View Single Post
Old May 10 2013, 02:51 AM   #27
The Wormhole
The Wormhole's Avatar
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Deckerd wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
It works both ways. There are those who follow a strict adherance that only that which is firmly established on screen should count.
But that is the definition of canon.
Still, there should be a little lee-way. Like on the Bolian issue, everything about them seems to imply they are Federation members, yet since it's never been explicitly stated on screen there are those who won't accept it. Although, admittedly it doesn't help matters that they originally weren't intended to be Federation members.

And how far do we take this anyway? What about characters who are named in the scripts, but are never identified by name in the episode. Best example, Picard's Cardassian torturer in Chain of Command played by David Warner is well known as Gul Madred, but that name is never actually spoken in the episode. If we follow strict adherance to canon that only that which is on screen counts, then he's just Cardassian Interragator or something and Gul Madred is a fanon name.

There comes a point where you do have to accept stuff as fact even if they're not established on screen.
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote