Retroactive continuity is the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work. I.e., an author went back on his own published works and changed his own canon for any number of reasons. An author may retcon to update his work in light of newly established facts, or he may want to update his canonized facts to appeal to the changing times. Or sometimes a retcon becomes almost necessary to clean up, organize and make sense of a series of events that previously made little sense.

Many see retconning as cheating, because that way an author can warp his own words from retrospect into something that he didn't realize as being more desirable at the time. Others see it as a tool that can be used greatly in the exposition of characters, resolution of chronology errors, and providing backstory to clear up confusion.

We see retconning everywhere in literature, gaming, television, movies, comics, and essentially any venue of serial fiction. Mind you, retconning is mostly applicable in series of stories or longer and more involved stories. Most one shots or short stories are never retconned.

If you have ever played any games in the Warcraft universe, I don't need to tell you that Blizzard has overused the retcon tool. For example, in the original mythology and lore, the leader of the Titans was corrupted by a race of vampiric demons. However, in the updated mythos of the later games, it was the Old Gods of Azeroth that corrupted Sargeras, not the Nathrezim.

More broadly applicable (but still nerdy as hell), Tolkien used the advantage of retroactive continuity in The Hobbit. Originally, The Hobbit was written as a children's story. And in the original story, Gollum gives Bilbo the Ring of Power as a prize for winning the riddle contest. But when Tolkien began work on the Lord of the Rings, the very mythos of the ring changed. It became a seductive and utterly evil force that manipulated those who bore it. And thus, Tolkien went back to his first work and altered the Riddles in the Dark chapter, saying that Bilbo stole the ring from Gollum, and the prize was a way out of the caves, not the One Ring. And Peter Jackson also did some retcon work on The Hobbit, taking a small mention of an orc named Azog slaying Thorin's father and turning that into a nemesis relationship that promises to span all three of the movies.

Retconning can be either additive, alteration of canon, or subtractions. Additive retroactive continuity can sometimes be seen as a secret or "shadow history" of a person, place or subject.The Crystal Empire and King Sombra are additive retcons. Shining Armor is an additive retcon. The entire freaking "storyline" of Doctor Who is a jumbled mass of additive retroactive continuities!

Alteration retcons are active changes to the established facts of a story universe, and can either smooth out a poorly founded fact, or change a fact to fit with future canon. Bilbo's change from winning the ring to stealing it is an alteration retcon. Sometimes alteration of canon is used to bring back popular characters or fix a conflict. In the original Marvel Comics universe, Jean Grey of the X-Men transforms into the Phoenix, an evil character whose psychic power is capable of tearing apart cities. Of course, when the X-Men had to kill her, the fans did not enjoy that. And thus, the Phoenix was said to be a dark clone of the real Jean Grey, who had been either hibernating in a psionic cocoon or off saving some alien race. The beloved character gets to come back, and the continuity stream lies mostly untainted.

And then there's the subtractions. Sometimes a part of a storyverse is so horrible, so badly thought out and so utterly lame and embarrassing that canon fact refuses to even recognize its existence. In the (older version) show Dallas, the entire first season was so horribly despised by the fans that the writers took the coward's way out and wrote an entire episode declaring that the entire previous season had been a dream. Characters that were killed got to come back, conflicts that arose and were absolved were only hypothetical, and any character development had been rendered null. In essence, they chose to eliminate as much of their mistake as possible by saying it never happened.

To an avid fan of anything, a subtracted retcon is a big middle finger, and is more insulting than anything.

Retconning is a great tool if you know how to use it right. You can fix your mistakes, make your storyverse more logical and appeal to your readers more. But if you use it the wrong way, you're just throwing bad ingredients into the mix.

People still do this? They should work at the Redundancy Department of Redundancy is where they should work.

631374 As long as there's something to teach about writing, I'll keep doing this. So shut your gob.

631389
No no no
I was appalled that this had to be taught in the first place

631417
Not everyone knows what retroactive continuity is, nor may they understand what it means when they do come across it; furthermore, they may not know whether the proper abbreviation is "RetCon", "Ret-Con", or "RetConn". It is fair to have a lecture about it (though I honestly can't say just how common ret-conning is around here. A few fimfiction examples would be nice).

631389
However, I don't think that this lecture is complete. Quite frankly, because this is a school for writers, I believe there should also be a section instructing and demonstrating authors on when to use a ret-con as well as an appropriate way to ret-con something.

For example, I'm a little too familiar with ret-conning in my own works. Not only have I completely rewritten a story that I was in the middle of, but I also ret-conned several things during writing (and will have to ret-con something in the next published chapter). It was a hard decision, because it forced me to weigh the consequences: either I made the changes to better my story's continuity at the loss of alienating some readers, or I lose the potential of a better story to keep all of my readers on the same page. I spent a few good days on the dilemma.
In the end, I chose to make the changes. This required me to notify all of my previous readers about the changes made, and bring readers both new and old onto the same page. Thus, thorough and sympathetic communication was key in both instances.
On the total rewrite, I actually made a the first chapter a note to previous readers, informing them of the changes I made in addition to the rationale behind it. I apologized for the inconvenience, but promised them that the changes were necessary for delivering a superior story.
On the partial alternative ret-cons, I simply made a note at the top of the new chapter referring previous readers to the Author's Notes section of that chapter. Then in the Author's Notes section, I wrote down information of the changes, the rationale behind it, an apology for the inconvenience, and a promise for a better story.

The thing with retroactive continuity is that it's a tool to be used sparingly. The reason the tool exists is to help refine your story by either adding something good, removing something bad, or altering something to make it fit better. Your true readers will understand and appreciate the changes made, because they appreciate a better story. However, if you make too many ret-cons, it becomes apparent that you may not have the best control or oversight of your own written work. Having a change-log in every chapter, having to ret-con a previous ret-con, or having to undo a previous ret-con puts the burden of translation and version-appraisal on the reader, and they will tire of it. So please be sure to have your story thoroughly thought-out beforehand, and be wary of the ret-con overuse.

631504 Then you are a person that realizes the mistakes/discontinuities/fallacies in their own work. You are the type of person who retcons with justified reason and betterment in mind.

But as usual, this is aimed mostly at brand new writers. Not so much the experienced fellows like yourself.

Well... This was helpful.

631417 With how god awfully bad some of the stories that get posted on this website are, I'm surprised I haven't had to teach the ABC's.

Bleh... I hate this term with a bloody passion sometimes.
You want a reason why? Point me a story that uses the fanon build of Luna's character after her debut episode. Give me ONE at least, and you'll get a cookie cutter.

888235 Um... what does fanon vs. canon regarding Luna's character have to do with retconning? You know... Just asking cause I'm curious.

888332 Oh, I don't know, save for that after the fact, everyone just suddenly dropped their interpretations of Luna on the spot and banished their versions of Luna to the garbage bin, never to be seen again.

I am talking about the Luna that doesn't talk in the ROYAL CANTERLOT VOICE, holds a far more timid personality, and keeps to her pony sized form.

*Sigh* I miss that depiction of Luna.
I just like it.

631334 Am I retconning every time I fix something non-grammatical in my stories?

Seriously guys, look at the date on this post.