Frequently Asked Forum Questions
Search the HBO News Archives Any All Exact		Search the Halo Updates DBs Halo Halo2		Bungie Webcam HBO XBL Gamertags *Ar's Simple HTML Guide Shishka's Guide for Newcomers The Lowdown on Download Accelerators Red Loser's Anti-Spamming Guide Egg FAQ | More Egg Stuff c0ld's Movie Starter Guide Shishka's HaloPC Pre-Release FAQ 3.1 AutoMagic 117 StripzMaker
Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts

Re: Yes, it is.
Posted By: Narcogen <narcogen@rampancy.net>	Date: 10/16/08 3:18 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Yes, it is. (Sep7imus [subnova]) : Why, exactly? Why are you so down on ILB? There's not that much in it that : contradicts more authoritative sources like the games themselves. Since it : was created with Bungie's approval and with access to otherwise unknown : Bungie materials, why not accept it as canon when it doesn't contradict : the games? A number of points there. According to Staten's matrix ILB (canon or not) is considered a tertiary source, as it's marketing materials, not a novel or a game. As such, I do accept its general outline as canon where it does not conflict; however my threshold for what I consider a conflict is lower than, say, for the novels. I do not say that none of the events of ILB ever occurred. What I do say is that given its status and the distance of its story from the main one, details in it are less useful for interpreting and predicting things in the main story arc. That's what I really object to. People try to argue "ILB is canon" and then go way beyond the general outline of its plot, to suggest that minor elements or characters in it are far more important than they are, to suggest that those elements will soon appear in the primary sources (the games) and clamor for those minor elements to be included, and then are disappointed when they are not. ILB is what I would call "flavor text"-- it gives a bit more depth to areas the games are not concerned with, but that doesn't mean that things that go on within its story are particularly relevant to the main arc, and where they do relate directly to the main arc, I think they are much less authoritative than any other source. Also, ILB never felt to me like Halo. It felt like a bunch of people playing make-believe that they were in Halo. Just a personal preference. Just as people who really like the drama want it considered canonical because they like it, I was not particularly impressed and feel better about a Haloverse where ILB is strictly peripheral. As an example of the above, someone came into #hbo the other day and demanded to know why some people considered his theory about the Keep It Clean trailer invalid. He saw the digits "S1" somewhere in the trailer, has decided this means "Spartan 1" and since there are Spartan 1s in ILB and ILB is canon, this must mean the ODST protagonist of Halo 3: Recon is a Spartan 1. This kind of thinking makes my head hurt, and it's a direct result of thining about canonicity in terms of binary switches: something being either canon or not canon. Spartan Is are, of course, canon. But they are peripheral. ILB is a tertiary source full of peripheral information that people love to drag into theories about what's going on center stage in the Haloverse, and these theories never pan out. Some lead to expectations about the games and gameplay that cannot and will not be met: like people thinking the novels mean that multiple Spartans in the next game will be playable (advanced between H1 and H2 as well as between H2 and H3) or that Spartan Is or Spartan IIIs will be playable characters. ILB is a Pandora's box, as it is full of peripheral information that is of little relevance to the major events of the story, all of which get plastered with the broad label "CANON" based on Bungie's "approval" of its creation (that was approval of its initial creation from Bungie materials, not review, approval, or editing/modification of the final product, which is a BIG difference) and then used as fuel in theories that make the Halo story appear a lot more confusing than it really is, and I think make many fans less interested in examining the important parts of the story at the expense of cataloguing trivia.

Keep It Clean Teaser - Frame By Frame

Message Index

H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Bryan Ojeda	10/12/08 12:16 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Vincent	10/12/08 12:24 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Dave Bergland	10/12/08 12:26 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	XMixMasterX	10/12/08 12:43 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Bryan Ojeda	10/12/08 12:47 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	The More Deluded	10/12/08 12:55 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Bry	10/12/08 1:19 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Zerowind117	10/12/08 10:33 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	elpolloguapo	10/12/08 7:23 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	343winks.	10/12/08 12:54 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	The More Deluded	10/12/08 12:57 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Bryan Ojeda	10/12/08 12:58 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	XMixMasterX	10/12/08 1:00 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	free	10/12/08 1:08 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	343winks.	10/12/08 1:34 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	The More Deluded	10/12/08 2:27 p.m.
erm.. ie differences in accuracy, damage etc. *NM*	The More Deluded	10/12/08 2:27 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Rosco-128	10/12/08 3:49 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Bryan Ojeda	10/12/08 6:10 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Cthulhu117	10/12/08 6:12 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	343winks.	10/13/08 4:10 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	vlad3163	10/13/08 4:59 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	343winks.	10/13/08 5:35 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Cthulhu117	10/13/08 6:22 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Rosco-128	10/13/08 6:29 a.m.
It's not. *NM*	UNSC_Trooper	10/13/08 10:33 a.m.
Yes, it is.	Cthulhu117	10/13/08 2:18 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	UNSC_Trooper	10/14/08 8:18 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	My7hos	10/14/08 8:37 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	UNSC_Trooper	10/14/08 8:45 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Louis Wu	10/14/08 8:47 a.m.
My take.	My7hos	10/14/08 9:06 a.m.
Re: My take.	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	10/14/08 9:31 a.m.
Re: My take.	My7hos	10/14/08 1:49 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	UNSC_Trooper	10/14/08 9:09 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Louis Wu	10/14/08 9:47 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	UNSC_Trooper	10/14/08 10:26 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Louis Wu	10/14/08 11:08 a.m.
You know if I was a Bungie employee...	Leviathan	10/14/08 6:17 p.m.
Re: You know if I was a Bungie employee...	Bryan Ojeda	10/14/08 9:59 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/15/08 12:15 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/15/08 12:06 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	free	10/15/08 1:30 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/15/08 4:20 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Bry	10/15/08 3:55 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/15/08 4:25 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Bry	10/15/08 5:04 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/15/08 7:09 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Bry	10/15/08 10:50 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	My7hos	10/15/08 11:00 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/16/08 2:53 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Bry	10/16/08 3:54 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Sep7imus [subnova]	10/15/08 6:35 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Narcogen	10/16/08 3:18 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Sep7imus [subnova]	10/16/08 6:33 a.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	free	10/16/08 3:55 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	Bry	10/16/08 5:07 p.m.
Re: Yes, it is.	free	10/16/08 6:12 p.m.
I wish I could quit you	Jillybean	10/15/08 7:43 a.m.
Re: I wish I could quit you	Narcogen	10/15/08 10:08 a.m.
Re: I wish I could quit you	My7hos	10/15/08 10:52 a.m.
Leave the Cortana Letters out of this.	Louis Wu	10/15/08 11:12 a.m.
You missed my meaning...	My7hos	10/15/08 11:17 a.m.
Sgt Johnson	Miguel Chavez	10/15/08 12:36 p.m.
Re: Sgt Johnson	Sep7imus [subnova]	10/15/08 3:40 p.m.
ditto *NM*	Jillybean	10/15/08 6:07 p.m.
Re: Sgt Johnson	Stephen L. (SoundEffect)	10/15/08 6:02 p.m.
Re: Sgt Johnson	Bry	10/16/08 2:36 a.m.
Re: Sgt Johnson	Narcogen	10/16/08 3:30 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	UNSC_Trooper	10/13/08 10:38 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Vincent	10/13/08 12:07 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Rosco-128	10/13/08 6:26 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	Devil Mingy	10/13/08 6:28 a.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	vlad3163	10/13/08 8:32 p.m.
Re: H3:R "Dual Wielding?"	elpolloguapo	10/14/08 9:08 a.m.