Talk:Alignment

Glossary

I'm assuming this lists characters and concepts unique or original to this story, but I'm not 100% sure. Could someone add a note of clarification. Khajidha 16:02, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Original to the story, or else the Stellar Galleries and Kolkular wouldn't be in there. I thought it was a shame not to offer some overview to the readers of the story's pseudocanon input to Transformers. Geewunling 16:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Not a bad idea - mentioning them increases the likeliness of them being canonized in the future! - Chris McFeely 17:00, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Which I'll admit was an underlying intent. I'd murder to get more of Direwolf, or maybe even see Killzone established as Killzone. Geewunling 17:06, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Uh, is this -- "Writers of official media, feel free to canonize at will!" -- an okay thing for us to be saying? Would characters and other things created by Furman in a non-Hasbro-owned capacity not actually belong to Furman himself? Are they really free for other writers to use "at will," without his permission?--KilMichaelMcC 22:36, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Remember, they're all derivative works based on Hasbro's intellectual property in the first place. The legalities are ... murky. Khajidha 23:23, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

Killzone

Okay then, Jim, please explain why my change was "bullshit." --KilMichaelMcC 21:08, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

And again, just because it's a coincidence doesn't negate the status of the name being canonized. I am having a hard time even understanding your objection to having Killzone link to Killzone, especially since they are both Decepticons, both in the same continuity family ... I mean, what more do you want? --Jimsorenson 21:09, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

For it to be intentional? I'm with Kil. I can't see this as a case of canonizing something when that's not what it was supposed to be. - Chris McFeely 21:14, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Considering we have characters, even the same continuity family, that share both names and factions all the time, that means nothing at all. If Sipher and Troop created their own new character that's not intended to be the same character from Alignment, they're... not the same character. Plain and simple. --Jeysie 21:13, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Authorial intent matters for almost nothing. Just because he wasn't designed to be the same character doesn't mean that he ISN'T the same character. Do we know that Kolkular as was mentioned in Alignment is exactly the same in Furman's head as it wound up in Dreamwave? In fact, I'll wager that it almost definitely isn't. He's not an artist, I'm sure that it looks much more like what was in Don's head than what was in Furman's head. In any event, has anyone asked him about it?--Jimsorenson 21:16, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

The Killzone in Alignment isn't in any continuity family! They aren't the same guy because one is a Furman fan character, the other is a canon character who shares his name by complete coincidence. If Furman wrote Killzone into a canon story it might be different. If someone else who had actually heard of Alignment's Killzone had purposefully written him into canon it would be a different story. But Sipher has stated that that is not the case, and a non-official character can't in any sense become canonized by coincidence. --KilMichaelMcC 21:16, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Why not? Lots of stuff in Transformers comes about from coincidence and happenstance.--Jimsorenson 21:17, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Also, if authorial intent apparently counts for so much, we should probably ask Furman if he'd retroactively consider them the same character.--Jimsorenson 21:20, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Okay, I don't think I even really understand your argument, and I can't find any further way of putting forth my own without straight-up repeating what I've already said. So I'm not sure if I have anything else to add to the discussion at this point. --KilMichaelMcC 21:28, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

My argument is (rather, one of my arguments is) that Furman's viewpoint hasn't been consulted, and probably should.

Anyway, I'm probably just going to canonize the whole thing. Not only is it a good story, but it'll avoid silly arguments like this.--Jimsorenson 21:32, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

If an author creates a character intended to be their own unique separate character from any other character, then they're... a separate character. Period.

After all, Sipher and Troop could have easily named their character Stompy McKill or something, and then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the literal only similarity between the characters that doesn't mean anything anyway (since, again, there's plenty of characters that have the same name that aren't the same character, even within the same continuity family) wouldn't exist.

About the only way we could ever consider them the same character is if some later canon story comes along and says they're the same. As of right now, though, all we have is author intent--which says that the canon character is not the same as the non-canon character. Your fan theories don't trump author's intent, sorry.

(And, sheesh. Canonizing it yourself just to win an argument in favor of your personal fan theories seems rather petty, IMHO.) --Jeysie 21:36, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Actually, I'd consider canonizing this story to be, in a way, acknowledgment that I've lost THIS argument. I do think it should be canon, though, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with this argument.

BUT.

If authorial intent is that important, suppose I state that the Blackarachnia in my books is NOT the same Blackarachnia from Animated. She's my own fan character. From, I dunno, Energon. Would you move all the stuff from the Almanac about her over to a new Blackarachnia (Energon) page?--Jimsorenson 21:39, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Okay, now see, this what I meant when I said I don't think I understand your arguments. What you just said is objectively not true. You did not create a new character named Blackarachnia whilst unaware that there already existed a character with that name in a prominent yet non-official story. --KilMichaelMcC 21:47, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

No, it's not a perfect mirror to this situation. But what I am doing is probing how important authorial intent is. My view is it matters for almost nothing, and I'm attempting to illustrate that. It shouldn't matter what Greg says about Killzone; that shouldn't be impacting this discussion AT ALL. If it does, then tell me why my authorial intent doesn't matter at all but his does.--Jimsorenson 21:49, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Because in this case, there's literally nothing at all in canon that indicates the two Killzones are both the same character other than their name (which means absolutely nothing, as the character could have had any name, and two characters having the same name means nothing inherently connection-wise anyway), so we have to fall back on authorial intent.

Meanwhile, the Allspark Almanac is specifically labelled as being a guide to Animated, so all canon information within it points to that Blackarachnia being the Animated version as there's nothing to indicate she isn't, and everything to indicate she is. There's no need to fall back on authorial intent because the canon is clear and specific. --Jeysie 21:57, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

I guess I am just going to repeat myself after all: I don't believe that a non-official character can in any sense have a "canonization" by coincidence. In this particular instance, authorial intent matters to the extent that it provides us with relevant information, as it tells use whether or not it was a coincidence. --KilMichaelMcC 21:57, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, this too. Canonization has to be on-purpose, IMHO. (I'm understanding why McFeely wants to kill us every so often.) --Jeysie 21:59, 2 April 2010 (EDT)