Post by Morris.CSurely if it's a licensed work, authorised by Fox (and Brandywine
Productions Ltd. ??) it must follow some sort of 'dos and don'ts' ,rules
if you like, when it was written.
What stops it from not being part of the mythos?
Part of the "mythos"? Sure. Canon? No.
Post by Morris.CI suppose if it turns out to be great, it will be accepted as canon.
If it ends up being a piece of Alien shit, it will be dismissed as such.
Quality has nothing to do with it.
Wikipedia has a pretty good page which gives a lot
of great examples about what canon means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28fiction%29
But I think that one of the first sentences sums it up
the best:
"Usually items that are considered canon come from
the original source of the fictional universe while
non-canon material comes from adaptations or
unofficial items."
My own defination is pretty much something like this:
Only material that originates from the creator(s) of
that "universe", plus any outside material that the
creator(s) publicly authorize to be acceptable, is
canon.
I think the perfect example for this is Wikipedia's
first example of the Babylon 5 universe. Straczynski
kept tight control to ensure that everything fits together
so that novels and comics can fit within the canon.
Then you have variations on that theme.
Tolkien and the Middle-Earth universe. Canon is his
writings and artwork *only*. Certainly not the films,
although I love Peter Jackson's movies. They are only
adaptations.
Roddenberry and the Star Trek universe. Fans may
argue from one extreme to the other, but Roddenberry
himself laid out what he viewed as canon, and as the
creator, that's the word I take. The TV series and the
films. Interestingly, he does not include the animated
series, and has some reservations about Star Trek
V & VI. (If he'd been alive he might have questioned
ST: Enterprise as well. :-) )
I think the original medium is important, too. If a
universe began in a comic series, that trumps anything
else whether or not other sources are considered
canon or not.
Lucas Liscensing came up with an interesting solution
for the Star Wars universe by setting up a heirarchy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon
Thus there is a ton of stuff which is considered canon,
but everything is trumped by what's on film.
Unfortunately, because the only thing Fox ever cared
about was money, the Alien series was screwed from
the first sequel. That hack, David Giler, has had his
nasty little fingers in the mix the entire way (and the
somewhat more talented Walter Hill through the first
three films), but in reality *nobody* who was involved in
creating the Alien universe for the first film had any
involvement with the sequels.
The Alien universe is a complete mess. Basically, I
still accept all the films in the Alien series (which
does *not* include AvP -- that's a universe of its own)
as canon because that would be the most generally
accepted defination.
But if I want to be bitchy and stubborn about it, I see
the creators of the Alien universe as: Dan O'Bannon,
Ronald Shusett, H.R. Giger, and Ridley Scott -- in that
order. Take away any of them, and you have a very
different end product (for better or worse). *Many*
other people made tremendous contributions
(especially the actors), but those were the four
creative forces.
In my mind, by the purest defination, *only* Alien is
canon. Each film has pretty much set up own little
"alternative" universes.
I say, it's *creators* universe which is canon. But it's
frickin' Fox who holds all the "rights", and has screwed
things up royally for the Alien universe.
But even ignoring my own extreme opinions, the novels
(good or bad) can't even come close to being considered
canon. And that's the main point here.
Have a great day!
Ahmed