Subject: Re: It's funny because there have been published precedents...
Author:
Posted on: 2012-08-26 01:12:00 UTC

When you have one canon that is based off another canon, the secondary one is governed by the rules of the first, unless it is stated to be different in the secondary one. Also, no matter what the secondary canon says, it cannot effect the original.

So if a fic is based off ACD's Holmes, then a relationship or sister is a direct violation of canon. Even though Beekeeper's Apprentice exists, it doesn't effect ACD's Holmes. If Beekeeper's Apprentice never says that the BA Holmes never did cocaine, and fanfic mentioned that he did, then it wouldn't be a charge, because the original canon can trickle down into the secondary.

Even though we'd normally charge a Holmes wife, because BA is a published canon in its own right, we are sworn to uphold it (and all other published Holmes derivative works) in the spirit of their published worlds. So in it, the charge would be if she was replaced by some other woman.

Reply Return to messages