On Canonicity

 For a long time I've held a position that a while ago was very mildly contested but has never been that controversial. That opinion was that x contradicted y did not make x non-canon to y.

People used to make arguments for something canonicity's based on whether it contradicted anything in the original material however to me that seems an erroneous presumption because often enough works already have contradictions within them. If there's a plot hole within the first episode of a tv series we don't use that to say that season is non-canon.

Likewise canon has never outside of fiction context involved whether contradiction existed. Canon was a term used in religion to mean "works that are considered genuine" as opposed to fake. As such if we analogize this to a fictional story it would seem to me that would should be canon is just anything that is approved by the author. 

That also seems to me to just be what should be default assumption. If the author says this is or this isn't what happens within my story, to me it doesn't make sense to limit that to just the original writing......

or at least it didn't. That was my philosophy for a while, that the only basis for canon should be authorial approval. That said it's hard to deny functionaly that does lead eventually to some complete contradictions which while not philisophically troublesome to me, does prove functionally troublesome. It's easy to say "it doesn't matter if character x beat character y or character y beat character x in this adaptation because the author say adaptation is canon" but that doesn't help figure out whose stronger.

So I have what I believe to be perhaps a helpful way of looking at canon, and I believe is what I will use from now on.

Primary Canon: Anything within the original work or created by the current owner of the property

Secondary Canon: Anything approved by the current owner of the property. Adaptations which have been given the clear by the author, word of god statements outside the text, consequently databooks etc. All of these are Secondary Canon meaning things in them can be used if they don't contradict Primary Canon.

Non-Canon: Things not approved by the owner of the property. Can't be used.

One of the things I'm currently wondering and people reading can maybe give their opinions on; is the original work referencing something as happening in their world enough to show that the author approves of that thing? If there's a series 0 with an adaptation and 0 references an event in 1 or a character from 1 appears in 0, does that make 1 canon to 0? I'd feel like it would be because that's how fans say two series are in the same universe when one mentions another within, but also that seems like how the author would approve of a series being at least secondary canon without explicitly saying so.

What this means for my upcoming death analysis for instance and spoilers if you haven't seen the trailer for next one, is the original manga is primary canon, the website run by the author that gives extra information on the characters and world is secondary canon, the anime is probably non-canon though I will look to see if there's anything bringing it to secondary canon.