As film and literature franchises grow in scope and popularity, audiences often crave additional material from creators that supplements the world of the main story, frequently known as an expanded universe (EU). Both Harry Potter and Star Wars are hugely successful franchises that feature expanded universes; however, audience reception to this extra material can vary greatly.
Before its acquisition by Disney, the Star Wars EU featured literally hundreds of books, video games, and comics by various authors that explored character backstories, recounted new adventures, and even created entirely new characters and eras of Star Wars lore. Importantly, the old EU was never considered canon by Lucasfilm (although Lucas did take elements from EU material and incorporate them, sometimes directly, into his canonical movies). It was generally well-received by fans and critics, so much so that elements from the old EU are continually being reworked into Disney-era Star Wars material today, such as the character Grand Admiral Thrawn. "Harry Potter" author J.K Rowling has also continued to produce supplementary material for her books, including continuous posts to Harry Potter fan website Pottermore as well as the Fantastic Beasts films. However, Rowling is often derided for her additions to her canon, being criticized that she is simply trying to retroactively "fill in" what she forgot to include in her books instead of add to the lore (the most famous example being her revelation that Dumbledore was gay the whole time). Some even feel this is harmful to the integrity of the original books themselves.
Why is there such a difference in opinion concerning expanded universes? Is it due to the authorship of supplementary material (Star Wars' EU was penned by multiple authors and NOT by Lucas, while Rowling's only comes from her)? Does canonicity of the material matter? Is it the length of time audiences have had to process it? Is it genre? Most importantly, does having an EU truly add to or detract from the main franchise material, i.e. the most important aspect of the franchise? Other famous expanded universes include the Marvel and DC Cinematic Universes, Doctor Who, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Trek, etc.
Very interesting topic. It's important to note that expanded universes aren't a strictly modern phenomenon: in the early days of cosmic horror, for example (so, late 1800's-early 1900's) writers borrowed from each other's work all the time, to create a much more elaborate pantheon of creepy deities than any of them could have come up with alone. I sort of think that they're inevitable with any long-running series that attracts a large-enough fandom, and one reason for their staying power is that the fans themselves enjoy "filling in the blanks" and seeing how everything fits together. So, expanded universes are really the inevitable result of an interaction between a set of creators and their fans (categories which are certainly not mutually exclusive either). – Debs5 years ago
Shout to the mention of Thrawn, one of the most significant Extended Universe/Legacy character in Star Wars. He is an interesting choice because he arguably is an improvement over many imperial antagonists and a great addition to the Star Wars mythos. Such a shame that Thrawn's first trilogy is no longer cannon. His second trilogy just finished up, but was not nearly as acclaimed (though the 2017's Thrawn is one of the best Star Wars books since the Disney purchase). – Sean Gadus5 years ago
In recent years, more and more people seem to be writing all sorts of nonfiction books based on popular literary movements, TV shows, and other popular media. One of the most well-known versions of this seem to be theme cookbooks, including a Downton Abbey cookbook and even a Lovecraftian horror cookbook called "the Necronomnomnom," which came out just this year. However, other kinds of books exist, including self-help books with popular characters and even a guide to starting a business using tips from Game of Thrones. Are these tie-ins a clever idea or a cynical cash grab? Can they offer any insights that a standard book couldn't? Are there any examples that stand out as particularly interesting or useful?
Analyze popular themes in Canadian Literature from LM Montgomery to Alice Munro to Margaret Atwood. Some have noted themes of survival, self-deprecation and social gospel. Also take a look at Northrop Frye's literary criticism to form a lens to analyze Canadian literature.
I know that “Anne of Green Gables” is one of the classics and one of the more famous Canadian works of literature. Any discussion on this should include some discussion of this. – J.D. Jankowski5 years ago
The author of Anne of Green Gables is LM Montgomery. – Munjeera4 years ago
This purpose of this article is to determine whether or not the recently published rehearsal script for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child should be considered as a new addition to the Harry Potter canon. In other words, this article would focus on the mixed reception from fans, J.K Rowling's involvement in the project (or lack thereof) and argue for or against the play as part of the overall Harry Potter story timeline.
Does reception decide what "canon" is? Or is the fact that JK Rowling an author already confirm its legitimacy?
