“The Strictures of Canon:” How LGBTQ+ Fans Reject Canon and Emphasize Fanon to Foster an Inclusive Environment

Interpretation within media is what can transform a simple piece of writing into a groundbreaking and seminal piece. Interpretation is an integral part of analysis of any type of art as it allows for a deeper meaning to be instilled within the art. Through fandom spaces, fans have been able to take this skill of interpreting and utilize it on a larger scale. While interpretation occurs when analyzing any piece of writing, the interpretation usually stays within the constraints of the author’s words and experiences. However, with the influx of fandoms and fan spaces, fans have been able to strive for further interpretation of media that goes outside the realm of the author’s or creator’s intentions. This phenomenon is often referred to as “the fanon” within these fan spaces, with fanon being “a series of details and characteristics that are shared by most [fan fiction], but that have no factual basis in the original media text” (Stasi 121). Fanon contrasts with canon, or “the events presented in the media source that provide the universe, setting, and characters” (Hellekson 9). Essentially, canon is confirmed by the source’s writers, while fanon is fan derived interpretations. These fan interpretations may have been taken from the subtext within the media; where the readers can read and analyze the piece of media and find hints that may lead to their fanon interpretations. Through these fanon attributions, fans are essentially deeply analyzing and interpreting a piece of media and expanding on the traits of a character that may have only been implied within the subtext, and not actually confirmed. An author’s thoughts on fanon ideas can range from total acceptance to complete hostility; some authors accept fanon ideas with open arms, while others say that canon is the only acceptable interpretation of a text. With that being said, if a fanon idea is not accepted by the source creator, does it still hold validity? Francesca Coppa, author of the Fanfiction Reader writes that “[b]ooks become more important when their interpretations are contested, when new readings of them are developed” (11). Therefore, this idea of interpretation is always necessary, as it allows for a piece of media to transcend the original space it was meant to occupy. If a creator of a certain media rejects a more inclusive reading of a text, they are disallowing dialogue and deeper interpretation to exist around their media. This, in turn, causes in-fighting and intense discourse between members of a fandom who create their own fanon interpretations, and those who believe only in the canon. This essay will focus on two fandoms with a large LGBTQ+ fan base — fans of the television series Once Upon a Time and fans of the book series All for the Game by Nora Sakavic — and their relationship with the creators of the works they are fans of. The comparison of these fan groups will reveal how detrimental ignoring fan interpretations can be — especially when these fan interpretations surround a marginalized group like the LGBTQ+ community. Outright ignoring LGBTQ+ fan interpretations can lead to acceptable homophobia within a fan space.

Once Upon a Time (OUAT) is a popular television series which “is one example of a vast number of films and television shows that attempt to reframe, reexamine, and reboot fairy tales,” its basic premise is that an evil queen, Regina Mills, has cursed fairy tale characters and that Emma Swan must save these cursed characters (Gonzalez). Due to the subtext within the show that suggests these two characters might have a romantic interest in one another, many LGBTQ+ viewers “ship” Regina and Emma. Shipping, or “the pairing of two fictional characters into a romantic relationship” is a common fandom practice and is popular among LGBTQ+ OUAT members. The ship name of the Regina and Emma pairing is SwanQueen. This SwanQueen ship — while seemingly an innocent fanon idea that the LGBTQ+ OUAT viewers came up with — has caused a lot of fighting and derision within the fandom. This fight is largely due to the creators of OUAT ignoring the idea that Emma and Regina may be in love, despite the subtext that hints at this. While the creators of OUAT have not explicitly stated they reject SwanQueen, they have also not said that they accept it either. This practice of ignoring such a major point of contention within the fandom allows for fans to be openly homophobic to SwanQueen shippers, as the creators are the ones who have the final say over the piece of media. People who are against SwanQueen often use homophobic rhetoric against shippers as they have not been checked by the creators, or as Gonzalez calls them, “the powers that be.” While the creators are not obligated to write SwanQueen into the show, they could take responsibility for allowing this homophobic rhetoric to prevail. It is simple enough for the creators to say that the fanon interpretations of OUAT are acceptable, even if they are not confirmed in canon. A source creators’ approval of fanon would help fan groups, as it takes away that awkward place where fan fiction writers are forced to stick to canon plot points and concepts. In Gonzalez’s essay about this SwanQueen discourse, she writes that “fans are particularly concerned about the strictures of canon, what is considered proper communication with television producers, and the limits of fan fiction (how seriously it should be taken and where it should be shared).” Here, she points out this idea that fans who are against SwanQueen place too much emphasis on canon, which disallows them from expanding into broader interpretations of the subtext. Not only is this “stricture of canon” leadings towards non-inclusive fan spaces for LGBTQ+ fans, but it is also counterintuitive to literary studies to push back at interpreting text past an author’s intentions. Because the creators of OUAT are so adamant to ignore this SwanQueen discourse, even more anger and derision between OUAT fans occurs. While the intentions of those who are against SwanQueen may not be homophobia, the incessant fight against the ship — with the main participators in this shipping being sapphic OUAT viewers — leads to more unnecessary hate towards this group. The creators are semi-responsible for this, as these fans who stick to the “stricture of canon” believe deeply in what they say about OUAT. A creator speaking up in support of Swan Queen shippers would help to dissipate this tense environment and would further allow for the fanon SwanQueen shippers to exist peacefully in their niche of the internet. These LGBTQ+ SwanQueen fans would have an inclusive space where they can talk and discuss their fanon theories, without the pushback of the canon-exclusive fans arguing against fanon. Therefore, the creators of the show do have some obligation to stand up for their LGBTQ+ fans, even if they are not the ones who necessarily created this hostile environment.

