still widely debated. Just like Lucas deciding Greedo Shot First is still widely debated.

We see this exact thing happen to the Star Wars universe. The expanded universe was considered canon. Many different authors, many different creators, all lending their creativity to build on the same universe. Plenty of contradictions, plenty of retcons, etc. But it was all generally accepted by fans as being within the same continuity, and not merely branching out into different retellings or alternate universes. Canon isn't just 'the things that George Lucas wrote'.

[Dhrizzle]

Right, but we're not talking about the Hobbit and LOTR being non-canon, we're talking about the other works such as Simarillion. If that's what we're talking about, then whether it is considered canon or not is really dependent on who you are talking to. It's absolutely debateable, not just merely dismissable as 'non-canon' like you are trying to imply it to be.

You did mention the depiction of Elves in the Hobbit being canon. While it is greatly debated I don't think anyone can argue that the books written, completed and submitted for publishing by JRR Tolkien are not canon. The thing is whilst that is canon it is not necessarily "true" to the setting.

It doesn't matter if it is completed, packaged up and published by Tolkien or not.

It absolutely does though. Whilst there is a huge amount of debate over everything else The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are canon by all applicable definitions.

Would you say the last books to Wheel of Time are non-canonical just because they weren't written by Robert Jordan? It'd be debateable, right?

Nope, they are officially recognised by the original author (who left notes in the knowledge he wouldn't live to complete the work,) new author, publisher and author's estate as being the canonical continuation of the Wheel of Time. This is different to Tolkien's Legendarium where the general consensus is "this is what he wrote but here are four other versions and we're not entirely sure if he meant to keep it that way or intended to replace it with something else that he liked more but would have required everything else being rewritten and dear God it's all scribbled on mixed up bits of paper and scattered around the country."

- - - Updated - - -

I mean, then it's a what if.

What if Tolkien was cloned in the future to write continuations of the LOTR in the far future? What if an AI replicated his writing style to mimic his entire persona and memories to continue the franchise in the way he intended? What if? What if?

Well, if we're talking about Canon, then it'd all be in the context of what the fanbase regards it to be. Because the terminology isn't just specific to 'the writings of a singular authoritative source'.


And if we're talking about PJ movies, then they absolutely exist within their own canon. And the Hobbit movies exist within that same canon. And try as it may, even Rings of Power aims to set itself within that same (shared) universe. And yes, that can happen even without PJ's involvement in the material. So is it canon to PJ's movies? Debateable, because it's really up to fans to decide whether they are or they aren't. Even if an authoritative source set the record straight as to whether it really is or not, canon would only be as relevant as how the fans accept it. Just like the JK Rowling-confirmed Fantastic Beasts canonicity is still widely debated. Just like Lucas deciding Greedo Shot First is still widely debated.

We see this exact thing happen to the Star Wars universe. The expanded universe was considered canon. Many different authors, many different creators, all lending their creativity to build on the same universe. Plenty of contradictions, plenty of retcons, etc. But it was all generally accepted by fans as being within the same continuity, and not merely branching out into different retellings or alternate universes. Canon isn't just 'the things that George Lucas wrote'.

What's canon comes from an authorative source though, that's its whole thing. If the controller of an IP authoritatively says "this is the canon" then that is the canon. The word you're looking for is "liked." Many people say that Greedo shooting first isn't liked, but that doesn't make it non-canon.

[bledgor]

What is this new defense of this shit show? Simarillion isn't cannon? The lengths people go to defend this garbage show is fucking hilarious and sad.

[Triceron]

It absolutely does though. Whilst there is a huge amount of debate over everything else The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are canon by all applicable definitions.

We're not debating whether the Hobbit or LOTR are canon though.

My reply is specifically in context of external materials being regarded as canon. "Canon" is not mutually exclusive to a singular authoritative source.

Nope, they are officially recognised by the original author (who left notes in the knowledge he wouldn't live to complete the work,) new author, publisher and author's estate as being the canonical continuation of the Wheel of Time. This is different to Tolkien's Legendarium where the general consensus is "this is what he wrote but here are four other versions and we're not entirely sure if he meant to keep it that way or intended to replace it with something else that he liked more but would have required everything else being rewritten and dear God it's all scribbled on mixed up bits of paper and scattered around the country."

