> "Jeßus" <none@all.org> wrote in message news:4846197d@news.x-privat.org...
>> R Flowers wrote:
>>> <allemannster@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:e80542ba-60a3-41a6-948e-a20c8fe3ea3d@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> : Also, I didn't mind the 90s episode too much. One thing I don't
>>> : understand is whehter that episode was non-canon or if it is now the
>>> : official origin of Homer and Marge. If it is canon, then I surprised
>>> : the episode was allowed to be made at all.
>>>
>>> It's my belief that the show's producers & writers think the notion of
>>> 'canon' is absurd for "The Simpsons," and this was just their way of
>>> expressing that.
>> I'm going to have to ask - what does 'canon' mean in this context?
>
> 1. 'canon' as in to 'canonize' - i.e., to shoot out of a canon.
>
> Okay, not really - in this context, see
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/canon, definitions 5 and 9. In
> fan-boydom, 'canon' means what is 'real' and consistent in a fictional
> universe. For example was the death of Dr. Marvin Monroe 'canonical'?
> Apparently not, as he has re-appeared recently.
>
> "Star Trek" is a prime example of fans arguing over what is canon. Some
> people hold that only what was seen on TV & the big screen is canon, and
> don't necessarily accept the books & novels as the 'gospel.' Some exclude
> the Star Trek cartoons, others include them. However, it's really not worth
> getting worked up over.
allemannster@g…
Homer@NOSPAMFa…
