@pan the non-flippant version is that sequels aren't canonical in regard to the thing they're a sequel of (except maybe in cases of carefully planned trilogies or the like)

so in a book series of two books, then there are really two distinct canons to consider: the canon of the first book and the canon of both books, and there's often good reason to interpret the first book independently of any additional context provided by the sequel

@alyssa yeah. it's humorous to me, to think of the word canon being used in this way to essentially negate the concept of its original utility, that given books may or may not be included in a set of best books, most true books, official books, etc