Keep in mind that it is a theatrical play. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
Fan reception does not dictate what is and is not canon. Canon is decided by whoever owns the creative rights. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Alright, I see both of your points. In some ways I agree and disagree at the same time. While I think canon is determined by the author, I also believe that an individual's 'personal' canon (the fan perspective) is valid and worthy of study. However, that's just my opinion. – AlexanderLee8 years ago
This is interesting, because "canon" is typically whatever the original author claims it to be. However, Cursed Child uses any number of ideas embraced by the fandom community long before the Cursed Child was written (friendship between Albus and Scorpius, Albus being in Slytherin, etc). Does the relationship between author and fandom change what the "canon" is? Does it give the fandom more ownership of the material? – sophiacatherine8 years ago
To me, it's not like an author's word about canon it's always law. Not without previous preconditions. Such as (among some others) authorship (it seems banal, but maybe not that banal) and underlying consistency. In this case, CC is not written by JK Rowling, even if she approved it, and shows major incoherencies if juxtaposed with the HP books (and movies). So, it maybe be "canon" in the sense that it's officially part of the Wizarding World trademark, the way movie adaptations are, but it's not properly literary canon. The author's word for it just does not suffice. If JK went mad and proclaimed canonic some scribble on a handkerchief she just found, should we take it as a fact just because "ipse dixit"? Canon is not defined solely neither by the author nor by fans. It is defined by facts. Fact is, fanfiction cannot be canon even if the author vouches for it. – emeraldnose7 years ago
The problem with The Cursed Child is that it doesn't have that same aura that the first seven Harry Potter books had. The main reason is that it isn't exclusively written by JK Rowling. Whatever, what really causes a problem with this last book is that it feels like JK just ran out of money and attention and decided that school books from the Potter universe weren't enough, so she decided to write a sequel. The problem is that, when it's not written with the soul, it's not... The same. TCC felt like a bunch of poorly written fanfictions all thrown there and mixed together, with a bunch of fanservice and totally crazy and unrealistic - almost ridiculous - plot twists for the sole purpose to serve a story that nobody asked for. TCC doesn't feel like a Harry Potter book, something's missing, and that's what doesn't make it canon. – Nad7 years ago
Most people often view Romeo and Juliet as a story with the message “listen to your parents.” I think the complete opposite it true. There’s a lot of evidence that suggests the story was meant to be more of a warning to parents, and to the audience, about the negative effects of arranged marriage. I think that Shakespeare was in fact a supporter of companionate marriage. Reading Romeo and Juliet from this perspective gets us away from the mindset that high school teachers force upon us. It’s not just a tale of warning in the form of a love story about two dumb teenagers, it’s a story that takes on the old (depending on culture and geography) practice of arranged marriage (and the patriarchy!). Somebody should explore this further; change someone’s mind about Shakespeare, particularly Romeo and Juliet.
I like this take. I always feel it's a little wrong to solely blame "dumb teenagers." If their parents and families didn't irrationally hold onto a violent grudge (with a reason they cannot remember), the bloodshed and need for secrecy would have never happened, and Juliet's father is especially abusive when she doesn't want to do what he says by marrying Paris. It takes several deaths for their families to come to their senses and resolve the dispute. – Emily Deibler5 years ago
Very interesting. It's worth exploring M. Scott Peck's distinction between the commitment of "love" and the feeling of "falling in love." – proflong5 years ago
Another very limiting and constrictive reading of a complex story. – T. Palomino2 years ago
The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie is a novel that came out in 1988 that was the most polarizing piece of fiction in that era. It outraged the Muslim community since a lot of the topics in the book criticize and question their faith; leading to a fatwa on the author's head. Rushdie was in hiding for a decade, and still to this day people are outraged by this book. To those who have read it, what do you think would happen if this book was released today, would it receive the same backlash and would Mr. Rushdie still have a death sentence subjected to him?
Analyse the popular opinion that Harry Potter has increased youth literary interest. Has Rowling inspired young readers to go on to new and different content outside her stable, or has her pervasive Wizarding Universe sought to monopolise marketshare?
A good issue, I'm just not sure how to measure this. In addition, interest in Harry Potter books may not carry over to reading other literature or the New York Times. This might be approached as a pedagogy issue at the middle school level: Has Harry Potter been added to classrooms to help inspire other reading. – Joseph Cernik5 years ago
Does reading classical literature (written predominantly by white male writers) still have a place among young people today? A lot of high school students lose their interest in reading when they are instructed to read books that don't seem to fit in the society that we live in today. It may not even be that they hate reading all together, but that they hate reading books they find boring. For example, when the Hunger Games came out, every kid had their hands on a Hunger Games novel, even people that said they detest reading. The Hunger Games is much more action packed and fast moving compared to many older books, and it still deals with really important themes and issues that you can find in classic books as well. Not only that, but a lot of classics are casually racist or sexist. Is it right to keep teaching books that preach hateful ideas, just because they are "classics?" Will changing the curriculum to books that relate to high school students more, encourage more young people to read? Does learning English Literature lose its meaning if the classics are not taught? What is more beneficial in the long run?
