chapter  6
Set in Stone: Issues of Canonicity of Transtexts
ByBENJAMIN W.L. DERHY KURTZ
Pages 15

When I first showed this edited collection’s initial proposal (heavily based on an eponymous study day proposal I had prepared a few years earlier for my university) to Henry Jenkins, who was already addressing canon in the eighties and nineties (Jenkins 1982; Tulloch and Jenkins 1995), he actually advised to further develop the proposal (and the content of certain chapters) around the canonicity issue I was addressing in this chapter, generously noting that the exploration of those debates was one of the book’s key contributions to transmedia scholarship. While I would consider the concept of transtext itself (or, to a different extent, the relationships drawn between transtexts, texture, performance, and the reality envelope in the chapter co-written with Simone Knox; even though a lot of the credit is due to Simone) to be the main things I could modestly contribute to within this edited collection, I am aware of the lack of literature on the canonical acceptance of certain types of transtexts and on the overall canon-attribution process, as well as the need to attempt to fill that gap.