#It's either personal bias financial profit or some political message that's behind it

[tamelee]

First of all, hi, how have you been? :)

So there is this Sasusaku account on Twitter who loves to use novels to defend their ship. I know, nothing new.

But this person recently made a thread to debunk the idea that novels are not canon, and their thesis was that every work published by Shueisha is canon because they have ownership of Naruto; therefore, saying the novels are not canon is the same as saying the Naruto manga isn't canon either (according to them).

I know you have talked about this before, so I apologize if this ask comes off as repetitive and/or annoying, but I was just interested in knowing your opinion since you know more about these topics, so feel free to ignore this ask if you want to!

Have a nice day ^^

Hi! Doing alright thank you ^^! 

“every work published by Shueisha is canon because they have ownership of Naruto; therefore, saying the novels are not canon is the same as saying the Naruto manga isn't canon either”

Oh yes, of course. 

Which means that aside from the novels that retcon the original, the… 

Random, OOC storylines in games 

Third-party interpretations, subjectively written data-books or fan-books

Merch, promotional art and other marketing material 

Filler episodes/Movies

Dash generation Manga or whatever 

Sasuke- and Lee’s chibi-adventures Manga

etc—

...are also all canon.

[click to enlarge]

Because "Shueisha published it".

Please make it make sense.

“But this person recently made a thread to debunk the idea that novels are not canon, and their thesis was that every work published by Shueisha is canon because they have ownership of Naruto; therefore, saying the novels are not canon is the same as saying the Naruto manga isn't canon either ”

No.

This is an incredibly flawed argument, because it’s already a non-negotiable fact that the Naruto Manga is canon. It just is. No question about it whatsoever.  

CANON=

The Naruto Manga is the authoritative framework that is the source material. This holds things like the rules, core elements of the story like: characters, themes, messages, the author’s intent etc- And fundamental canon holds the most significance of all within a franchise and provides consistency to the fictional universe in case publishing companies decide to expand on it.. 

By nature its intent is to reflect the original author’s vision; the Naruto Manga = Kishimoto’s vision. 

And everything that doesn’t align with it is simply not canon. 

Therefore the only thing left to argue about is whether legal “ownership” by itself can determine whether something is canon or not. But that isn’t how you measure it alone because it ignores actual canon. I mean yeah, who would’ve thought you’d have to look at canon in order to determine whether something is canon??? 🤯 Wild, huh?

So no: you can’t and that’s not how it works.  

Everything Shueisha decides or publishes through their distributors is official. 

It is official because they are copyright-holders and own the intellectual property (IP) at large which has many different aspects to it. They do own most of them in order to manage it all.

But not everything that is official is canon.

These are two entirely different things.

In fact, the only thing they themselves consider to truly be part of the ‘official’ timeline (which would establish ‘canon’ if it wasn’t such a retcon either) on the official site is Brt. It’s technically canon because chapter 700 exists, though it still makes no sense as it doesn’t stack up against the other 699 chapters and it still means nothing in terms of actual storytelling. Alas:

And even if they did claim ‘canon’, it’s only as significant as the source makes it out to be. Not the amount of profit they can make because they are legally allowed to exploit the work as much as possible through distributions, adaptations, translations, trademarks at JPO and handing out licenses left and right to third-party organizations (‘Namco Bandai’ for example) which then get their own rights or having entire licensing devisions handle individual IP regarding characters (yes your little blorbo is intellectual property) who manage it in terms of advertisements, marketing/promotion and merchandising (think about these pop-up shops), like: ShoPro

*Shueisha used to be owned by Shogakukan if I’m not mistaken and then separated at some point

It’s a business. And an insanely large one at that. They own so much more than you’d think, it’s a HUGE company (2nd largest publisher in Japan I believe) that doesn’t only own multiple magazines like Shonen Jump and its Manga, they also published the ‘weekly playboy’ and publishes things like many (light/erotic/graphic) novels and nsfw picture-books/manga etc. They will do anything as a business to make sure to profit commercially as is legally permitted within the established contract that varies per published IP and which they’re incredibly tight-lipped about. 

In the case of Naruto’s franchise, information that came after the Manga constantly contradicts not just actual canon, but also each other. Contradictions can’t all be canon or equally as significant at the same time because it needs a source— which we have; the Naruto Manga. It’s what holds the most significance.

That’s how you measure whether something is actually canon or not. 

“… therefore, saying the novels are not canon is the same as saying the Naruto manga isn't canon either”

Besides, if this was true, then canon wouldn’t even exist. Jfc. 

And yes, you can expand on canon like I said. That’s the whole point. It indicates a framework that allows publishing companies to stay consistent and keep their audience happy if they care to do so. But consistency in story or consistency in business doesn’t mean the same thing because it's motivated by two entirely different motives. The willingness to sacrifice artistic work and its audience in order to profit from it financially literally kills creativity in the industry as well as opportunities and it gives them way too much power. The stuff that’s coming out lately is garbage and it’s mostly thanks to people pointing fingers at someone random with their eyes closed, unconcerned about the consequences, and grant them and the business the authority to decide whatever the hell they want about things that already exist— and it never improves. (I’m always free to rant more about it but yk.) 