I feel like this ties into a common misconception of what English class is for. The point of English class, as I understand it, is not just or even primarily to encourage a love of reading. The point is to teach a very specific set of skills pertaining to how to read something, as well as to understand where all of the literary references we see in our everyday lives came from. The works that are read in English class are picked, by and large, because they accomplish those aims, and any attempts to replace them would need to be able to function similarly. There is an argument to be made that required reading should be more diverse than what we've currently got, of course; but just because a book is enjoyable or has some "important" message (whatever that means) doesn't mean it's suitable to be taught in an English class. People can always read whatever they want on their own time. – Debs5 years ago
Hunger Games is unsophisticated pulp and does not require anything from the reader. Classical literature tells a story using metaphor, which must be uncovered through higher level thinking. This is why classical literature is taught in schools regardless of the race of the author. Using race as an argument is not constructive in this case, and is quite frankly, just racist. – kim5 years ago
I'd just like to clarify, that I did not mean classic literature should be completely eradicated from the system. Many classics do teach great skills on how to read and these classics are taught because they were one of the first to introduce the ideas they present and they impacted english literature greatly. I was just wondering if anyone else felt that some of the ideas presented in these books could be outdated. In the english classes I've taken, we often discussed how these books impacted society at the time, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or Jane Eyre. I used the Hunger Games as an example only because it discusses issues pertaining to war and government which can be applied to real life as well. Just because a novel is a classic, does not mean it can only be understood through a "higher level of thinking". I think race and gender of an author is important because often times, authors include racism or misogyny in their work, and students are forced to ignore it, even if this kind of violence is directed at them. For example, 1984 had misogynistic undertones, just like many other books, and it loses its value to me because of that. I'm not sure if this counts as a classic, but I was reading the second Narnia book recently and was appalled at the amount of racism that existed in a series that is praised and cherished by so many people. My point, is that many students don't see the value of classical literature because it's becoming more difficult to understand WHY it is so important, therefore they seem to lose interest in reading itself. Shouldn't we be more critical of the classics taught in school, instead of just giving it so much value just because it's a classic? Shouldn't a variety of books be taught, old and new, to get a full understanding of reading and language itself? Why do we need to praise books that are racist or misogynistic, but give it a pass just because it was written in a different time period? – IElias5 years ago
I agree with your argument for a critical reading of Classic (and Classical!) texts. As a teacher, I can also vouch for the enjoyment my students experience when reading novels such as 'Pride and Prejudice' and 'Jane Eyre' etc - they can enjoy, yet also apply a critical lens to their reading. Rigorous textual analysis doesn't ask students to 'ignore' those themes and ideas which challenge their own cultural context - far from it. And texts which appear to privilege views at variance with our own make for important examination. I support your varied text selections. I also agree that many contemporary texts are as complex and worthy of study as the dear old 'classics'. 'The Hunger Games' is richly allegorical and figurative. Like any text, its value may be determined by the interplay between text and reader, its intertextuality, its cultural 'constructedness' and the extent to which it prompts question and debate. – garjo5 years ago
I think it's important for anyone of any age to be exposed to literature widely regarded as having much literary weight. Having said that, it seems that it's always the same authors and books taught. While Shakespeare's texts are timeless, something along the lines of Marlowe or Jonson would certainly make things more interesting. In terms of novels, it's vital to be able to debate whether something is truly 'Classic' in order to progress with English. I agree that we need more diversity, but some books are 'Classic' for a reason. – Thomas19275 years ago
I think we need to be rid of the idea that reading old texts is inherently joyless, or that texts that are the product of their time aren't read in context. A text written during a period of history where racism, for instance, was entirely normalised isn't inherently promoting it by its inclusion. Some things age better than others, and not everything is everyone's cup of tea, but if the students can't find any joy in any classics they probably won't in contemporary popular literature either. There are plenty of classics that were neither by white male authors and plenty that were ardently against the prejudices of their times. Likewise, the phrase "classics," paints with a broad brush. The late Toni Morrison's Beloved is indisputably considered a contemporary classic and it's certainly not casually racist or sexist material authored by white male authors. Going back a little further, Virginia Woolf likewise has assumed classic status that has not been questioned, and her writing as a whole could be considered antithetical to the stereotype of the hateful old white man cantankerously writing boring books. Often, particularly since the turn of the last century, what has defined a classic has been not only its merits as an artistic work but the ways in which it has succeeded in going against the grain and in anticipating social change. I'd like to know what works you're referring to that are classics that preach hateful ideas, given that classics have an overall proclivity for being forward-thinking, within reason for the periods in which they were written. – benjamindmuir5 years ago
