03/04/2020 of Retroactive Continuity

Do you believe creators of fictional work should be able to retcon their work?

  • Yes they should have creative freedom over their work

    Votes: 9 37.5%

  • Yes but only if it has been their creation from the start

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Yes but only if details need clarifying or would take away from an adaptation

    Votes: 8 33.3%

  • No once it is out there it shouldn't be altered

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Total voters
    24
Kebs

Kebs

TKR 9 - Forum Fighters
Retcon

(in a piece of fictional work) a piece of new information that imposes a different interpretation on previously described events, typically used to facilitate a dramatic plot shift or account for an inconsistency.

So a few examples:

1.JK Rowling is always Retconning her work not just adding minor details but changing the sexuality and race of her main characters. (Dumbledore is gay, Ron got caught masturbating)

2. Halloween (2018) ignored all other installments placing itself as the second installment.

3. Jaws the Revenge ignored Jaws 3-D and gave the shark a psychic bond with the Brody family.

4. X Men days of future past altered the entire X-men timeline , every installmant before then apart from first class didn't happen.

5. Star Trek Discovery gave Spok dyslexia and an adopted human sister.

6. Ghostbusters being remade but with a complete cast of women

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that they should not. I think that they can not despite what they're saying. If it is not written down, then it is not part of the story. The Death of the Author by Roland Barthes covers that quite nicely.

 
They definitely shouldn't make massive adjustments that dont make any sense like Rowling did. However if there are minor details that need clarification like a piece of lore that was referenced in a book but not explained very well or in depth, then they should be free elaborate more since they probably have the lore planned out in their head but not all of it has made it onto paper yet. But as far as official lore goes, if the author doesnt deem it important enough to include in a book, then it isnt actually a part of the universe. 

 
Interestingly my wife wrote her Masters of English thesis on this. @Nizam Adrienne has read it, so she probably knows where this is going. 
 

some level of ownership will always exist, but I’m firmly against a revisionist election of information. Clarification and guidance has value, but your creative ownership ends once you print and publish. From there, the ownership transfers to the audience and consuming public. 

 
I think some of those are a little different. Like what JK Rowling is doing by giving extra info/changing details is different than what Star Trek, for example, is doing. I don't listen to what JK Rowling says necessarily - okay, cool, that's what she envisioned or how she sees it now but it's not part of the main work. She can't change it now. I view some of the others as alternative storylines that don't affect the original story. It's a different story. And that's okay - every comic book ever basically does that as well. They're two separate things in my mind though.

 
Back
Top