It's actually quite the same deal, because you can't say 'they are officially recognized by the original author' when they came out after he died. You can say he gave his go on it happening, but not in a way that implies he officially recognizes the finished product when it literally isn't possible since he's dead.

The Wheel of Time books are canon because the fans have accepted it to be canon. It is absolutely possible for the fans to NOT recognize the last books as canon as well. The difference is most fans widely regard them to be canon, to the point where it's rarely debated. The books follow the same singular continuity that the original author intended. Whereas Silmarillion, as you explained, has plenty of inconsistencies and contradictions, which leaves it open to debate. If we're merely making a technical point of 'is it from the author's body of work', then neither the Brandon Sanderson or Christopher Tolkien books would be (technically) considered canon.

And what you are debating is pretty much already covered by your own recognition that it could all be canonical, just not necessarily all true. Canon is really a loose definition. Even in Wikipedia, certain Tolkien scholars consider all published writings to be canon, while others merely consider the entire body of work of a singular author to be canon. The term is quite loose, even when it comes to the experts who would define them.

As for whether Silmarillion is considered canon? Well, many do consider it canon. You argue that it is not. And everyone is right.

What's canon comes from an authorative source though, that's its whole thing. If the controller of an IP authoritatively says "this is the canon" then that is the canon.

But that's my point. 'Canon' isn't merely what the authoritative source regards as being official. It's grown beyond that description considering the entire premise of authoritative continuity has been widely debated. The term has shifted to include and recognize what a fanbase considers. And that includes experts and scholars on Tolkien's work having different concepts of what is and is not 'authoritative'. We get into this exact grey area because the Silmarillion is both written and not written by Tolkien. It is his works, and it is also not his works.

And besides that, who would be the current authoritative source who would define this? Does the Tolkien estate consider it non-canon? Debateable at best, right?

The word you're looking for is "liked." Many people say that Greedo shooting first isn't liked, but that doesn't make it non-canon.

That's where we get into grey area.

Lawrence Kasdan could be considered a post-Lucas authoritative source on Star Wars canon. He considers Han Shot First to be canon, and wrote scenes in Solo to corroborate that timeline of events. Is it canon or isn't it? It's still widely debated, because it isn't so simple to define a singular authoritative source. That's pretty much what we have here with Tolkien and the Silmarillion.

The idea of 'ghost writers' continuing Middle Earth would be very little different to how Disney continues Star Wars without Lucas. Should we consider the sequel trilogy and Mandalorian series are non-canon because they are outside of Lucas' body of work? Much of the Lovecraft mythos was expanded in this very way, and the term 'canon' is really only as relevant as the individual wishes to regard the Mythos. The regard of Lovecraft Mythos canon is well beyond the author.

In the case of Tolkien's work, the regard for LOTR and Hobbit to be definitively canonical while any other works is considered debateable is, as I will clearly point out, how the fans choose to regard the canon. The fans openly defer to the experts on the subject; the scholars who have decided to exclusively regard only Tolkien's body of work (which may include his post-humous published works), while openly excluding any fiction created within his universe by other creators. This how this particular fanbase chooses to regard Middle Earth canon. Very exclusively. This choice would be in high contrast to other properties, such as Star Wars, where fans have come to accept a much more flexible, collaborative process to its world building.

[Orby]

What is this new defense of this shit show? Simarillion isn't cannon? The lengths people go to defend this garbage show is fucking hilarious and sad.