Like the person you’ve quoted, the motive isn’t to actually convince people that their terrible novels are canon, it’s that canon should give a ship in this case some significance when there wasn’t in the first place. To "fix" something that didn't need any fixing. It has nothing to do with the actual story. 

But canon does because it just is.

Non-negotiable.

Oh! you have a nice day too🌷 I apologize for the rants ><

[mlow19ahsgov-blog]

Media Assessment of Issue

Article 1 (RedState): Yet Another Leftist Anti-Energy Misdirection: Hiding Behind the Animals [https://www.redstate.com/setonmotley/2018/09/06/yet-another-leftist-anti-energy-misdirection-hiding-behind-animals/] 

Subject: The author’s main point is that everything about green energy is either stupid or just a huge lie. According to him, renewable resources are terrible, so therefore everyone advocating for it is really just lying about how great it is in order to “halt any and all productive human activity.” He says people lie so much about advertising green energy, that apparently Earth Day is even fake because it’s on Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. He also accuses those on the Left of using “cute animals” to persuade people to invest in using renewable resources for purposes like global warming or climate change, which he calls “The Greatest Scam on Earth” that supposedly belongs to the Leftist environmentalists. Later in the article, the author addresses the Stand for Salmon ballot measure, an attempt to improve salmon habitat protections, which he says it’s misguided.

Author: Seton Motley is the president of Less Government, a DC-based non-profit organization dedicated to reducing the power of government. He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist. He is extremely conservative and hates Obama.

Context: The article was published online on September 6, 2018. The article is very recent, as it was published only a few days ago. This article represents the small percentage of people who don’t believe in climate change, thinking it is all fake and nonexistent. Everything about the article advocates against renewable resources and protecting the environment, making it only mean much to those who agree with the author.

Audience: The audience are the online community of RedState, who are most likely to be more on the extreme side of conservatism and might not even believe in climate change either. The article would only attract those who share this same opinion of climate change.

Perspective: The article is extremely subjective, as the author uses insulting language throughout the whole article, saying climate change is fake and that those on the Left are only lying to prevent productive human activity. I personally despise this author’s claim because it is downright rude and inaccurate. Sure, people use animals in advocating renewable resources, but it is because animals are a huge reason of why these resources need to be used. The pictures of animals are meant to show people some of the many consequences of using too much fossil fuels and raising the Earth’s temperature, which would cause several species and habitats to be in danger, which has already started to happen. It was amusing to see how one-sided people are about environmental issues, as the whole argument about Earth Day being fake was ridiculous. It’s likely that Motley exaggerated the Stand for Salmon ballot measure in order to invoke even more anger in the readers who believe the article’s content.

Significance: Motley provides plenty of commentary on his topic. Near the beginning of the article, he calls the “ideas for alleged energy – are awful, and awfully dumb. Solar, wind, ethanol and the like – are terrible sources of energy…and are worse for the environment than the real energy sources they purport to replace.” He also constantly accuses liberals of hiding “their anti-energy insanity behind cute animals. That way they don’t have to say “We hate energy, and capitalism, and human activity, and humans” – they can say “We like cute animals.” As Motley still thinks climate change is all a hoax, his opinion on seeing animals and their habitats destroyed because of it is: “So instead we get pictures of Polar Bears and Penguins on ice floes. Oh look – how cute. About which they lie – and say the floes are fleeting due to Climate Change. Oh no – what will become of the cute animals?!?”

Article 2 (HuffPost): Is President Trump the Kick in the Butt We Need to Get Onto a Sustainable Path? [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/is-president-trump-the-kick-in-the-butt-we-need-to_us_58ab1d89e4b0b0e1e0e20e05]

Subject: The author is advocating to go against President Trump’s environmental policies in order to protect mankind from collapsing environmentally, economically, and socially. They explain that burning coal for energy can cause deaths for miners, citizens, and the unborn because of air/water pollution, mining accidents, and the destruction of plant/animal species and their habitats. A list of solutions are proposed like using renewable resources, finding the true health and environmental costs of products, services, and technologies, taxing behaviors that damage human and environmental health and rewarding behaviors that protect it, creating social equality, and strengthening democracies. The article ends off by stating that a crisis like this can empower people to advocate for their climate, health, living beings, and democracy. The author encourages the audience to immediately take action and make changes to society in order to thwart the president’s plan to the nation’s demise.

Author: Ellen Moyer is an environmental consultant with a BA in anthropology, an MS in environmental engineering, and a PhD in civil engineering. She is a registered professional engineer and a US Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional.

Context: This article was published online on February 20, 2017. The article is one year old, and it is not likely President Trump has changed his opinion on the environment or his related policies. Even though the article is a little less than a year old, its arguments are still very much related to the problems circulating today. The only thing that is not as relevant anymore is that people have already started to make changes towards using renewable resources. It is now a matter of funding and spreading its use.

