RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,385
Posts: 5,357,723
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 640
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Literature

Trek Literature "...Good words. That's where ideas begin."

View Poll Results: Grade "The Needs of the Many"
Excellent 7 17.95%
Above Average 9 23.08%
Average 10 25.64%
Below Average 5 12.82%
Poor 8 20.51%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 5 2011, 03:54 PM   #151
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

MatthiasRussell wrote: View Post
In my opinion, the books are just as good as any screen material and should be considered canon and the "real" story line.
Canon has nothing to do with good or bad. It's not a value judgment. It's simply a matter of what's feasible to keep consistent. It's difficult enough for the various different producers of the TV/film franchise to keep consistent with one another's creations and ideas, and in fact the franchise is fraught with inconsistencies as it is. But for a TV/film franchise to keep consistent with a set of books that are produced on a very different schedule, written by people scattered all over the English-speaking world, edited by people on the other end of the continent, and read by only a tiny fraction of the TV/film viewing audience would be vastly more difficult and impractical. The only times that book or comic tie-ins have ever been able to function as truly canonical works have been when the creators of the TV franchise have been able to supervise or write the tie-ins themselves.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2011, 06:28 PM   #152
MatthiasRussell
Fleet Captain
 
MatthiasRussell's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

I'm not in the biz and so don't by any means have the ability to dispute you, but I'd say it is much easier now with the existence of memories alpha and beta to keep everything in agreement as well as with there not being any prime universe screen material for the foreseeable future. I see little reason why the books falling under the "relaunch" category couldn't be canonized. I also think if the franchise were to say "the franchise books are to be considered canon and if a future tv show is produced we will try to prevent it from contradicting them" readership would go up.

When I have polled members at st.com, most there consider the books nothing more than fan fiction they have to pay for and don't appreciate the editorial controls and licensing that goes into them. I get ignored when I site the books in discussions there with "the books are meaningless" or "the books don't count".
__________________
"Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
MatthiasRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2011, 06:59 PM   #153
Thrawn
Rear Admiral
 
Thrawn's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

And it's funny, because the books matter almost exactly as much to Trek as they do to Star Wars; George Lucas feels obviously free to contradict whatever the hell he wants to in the books when he's making movies or animated things, exactly as in Star Trek. And the Trek books, with only a very few notable exceptions, treat each other as part of the same continuity, exactly as Star Wars does.

But whatever.
Thrawn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2011, 07:56 PM   #154
TheAlmanac
Writer
 
TheAlmanac's Avatar
 
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
View TheAlmanac's Twitter Profile
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

Christopher wrote: View Post
Canon has nothing to do with good or bad. It's not a value judgment.
The makers of "Threshold" might disagree with you.

Thrawn wrote: View Post
And it's funny, because the books matter almost exactly as much to Trek as they do to Star Wars; George Lucas feels obviously free to contradict whatever the hell he wants to in the books when he's making movies or animated things, exactly as in Star Trek. And the Trek books, with only a very few notable exceptions, treat each other as part of the same continuity, exactly as Star Wars does.

But whatever.
Exactly...it's all about the perception of the intended audience as to the "significance" of the books, as opposed to what the actual producers end up doing, so it's a little weird to me that CBS doesn't just go ahead and say that they're canon, since that level of canonicity is treated the same way in practice as franchises like Doctor Who and Star Wars anyway.

The cancellation of the Abramsverse novels was apparently motivated by concerns with consistency, so it's starting to seem as if the current Supreme Court wants to adopt a Lucasfilm-like approach to their own tie-ins.
__________________
Edgar Governo
SNW 10: "You Are Not in Space"

The History of Things That Never Were
TheAlmanac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2011, 08:17 PM   #155
Deranged Nasat
Vice Admiral
 
Deranged Nasat's Avatar
 
Location: I am here. You are here too. Yes.
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

MatthiasRussell wrote: View Post
When I have polled members at st.com, most there consider the books nothing more than fan fiction they have to pay for and don't appreciate the editorial controls and licensing that goes into them. I get ignored when I site the books in discussions there with "the books are meaningless" or "the books don't count".
Thrawn wrote: View Post
And it's funny, because the books matter almost exactly as much to Trek as they do to Star Wars; George Lucas feels obviously free to contradict whatever the hell he wants to in the books when he's making movies or animated things, exactly as in Star Trek. And the Trek books, with only a very few notable exceptions, treat each other as part of the same continuity, exactly as Star Wars does.

