Canonicity Does Not Require Identity Across Episodes

Please read for context:https://www.looper.com/359456/the-ending-of-st-elsewhere-explained/

In over 20 years of watching TV, I have never watched St. Elsewhere. Not that I find it uninteresting; it is likely just a consequence of the times. Still, I wanted to address an infamous problem associated with St. Elsewhere that could affect how we watch our next show. During the series finale, it is revealed that the entire show was all in the imagination of a young boy named Tommy Westphall. Every character, every plot, all the drama was merely a fantasy.

Typically, such a controversial ending would only affect the confines of the show. However, if we were to take seriously the idea that shows that share the same universe with other shows have identical canons, then any show in the same universe as St. Elsewhere is also within the mind of Tommy Westphall. In this article, I will argue against the idea that the canon of a TV show requires identity of characters and plot over each episode and between shows.

Definitions

Before we get into the nitty-gritty of my argument, it would be helpful to define what I mean by canon, identity, rigid designator, and possible worlds.

Canon: The official true storyline and rules of a fictional universe. Episodes 1 and 100 of Friends are part of the Friends canon, but fanfiction about the show is not.

Identity: From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Sameness of essential or generic character in different instances. Joey in episode 1 is the same as Joey in episode 100 of Friends.

Rigid Designator: Designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/

Possible world: Counterfactual entireties of reality.

The Problem

In the article, Floorwalker raises concerns about crossovers in other TV shows.

For example, take that Cheers crossover. Cheers spun off the long-running series Frasier, and that series had its events referenced or its characters cameo on shows like Caroline in the City, The John Larroquette Show, and even The Simpsons. This means that all of those series — and other media that they referenced in-universe, which in the case of The Simpsons is ridiculously extensive — technically take place in the same universe as St. Elsewhere.

Mike Floorwalker https://www.looper.com/359456/the-ending-of-st-elsewhere-explained/

Floorwalker continues pointing out many other TV shows connected to St. Elsewhere. If it’s the case that all these TV shows (Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc.) take place in the same universe as St. Elsewhere, then all those shows take place in the imagination of Tommy Westphall. To make the case clearer, here is a syllogism.

1. If any TV show is in the same canonical universe as St. Elsewhere, then that show takes place in the imagination of Tommy Westphall.

2. Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc., are all in the same canonical universe as St. Elsewhere.

Therefore,

3. Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc., are part of the imagination of Tommy Westphall.

Many people don’t like the idea that their favourite TV show is merely part of a greater meta plot, and that it’s all just an in-universe fantasy. The series finale of St. Elsewhere wasn’t controversial for no reason, after all. Just read the comments of any TV show conspiracy video, where the theory is that the main character is dead or dreaming. It’s a lazy way to explain away oddities. Yet, if we were to truly follow the logic of multiple shows sharing the same universe, the consequence is that everything within that universe is also part of the imagination of Tommy Westphall.

Without appealing to a greater conspiracy that Tommy Westphall is also dead, we ought to explore an option that uses metaphysics to solve our problem.

Degrees of Identity

Imagine a possible world like ours, but instead of reading my article, you are out riding a bike. In this possible world where “you” are riding a bike, it is not you but a being similar to you. In the actual universe, you exist and are reading this article, so it makes no sense to refer to the “you” riding a bike as the real you.

There are an infinite number of possible worlds, but none of the beings or substances exist identically in two or more. This is the doctrine of degrees of identity. A is identical to A, and A is almost identical to A1. A2 is nearly identical to A1, but A2 is even less identical to A as compared to A1. So, A1 has more degrees of identity to A than A2. The less similar the world is, the fewer degrees of identity it has.

What I am proposing has a lot of explanatory power for oddities within TV shows, since it is intuitive to say that Frasier in episode 30 is not identical to Frasier in episode 200. Or that Sam Malone in season one of Cheers is identical to Sam Malone in the guest episode on Frasier. Each character in the particular episodes is almost identical, but isn’t. So, how could we be referring to the same Frasier or Sam over each episode or between series if they aren’t identical?

Rigid Designator

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, a Rigid Designator “Designates the same object in all possible worlds in which that object exists and never designates anything else.” However, since we are dealing with fiction, I will narrow the definition down:

Rigid Designator: Designates the same object in all possible episodes in which that object exists and never designates anything else.

Notice I say, “All possible episodes,” so this would include any potential episodes outside of the canon. It would even include fan fiction. An episode can be said to be actualized within the canon if and only if the creators authorized said episode to be part of the canon. Without authorization, the episode remains potential, waiting to be actualized. So, fan fiction and future episodes of a currently running TV series are all in the same realm of potential.

The reason it’s important to mention fan fiction and potential episodes is that Rigid Designator helps us identify the character who is being referred to. The best fan fiction makes the potential look like it could be actual. Within this fan fiction, it is clear that the author intends to refer to the characters from the canon, even though they know it could not be canon without authorization from the creators. The characters in the fan fiction share essential qualities with a character from a particular episode.

St. Elsewhere Problem Solved!

So, where do these technical terms within philosophy leave us? Well, it leaves us with a pretty good framework to end the debate on the Tommy Westphall problem once and for all.

Let’s look at the main argument again:

1. If any TV show is in the same canonical universe as St. Elsewhere, then that show takes place in the imagination of Tommy Westphall.

2. Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc., are all in the same canonical universe as St. Elsewhere.

Therefore,

3. Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc., are part of the imagination of Tommy Westphall.

It is undeniable that characters from St. Elsewhere appeared in Cheers, but this appearance does not mean they are part of the same canonical universe. I will make two objections, one for each premise.

My first objection is that it is not entirely clear that the Tommy Westphall narrative is the primary canon. What makes the St. Elsewhere canon more actual than the Cheers canon? The St. Elsewhere canon is only actual relative to its own canon, and Cheers likewise. There is no meta canon wherein one show’s canon is primary over the other, unless that show is a spin-off (like Frasier from Cheers). So, to show that Cheers is part of Tommy Westphall’s imagination, we must argue that St. Elsewhere has a more actual canon than Cheers, but there is no objective standard for this since it is all fiction. In fact, one may argue that Cheers has the superior canon because of the absurdity of the St. Elsewhere ending.

My objection to premise (2) is that since each particular episode of a series is a possible episode with its own unique identity, and since there is no identity of characters between episodes, it simply is not the case that Cheers, Frasier, Friends, etc., are all part of the same canonical universe as St. Elsewhere. With our Rigid Designator, we can refer to the characters from different canons across episodes and between TV shows, but the degree of identity is much too different to say firmly that specific characters are part of the St. Elsewhere universe. There is a version of Frasier which can be designated in the St. Elsewhere canon, but this designation does not refer to a particular version of Frasier from the entire series.

Conclusion

So, there we have it! In case you’re wondering, yes, this was just a ploy to get you interested in modality. But I hope this goes to show that even the most boring areas of philosophy can be fun! Personally, I love studying modality in and of itself, but to each their own. I do believe, though, that my framework is valid (since it is fiction), and that my objections to Mike Floorwalker are much too devastating to revive the Tommy Westphall theory.