Subject: I'd say...
Author:
Posted on: 2010-04-12 17:36:00 UTC
If the author posts that they are aware of the contradiction and have chosen not to rewrite their story, then that's fine, and it wouldn't be a charge. If, however, the author says nothing, or says that they started writing the story after the revelation, then it can be a charge.
In ongoing canons (such as TV shows that are still running) someone could start writing a fic during season three and make up a backstory for the characters that is later, say in season six, shown to contradict canon. It seems unfair to charge for contradicting canon (without claiming AU) in that case.
But what about when the canon fact (say, a previous marriage) was revealed in season three and the story (with the clashing backstory; say, a child conceived with someone not the wife at that time) was first posted three weeks later? It's possible the author wrote the story before the canon fact was revealed and decided not to rewrite to fit in the canon fact. In the case I'm thinking of the author did not acknowledge canon fact took place and chose to ignore it. (Author is from the USA, as is the TV show, so I find it likely she saw the episode on its original air date).
I'd like some opinions on this matter: because the author could have known the character was married at the time the child was conceived, should the child (who is a Sue without question) then be charged with making the character who is her father cheat on his wife? Character has been shown to be serial monogamous.
I'd say give them the benefit of some doubt - if there's enough other charges to take the fic down, add it in, but don't make it the charge that's used to justify sporking the entire fic.
I like to read stories set in certain seasons--ones that could have happened in off-screen time of the certain seasons. Especially, when there are cast changes that come with various seasons.
But this sounds more like you are dealing with one that is just ignoring and re-writing everything after a certain season, like saying Kate is still alive in season 7 of NCIS?
If they don't specify AU there, then I'd charge them with getting the canon wrong, because they are getting current canon wrong without saying that they are setting it somewhere other than current.
If the author posts that they are aware of the contradiction and have chosen not to rewrite their story, then that's fine, and it wouldn't be a charge. If, however, the author says nothing, or says that they started writing the story after the revelation, then it can be a charge.
In the last instance I agree with you. However, if the writer says nothing I think it's up to the PPCer whether or not to give them the benefit of the doubt, depending on the circumstances. Also, if the story was written or even in progress after a canon revelation and the writer acknowledges the error, that's all the more reason they should have fixed it, or at least done something to work around it. Especially if not fixing it specifically benefits a Sue and has no other reason behind it.
~Neshomeh