I’d suggest midichlorians were a violation of genre rather than canon. But that’s quibbling since I see them both as breaking a contract with the reader. Genre is the contract that says what sort of story to expect; canon is the contract limiting what is possible at any point in the story going forward.
The author has the right to reinterpret what happened in published sections of the series, even—if, and only if, the genre allows it: and some do—add information which forces previously-published information to become invalid. (Consider how JRR Tolkien justified breaking canon to change how the Riddle Game played out.)
But changes that violate the contracts of genre and canon leave the audience with the right to be upset.
I’d suggest midichlorians were a violation of genre rather than canon. But that’s quibbling since I see them both as breaking a contract with the reader. Genre is the contract that says what sort of story to expect; canon is the contract limiting what is possible at any point in the story going forward.
The author has the right to reinterpret what happened in published sections of the series, even—if, and only if, the genre allows it: and some do—add information which forces previously-published information to become invalid. (Consider how JRR Tolkien justified breaking canon to change how the Riddle Game played out.)
But changes that violate the contracts of genre and canon leave the audience with the right to be upset.
That's really interesting! That might be worth a whole article!
It is subcreation all the way down from the creator.