The All for the Game (AFTG) fandom is a fandom that has positively impacted from a creator speaking up about a fanon interpretation to ensure no hostility within the fandom. All for the Game, which is a surprisingly popular self-published book by Nora Sakavic, surrounds the character of Neil Josten, who finds a family through a college sports team while on the run from his abusive father. Due to the characterization of Neil Josten’s character, and the subtext of his thoughts and actions, a popular part of fanon among LGBTQ+ AFTG fans is that Neil is demisexual — or, according to GLAAD, “a person who does experience some sexual attraction, but only in certain situations, for example, after they have formed a strong emotional or romantic connection with a partner.” Like how SwanQueen fans used subtext of character interaction to support their view of the two women in the ship as sapphic, AFTG fans used textual evidence to support their assertions. When one of his teammates asks what Neil’s sexuality is, he responds that “I don’t swing either way — ” hinting at him landing somewhere on the asexual spectrum (Sakavic 35). While the trilogy of books does end with Neil in a romantic relationship, this relationship does not come into fruition until the final book. Because of the slow burn nature of this relationship paired with Neil’s past remarks about not being interested in a romantic or sexual relationship, many fans saw Neil as being demisexual. Like with SwanQueen, this concept became popular within fanon, with a lot of fan fiction revolving around Neil coming to terms with his sexuality. While the source material never explicitly stated Neil was demisexual, many fans believed in this fanon. This created an inclusive space for people on the asexual spectrum, as there is very little media where asexuality is represented — even within the genre of LGBTQ+ media. Many LGBTQ+ fans felt represented by this inclusion — whether intentional or not — as it was a character who they could relate to. It was especially refreshing for the character to be able to represent a sexuality that is often underrepresented. This asexual space of the fandom was relatively peaceful in comparison to the SwanQueen fans, primarily because Sakavic accepted the fans views of Neil as demisexual. When asked about his sexuality on her Tumblr, Sakavic responded “[d]emisexual? Someone around here used this term for him a long while back, but I have had too much rum to remember which one of you lovelies brought it up. It’s the perfect term for what I needed for him” (Korakos). Here, the author agrees with her fans who thought Neil was demisexual. Rather than ignoring a large part of the fan group, like the OUAT creators did, Sakavic took the time to respond and validate their fanons. The author’s quick response to a common fanon idea helped to facilitate a safer space for the asexual spectrum fans who felt Neil was a relatable representation. While an author or creator does not have to accept fanon ideas like Sakavic did, they can still speak up and validate the idea that fans should be allowed to freely interpret a fictional universe, despite what canon may say. After this, it became very easy for AFTG fans to interpret the novels as they pleased, with some even creating ships between characters who only have one or two lines in the books. Because the creator of the AFTG universe basically told fans that they are open to interpreting the media how they want, there was much less tension within this fandom than the OUAT fandom. The biggest difference being that one fandoms creator’s validated fanon interpretations, and the other did not. This rigid “stricture of canon” forced SwanQueen shippers into an uncomfortable position in the OUAT fandom, while in fandoms like AFTG — where the creator welcomes fanon interpretations — LGBTQ+ fans have an easier time of exploring different parts of the subtext of the media. Inclusion within fandoms is so important and having the acceptance from the creator of the fandom can validate the fan experience for LGBTQ+ people.

