Re: What is "canon?"
Lenny Nurdbol wrote:
Nerys Myk wrote:
All I know is what ever it is, it has nothing to do with what the fans think it is.
Depends on which fan you ask... Some believed it was a marketing ploy interjected by Paramount to discredit older publications no longer licensed, so as to maximize their profits... I.E. FASA's TNG Officers Manual was "de-canonized" not because it wasn't accurate but because FASA backed out of paying for the copyright and the two couldn't come to a mutually beneficial price... When TPTB realized they could come up with their Own manual without losing a certain profit margin to the gaming company, they had their paid show crew put out the TNG Technical Manual... Rather than come out and say this, those sly dogs leaked out the story that the TNG Manual was so poorly researched and compiled it was Decanonized because TPTB "care" about continuity and therefore the book was "being pulled from the shelves" of bookstores! This in turn only Boosted sales of their manual and gave more credibility to Pocket Books actually Caring about continuity and the accuracy of their Trek books!
I am, of course, speaking of how the word "canon" applies in regards to Star Trek not to anything else...
It's handled much differently (and at times more precisely) when used within other genres...
Nope, all fans, no matter what their opinions of canon are, is probably wrong.
By their own admission, even the powers that be/were think that even the "official" manuals aren't canon. They are in fact just away to make money for the owners and licensees of the property.
Canon and continuity aren't the same thing.
For Star Trek the owners decide what the canon is. And it's subject to change as new people are placed in charge.
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.