R. Star wrote:
People put too much stock into what is and isn't canon. Given the creators and producers can't come to a consensus, why should we? If you like the comics and want to consider them part of your Trek experience, go for it. I haven't read them myself, and can't say I've much desire to, but that doesn't matter to anyone but me. I enjoy a lot of the books and consider them part of my Trek experience. I enjoy some of the games and consider them part of it. Really going around telling people what does and doesn't count is just silly at best.
The problem is that it's a mistake to define "canon" as "telling people what does and doesn't count." That's a myth created as a result of the 1989 Roddenberry memo where he declared TAS non-canonical, which created a perception of canon as something defined by exclusion and opposition. But really, canon just means the work itself, and even a canonical series is subject to contradictions, retcons, errors, and reinterpretations.
The focus should be not on "canon" but on continuity -- yet with the understanding that continuity is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Maintaining consistency within a work is good for its plausibility and the audience's investment, but there can be instances where selectively breaking continuity can serve a purpose -- for instance, to remedy mistakes or discard bad ideas, to replace outdated scientific assumptions, and the like.
So it's not really about what "counts." It's about what serves the story.