The idea of fanon and its validity is the true source of what causes all of this fighting within fandoms. The fans who believe in only canon and the fans who accept fanon are divided by their interpretations of the media they consume. While fanon is highly valuable and allows for inclusivity within fan spaces, many still say that it is “a wish-fulfillment fantasy” that is “based on the needs of individual writers rather than the reality established by shared source text” (Driscoll 88). This concept of fanon not being reality is what is so detrimental to creative fan spaces. It also discourages further interpretation of media and the scanning of subtext, as it supports the concept that canon should be taken on a surface level. LGBTQ+ fans have lent an open and inclusive space for fans of media that they previously may not have felt accepted in. While fanon may not be as accurate as canon, it is counterintuitive to write it off as a fantasy, as fanon is not conjured up from some fantasy world — it is almost always supported by a deeper analysis of the source material. Despite all of this, the importance of fanon is not accuracy. While it is based on a specific source text, fanon takes its value from allowing for any character to be relatable to any person, no matter what. And subsequently, when we reject fanon as not as important as canon, we are invalidating these safe spaces that LGBTQ+ fans have crafted through their fanon interpretations.

When reading or watching a piece of popular media, fans of any type can feel included and represented — whether that be through the canon or fanon concepts of a fictional world. What makes fanon so special is that it creates spaces for fans who may have felt originally underrepresented by the source text, and instead lends them a place of inclusivity. Inclusion within fan groups is fostered through this acceptance of fanon and rejection of canon; the majority of fandoms use fanon ideas to feel more closely connected to and represented by their favorite characters while disregarding that the canon does not verify these ideas. Fanon, however, is not wrong or incorrect; rather, it is a deeply analyzed and thought-out interpretation of a character within a popular piece of media. Furthermore, fanon is not more or less valid if it is accepted by the source authors. Although Sakavic accepts the interpretation of her character as demisexual, and the OUAT creators deny a romance between Emma and Regina, one fanon idea is not more worthy than the other. However, this insistence by some creators to ignore LGBTQ+ fans interpretations of their source text can lead to harmful homophobia within fan spaces. Instead of emphasizing these safe fan spaces, when authors do not credit fanon, they are creating a rigid, hierarchical fan space where those who only believe canon are placed above those who relate to fanon. Validity of interpretation should not rely on the author’s or creator’s approval as this can set a dangerous precedent for any media interpretation — even outside of fan spaces. By emphasizing fanon ideas, not only can we create inclusive spaces for LGBTQ+ fans, but we can also encourage media literacy and analysis.

Works Cited

Coppa, Francesca. The Fanfiction Reader: Folk Tales for the Digital Age. University of Michigan Press, 2017.

Driscoll, Catherine. “One True Pairing: The Romance of Pornography and the Pornography of Romance.” Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays, edited by Kristina Busse and Karen Hellekson, McFarland & Company, Jefferson, NC, 2006, pp. 79–96.

“Glossary of Terms: LGBTQ.” GLAAD, 1 May 2023, glaad.org/reference/terms/. Gonzalez, Victoria M. 2016. “Swan Queen, Shipping, and Boundary Regulation in Fandom.”

Transformative Works and Cultures, no. 22. http://dx.doi.org/10.3983/twc.2016.0669.

Hellekson, Karen, and Kristina Busse. “Introduction: Work in Progress.” Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays, McFarland & Company, Jefferson, NC5, 2006, pp. 5–32.

Korakos. “Honestly, I can’t see Neil…” Korakos. 20 Dec 2015 https://korakos.tumblr.com/post/135556292257/would-neil-ever-slightly-crush-on- someone-on-his

Sakavic, Nora. The Foxhole Court. Nora Sakavic, 2013.

Stasi, Mafalda. “The Toy Soldiers from Leeds: The Slash Palimpsest.” Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet: New Essays, edited by Karen Hellekson and Kristina Busse, McFarland & Company, Jefferson, NC, 2006, pp. 115–133.