But whatever.
I think if and when more Star Wars TV series are made, people will finally have to confront this. It will certainly be useful in convincing people to give the Trek novels a go. Sadly, I too have seen many dismissive comments about Trek books "not counting" because they're not canon. That includes more than a few explicit assertions that "I don't even read Trek books because they're non-canon".

I suppose sci-fi fans who operate through a primarily Star Wars worldview are used to the idea that the canonicity of a work determines the degree to which it matters. If I recall correctly (perhaps one of you can confirm?), because the Star Wars tie-ins have always been linked together, a lot of Star Wars fans treat that universe in a manner parallel to how they'd view real history - like a fun fictional exercise in something resembling historical research. Of course, that's pretty much what Trek novel fans like I do with the Trek verse (in this very forum among others), only with Star Wars the idea is that they're justified in doing so because it's deemed an "official" history. Which I believe is why some fans are angry by creative choices in the Clone Wars series - it undermines the sense that the books they've been buying are the official history of that universe.

Under this view of things, linked with the idea that the Expanded Universe is canon, non-canon Star Wars works "never really happened". So I think people whose "first franchise" is Star Wars often carry those assumptions over to other franchises and judge works meaningful or meaningless based on "did this actually happen or not" - so, determined through the question, "is it canon?" Again, I suppose this is really not that different from what continuity fans like I do anyway, except our standards of what "actually happened" are only ever personal, not backed up by official labels of canonicity.

I've certainly been in conversations with other sci-fi fans to whom Star Wars is what Trek is to me, and when I've mentioned the books, they politely ask "but they're not canon are they?"
__________________
We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile and nothing can grow there; too much, the best of us is washed away.
Deranged Nasat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2011, 09:16 PM   #156
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

MatthiasRussell wrote: View Post
I'm not in the biz and so don't by any means have the ability to dispute you, but I'd say it is much easier now with the existence of memories alpha and beta to keep everything in agreement as well as with there not being any prime universe screen material for the foreseeable future.
No, it wouldn't be easier. It's not a matter of the availability of reference materials, because the people who make the shows have total access to the tie-ins anyway, since the studio has to approve them in the first place. It's a matter of time. Producing a TV show or a movie is not something you can do on a weekend. It's an immense commitment of time and effort. The creators of a television series have to devote huge amounts of their lives and energies to developing their own ideas and making them happen onscreen. It's neither logical nor appropriate to suggest that they should make their lives even more impossibly difficult by paying attention to stuff done by people who are merely following their lead to begin with -- particularly when it's stuff that only 1-2% of their viewing audience will even know exists.


I see little reason why the books falling under the "relaunch" category couldn't be canonized. I also think if the franchise were to say "the franchise books are to be considered canon and if a future tv show is produced we will try to prevent it from contradicting them" readership would go up.
But if there's no new screen material being made, then IT DOESN'T MATTER whether something is called canon or not. The term "canon" only has meaning as something that the makers of new onscreen material treat as authoritative "history."


When I have polled members at st.com, most there consider the books nothing more than fan fiction they have to pay for and don't appreciate the editorial controls and licensing that goes into them. I get ignored when I site the books in discussions there with "the books are meaningless" or "the books don't count".
Well, then, they're ignorant, and there's nothing you can do to change that. If you told them "the books are canon," they'd probably just concoct some other excuse for not reading them, because they're probably just not interested in reading books anyway.

The term "canon" has a specific meaning. It is the core body of work from the original creators or owners of a property, as distinct from derivative works by other creators. Using that label to refer to something like tie-in novels not created by the show's actual makers would be a misuse of the word. It would be a lie. And there would be no point in misrepresenting the truth just to pander to a bunch of people who can't be bothered to read. They're not worth it.