Audience: The audience are the readers of the HuffPost (formerly called the Huffington Post). It is likely that liberals would read this article, as the article clearly opposes President Trump’s environmental policies and encourages people to take charge. The author uses descriptive words to demonstrate her own opinion towards the president, giving a slightly dramatic and harsh spin of what is happening.

Perspective: This article is subjective, as the author‘s message is to defend the nation’s environment by standing up for major changes that need to happen in order to prevent Donald Trump from permanently ruining the nation. I agree with the author’s claim because I believe President Trump barely cares about the environment, and that it is up to us, as the citizens, to do what is best for the country so that the environment, society, and economy don't fall apart. I think enforcing these processes would significantly benefit not just the United States, but the world too by setting a positive example for other nations to follow.

Significance: The author inserts her own opinion throughout the article many times using both statements and rhetorical questions. She starts off with the very first sentence being “For someone with such immense financial wealth—and now power—President Trump displays a baffling ‘can’t do’ attitude and ‘poverty mentality.’” Moyer later asks a clearly slanted question: “Will we continue along Trump’s “road to ruin”­—like lemmings running off a cliff? Or will we veer onto a path of safety and prosperity just in time?”. One of the last few sentences of the articles even says “President Trump’s reckless environmental policies have our species heading straight for the rocks even faster than before.” Even the title of the article shows bias, as it is called “Is President Trump the Kick in the Butt We Need to Get Onto a Sustainable Path?”.

Article 3 (The New York Times): A Year After Trump’s Paris Pullout, U.S. Companies Are Driving a Renewables Boom [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/climate/companies-renewable-energy.html]

Subject: The author’s main point is that even though President Trump has made the United States exit the Paris Agreement, many large corporations are continuing to honor the agreement. These corporations have invested billions of dollars in wind and solar energy projects to power their operations, making them a driving force of America’s renewable electricity growth. Many hope that it will be easier by making “green tariffs” (utility-created programs that allow customers to buy renewable energy from specific renewable energy projects) more popular and offered to encourage more people to use green energy, as these green tariffs are limited to the larger companies. As some of these corporations managed to purchased an amount of renewable electricity equivalent to all the power that they use, it doesn’t mean that the company is truly 100% run on renewable energy. The next step for these companies is to figure out ways to completely power everything using zero-carbon energy sources.

Author: Brad Plumer is a reporter covering climate change, energy policy and other environmental issues for The New York Times's climate team.

Context: This article was published in print and online on June 1, 2018. Since this article was written only a few months ago, corporations probably haven’t made much progress yet and are still trying to figure out ways to power their projects 24/7 using renewable resources. They may try to overhaul electricity markets and allow companies to make direct purchases, incorporate additional technologies like battery storage, or even use nuclear power.

Audience: The audience is the readers of The New York Times, and anyone who is interested in what major corporations are doing and encouraging the use of renewable resources. Both liberals and conservatives who are aware of climate change and support the use of renewable resources would likely be interested in reading this article. This article does not aim to please anyone who does not support renewable resources.

Perspective: This article is primarily objective, as the author shows no opinion leaning toward a liberal nor conservative perspective. The article proposes that it would be difficult for smaller companies to run on renewable energy without green tariffs. However, many are hoping for the demand and popularity of green tariffs to rise, while major corporations are trying to find ways to run completely on carbon-free energy.

Significance: Using a lot of money to make long-term purchases for renewable electricity would make the smaller companies have to “create its own energy subsidiary and receive federal approval to trade its excess power, which wouldn’t be practical for [them].” Although green tariffs are often limited to larger companies, Rob Threlkeld, a global manager for renewable energy, says “If we can show utilities that the demand is there, that could convince regulators to expand these programs and allow access for smaller companies.” Seeking ways to completely run on no carbon power is important to many, as Michael Terrell, head of energy market strategy at Google, said that “Reaching 100 percent renewable energy is an important milestone, but it’s just the beginning. We have to keep our eyes on the ultimate prize, which is to enable carbon free power in every hour of every day.”

The 3 articles were not very similar, but more different. One focused on the denial of climate change, another one acknowledged it and encouraged people to do something about it, while the last one showed an economic perspective of how large corporations are trying to switch to renewable sources. The only things that are similar is maybe that 2 of the 3 articles came from reliable sources (HuffPost and The New York Times), while one came from an extremely biased conservative source (RedState). And that they all discuss ways people are persuading each other to use renewable resources. From using pictures of animals, to companies investing money, to public advocation.

I identify with the second article (HuffPost) the most because I agree with most of what is said. As someone who is very against the first article (RedState), the second article is nearly the complete opposite, which is why I identify with it more than the third article (The New York Times). I definitely agreed with the third article, but I didn’t feel as close to it because it was talking more on an economic perspective, versus the second article talking on a social perspective. I extremely disagree with President Trump’s environmental policies and hope that more people will continue to fight for an increased use of renewable sources because I think it’s very necessary in order to protect environments worldwide.