#gonna need a tag for rambles at some point probly...

[cleromancy]

one thing ive been thinking about a lot lately is just that. even if i did think that it was possible for a corporation to be a good or effective custodian for intellectual property *at all,* much less a sprawling long-running collaborative universe like dc comics, dc has proven itself a zillion times over to be actively hostile to both the creatives and the story itself

i think a lot of canon vs fanon arguments about the dcu specifically are silly bc people come to the argument without bothering to acknowledge that, or the fact that even if youre exclusively talking about the mainline continuity you still have to pick and choose from a deeply inconsistent and self-condradicting canon, and everyone has to take their own approach to what *is* canon to them. and that doesn't even start getting into what the difference between canon and fanon even *is* when some of these characters date back 80+ years ago and are practically unrecognizable from their first iterations, and moreover we *like them that way.*

and its like. okay. sometimes we just want to complain about fanon or interpretations we don't vibe with and aren't actually sitting down to have an intellectually honest conversation about story or character or transformative works. other times we just want to complain about the new guy dc has writing our blorbo who is doing a total dogshit job and driving them away from the stories that came before that were actually good, and again, aren't trying to make definitive sweeping statements on what writers cannot or should not do with established characters.

but other times people definitely are, and this is always where i think we need to actually hit pause and rewind and address our individual beliefs on who has the right to tell what story or do what with what idea. bc if we don't start there its inevitable we're going to be talking in circles around each other having two totally different conversations.

bc ultimately i think a lot of issues come down to like, "was this character choice deliberate and purposeful, what function does it have in the story, and is it well-executed within the story it tells; also, what impact does it have/will it have on the stories that follow?" rather than an issue of factual *accuracy* with what came before in the source material.

i think a lot of people just want the legitimacy of saying "this is canon" while also feeling free to dismiss canon that contradicts or overwrites it as "not really canon" (in instances where it literally *is*), and. man. you are just not coming to that conversation from an intellectually honest place.