Heck, there are just as many people out there who dismiss Star Trek as a whole, or science fiction as a whole, or television as a whole, because they imagine it's beneath their notice for one reason or another. You can't force an audience to embrace or understand your work. You create your work with as much care and integrity as you can, you put it out there, and you let the audience choose for themselves whether to experience it and how to interpret it. Sticking a false label on it won't make any meaningful difference.


TheAlmanac wrote: View Post
Exactly...it's all about the perception of the intended audience as to the "significance" of the books, as opposed to what the actual producers end up doing, so it's a little weird to me that CBS doesn't just go ahead and say that they're canon, since that level of canonicity is treated the same way in practice as franchises like Doctor Who and Star Wars anyway.
What would be the point? "Canon" is not a label that's meant to inform the audience of what they're "supposed" to read. It's merely a description of a category. The core material is the canon, everything else is the apocrypha. It's not a value judgment and it's not an instruction. And it doesn't have any genuine impact in any case. As you say, Star Wars and other franchises are free to ignore things they've declared canon. Star Trek has contradicted its own onscreen canon more than once, and so have many other franchises. Calling something "canon" doesn't make it more "real" than anything else. It's all made-up anyway, and that gives the creators of future material the freedom to ignore or retcon earlier material however they like. The label "canon" is merely descriptive, not determinative. It's not a magic word that will change the way something is treated if it falls under the label. It's not a shield against contradiction. It's not a guarantee of audience interest. It doesn't make a thing what it is, it just describes what it is.

Besides, what is it with these readers who think they need some higher authority to tell them what they're allowed to read or enjoy? How sad is that, that they're unable to take responsibility for their own entertainment choices? We shouldn't pander to that, shouldn't feed their delusions of submission to authority by assigning some artificial label that says "Yes, you should pay attention to this." We should try to free them of this terribly restrictive belief that they lack the right to make their own choices about what to read.


Deranged Nasat wrote: View Post
Of course, that's pretty much what Trek novel fans like I do with the Trek verse (in this very forum among others), only with Star Wars the idea is that they're justified in doing so because it's deemed an "official" history. Which I believe is why some fans are angry by creative choices in the Clone Wars series - it undermines the sense that the books they've been buying are the official history of that universe.
Which is exactly the problem with Lucasfilm's use of "canon" labels to apply to the tie-ins. It's an empty promise that's given fans a lot of false expectations about the relationship between a fictional creation and its secondary works, or even about the degree of continuity within a single ongoing series.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2011, 06:12 PM   #157
MatthiasRussell
Fleet Captain
 
MatthiasRussell's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle
Re: Star Trek: Online: The Needs of the Many - Discussion (Spoilers)

^ Very excellent points, Christopher. Solid reasoning. You reinforce to me, as a fan, the value of reading the books and that it isn't worth it debating their value with those who have their minds made up against the books. The books and STO are valuable for deepening the trek experience. Even if there are contradictions later, it isn't like the screen material doesn't contradict itself at times.
__________________
"Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
MatthiasRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 02:02 AM   #158
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: STO: The Needs of the Many by M. A. Martin Review Thread (Spoilers

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blo...ny-review.html

My review of the book. Basically, I don't think it's a very good tie-in to the Online game (which I play quite a lot). It doesn't reference much of the game much at all and seems to be more an epilogue for the series. However, there's some really good fiction here including the only "resurrection" plot I've ever liked other than Jean Grey. I think it's definitely worth checking out.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2013, 02:03 AM   #159
Charles Phipps
Commander
 
Charles Phipps's Avatar
 
Re: STO: The Needs of the Many by M. A. Martin Review Thread (Spoilers

BTW,

RE: Canon

I think the Doctor Who series is the best place for Expanded Universe relationships to be discussed. According to RTD he considered the books, audio dramas, and so on all to be canon except when they were specifically referenced on screen and liberally mined them for ideas.
__________________
Check out the United Federation of Charles:
http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/
Charles Phipps is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
star trek online

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.