catchy title to kind of grab eyes into my deranged mind... heh... yes....
anyways, this is a kind of a thoughtpost that i've been ruminating on for literal years now, honestly, in terms of the use of the word "canon" and how it is both a literal and nonliteral use of the word.
consider, with me here for a second. a lot of younger folks, folks who do not want to read the epilogues or hs2 (mostly the epilogues), say that since it declares itself as "pseudo" canon (something i believe neither of them actually do? but i don't remember off the top of my head, its been a bit... cut me some slack) that means its not relevant to read and that they should not have to read it in order to understand homestuck discussion.
first and foremost, this always makes me sad! because like, in all genuine reality, the epilogues are really nicely written and an engaging story. even if they do have some gross shit in it, it's like. look. i enjoy a lot of "bad" media, its my favorite thing. im very used to looking at the whole and finding the little nuggets of goodness in it. the epilogues have a LOT of good moments and some REALLY interesting perspective on characters. the epilogues singlehandedly took dirk from "meh" in my mind to "holy shit hes the best homestuck character"
onto my main discussion, since the idea of "canon" is used quite frequently in the epilogues, we can assume (know) that the idea of "canon" is something very much real and substantial in homestuck proper. in a more meta sense, it's used to dismantle the fundamental idea of a fandoms consideration of what is and is not "canon" to the source material. in an in-universe sense, it's used to disassemble the idea of "relevancy."
rose outright says in the 2nd chapter of the prologue that canon is defined by three pillars: relevance, truth, and essentiality. also while saying this, she discusses the idea of what differentiates "canon" and "non-canon". "canon" are events that "will have nonzero values of relevance and essentiality, while maintaining an absolute foundation in truth, by definition", or to paraphrase, the idea of "canon" consists of events that really happened, and affected the story in some way. she similarly states that "non-canon" events "have diminished values of relevance and essentiality. Or, for the most part, can be considered neither relevant nor essential at all. But such events can't be said to be untrue either. Instead, it's better to regard their truth value as highly conditional.", which is just fancy gobbeldygook that boils down to "non-canon" events are ones that may or may not have happened, and may or may not effect something.
so what does this mean? this means a whole fucking lot! it's very interesting to think about, right? because like. famously, let's look at the retcon that revived vriska:
theres a really fascinating conversation that roxy has with john at the tail end of the retcon, something that i think resonates deeply with the ideas the epilogues are trying to present.
(Pg 7105)
JOHN: i'm glad it worked out like this.
JOHN: i was fully prepared to do this alone... to hop around and change things in whatever way.
JOHN: and i would get to see my friends again, even if they don't remember all the same stuff i do.
JOHN: which was a lonely feeling, if that makes sense?
JOHN: but now i'll have someone else to remember the way things originally went.
ROXY: word
JOHN: yes. word indeed.
ROXY: but i know what you mean
ROXY: its nice to have uh
ROXY: like a witness i guess?
ROXY: someone to authenticate the rough shit u went through
ROXY: even if we never end up talkin about it again
ROXY: the fact that at least SOMEONE else knows
ROXY: makes it feel like it didnt all mean
ROXY: nothing?
JOHN: right.
ROXY: because even if it all gets erased and put back all better
ROXY: i dont think the stuff we went through and the feelings we had meant nothing
ROXY: imo the feelings themselves
ROXY: and the way they shaped us
ROXY: that all means...
ROXY: somethin
JOHN: ...
ROXY: hahaha forget it
ROXY: talkin out my ass here
JOHN: no, it makes sense.
JOHN: and anyway, if nothing else, everything that happened brought us here.
JOHN: the stuff we're about to do, whatever it is, wouldn't be possible otherwise.
JOHN: and that feels pretty important, if you ask me!
something about this conversation just gets it, to me. its essentially roxy and john saying like "even if this is not canon, it still affected us and changed us in a way". already homestuck was playing with the ideas of what was and was not canon in terms of the retcon, and in a lesser level, the doomed timelines.
all of this to say that the epilogues take this concept to the next level. dirk (CENSORED) himself in the "candy" timeline because he couldn't see past his own nose and understand the nuance of canon. he's a fascinating character for this very reason. in propogating sburb, in continuing on in the path that the game set for him and his friends to remain "canon", he's doing a "good" thing. but is he?
is the "candy" timeline the "wrong" timeline? is the "meat" timeline the "correct" timeline? we can make arguments that the "meat" timeline is the arguably more "canon" one, since it has more of an impact and relevance to paradox space. but does that fully erase the idea of the "candy" timeline being relevant, or truth? we do see that it has affected the characters, given them a chance to grow and change. i assume sometime later in hs:bc we will see a more direct colliding of said timelines and the ramifications that come with that.
sorry this post is so long, its just endlessly fascinating the way that the idea of "canon" is presented in the epilogues. this isn't even considering the idea of the audience being a destructive lazer, nor the more interpersonal nuances of ult!dirk. all of this post is just me talking about how the word "canon" is used in homestuck, the epilogues, and homestuck:beyond canon, and how it's being used to pull the rug out from under you. its not asking you to take one timeline as more "correct" than the other. it's asking you to look at the definition of "canon" and understand what it is you're actively talking about or dismantling. ESPECIALLY in this world where fandoms as a whole tend to use "canon" in order to dismiss anything that they dislike within the scope of a story.
TLDR HOMESTUCK IS LYING TO YOU !!! HUSSIE IS EVIL !!! THE USE OF "CANON" IN POST-HOMESTUCK WORKS IS A RED HERRING AND IF YOU FALL FOR IT YOU ARE FALLING FOR THEIR CLOWN TRICK!!! REBEL!!! REBEL!!!