I think the show was just 'okay' personally I think the two extreme sides are once again blowing this out of proportion (sorry if you are on one of them). Its either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever and once again here's me in the middle just like 'its was okay, I guess'. Its Last Jedi all over again, which is fittingly comparable. That movie had some stuff I liked but also some stuff I disliked and to me was an average fine and okay movie. Not great just okay. I don;t think it was awful. Usually when two extremes come to blows on movies or shows like this I always balance the middle (except Captain Marvel I actually liked that movie, fite me lol)

I tried to rewatch Rings of Power for a second time, and it was harder than the first time. The story is by far the weakest part, not all of it, but most of the characters are just dull. Including Galadriel who is so dislikeable and spiteful. But there are some nice things, I enjoy the set design, I enjoy the sweeping shots, and some actors are not all bad. I love Elrond and Durin and Disa that I wish the show was just about them lol.

And I will die on a hill to defend the shows score, I have the soundtrack its amazing, I would say the soundtrack was way too good for the show lol.

Despite it not being a good Tolkien inspired show, and maybe even the worst thing adapted from Tolkien (will need to rewatch that Rankin/Bass Hobbit movie to confirm), I still cannot in good conscience say the show is BAD. I gave it a 5/10 on imdb and I feel its a fitting rating.

[rhorle]

A reason for the lighter tone of the Hobbit compared to LotR is the fact it was Bilbo's story he used to tell to the young Hobbits so the more brutal parts would be toned down.

That may be the "cover story" but Tolkien wrote it that way because he didn't think fantasy told to adults would be successful. In the 60's he wanted to re-write The Hobbit to make it more of an "adult tale" but it was abandoned after at least 3 chapters.

The two published books should certainly be treated as higher canon then his unpublished work. However even then he didn't see them as finished but something to change as he saw fit.

[bledgor]

I think the show was just 'okay' personally I think the two extreme sides are once again blowing this out of proportion (sorry if you are on one of them). Its either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever and once again here's me in the middle just like 'its was okay, I guess'. Its Last Jedi all over again, which is fittingly comparable. That movie had some stuff I liked but also some stuff I disliked and to me was an average fine and okay movie. Not great just okay. I don;t think it was awful. Usually when two extremes come to blows on movies or shows like this I always balance the middle (except Captain Marvel I actually liked that movie, fite me lol)

I tried to rewatch Rings of Power for a second time, and it was harder than the first time. The story is by far the weakest part, not all of it, but most of the characters are just dull. Including Galadriel who is so dislikeable and spiteful. But there are some nice things, I enjoy the set design, I enjoy the sweeping shots, and some actors are not all bad. I love Elrond and Durin and Disa that I wish the show was just about them lol.

And I will die on a hill to defend the shows score, I have the soundtrack its amazing, I would say the soundtrack was way too good for the show lol.

lets just put it that if you take away the LoTR from it/rename places and characters it wasn't a good show for me. The dialogue is bad, the story is bad, the acting is mediocre, the costumes range from good to worst cosplay level (gods I hate the Numenorean armor). The music was great sure, and the visuals good (but nothing to blow me away considering the 600 million budget for this season), but the show had so many failings. Add in the fact that it had h a $600 million budget and it is not a good show, especially when you consider it was supposed to be an adaptation for a beloved authors work causing it to only get worse for me.

[rhorle]

I can make slanted statements too - “you mean the book that the author’s son intended to be the closest to canon that he could?” Regardless - Tolkien never had elves dying due to lack of mithril juice, or Gil- Galad sending people to Valinor as a “reward.” You’re playing whataboutism - disingenuously.

So are you. Do you really think there was an endless supply of boats heading to Valinor? Couldn't "go to the front of the line" be given as a boon? Out of all the things to get upset at with Rings of Power I'm always baffled when things like "they got a reward" as something that is impossible. The canon, both published and unpublished don't cover mundane things. It is logical that it could happen and never stated that it could never happen.

[Veggie50]

Loving the “what does canon mean” discussion. I’ll give my definition, prts see if I can get that into webster, or ever more prestigious; the urban dictionary!

Canon:
Expression used by those overly fixated on a fictional work. Canon describes everything the person believes to be true about a fictional work, while discarding conflicting views as non-canon. While this term is used to gatekeep the opinion of “the fandom”, no evidence has been found that any person using the term had been elected speaker of the fandom, nor to have conducted any representative polling.

That about sums it up, me thinks.