Doctor Who in the Star Trek universe

[FreddyE]

Christopher wrote:

---

And even at the time, the continuities were clearly different, since he wasn't a person who came from another world and another time and was known only as the Doctor, but was a present-day English inventor named Dr. Who.

Couldn´t it just have been another instance of him using the chameleon arch?

[Andrew_Kearley]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I suppose it depends how you define 'canon.'

I suppose it does. But as there's no one definition that anyone agrees upon, it's best to just leave it alone in my view. I want the Doctor to have had as many adventures as possible for me to enjoy, not to be worried about whether or not they actually happened. That's why I do what I've been doing for the past 15 years.

But like Christopher says, it's all fantasy anyway, so does it really matter? Besides, IMHO, some 'non-canon' stuff from any series or franchise can be more entertaining than the canon stuff. Many of the Treklit novels for example.

It doesn't matter. That's the whole point. And that's why, for me, it doesn't matter if there's a canon or not, just whether it's entertaining.

[Captaindemotion]

^In which case, we're in full agreement.

[Christopher]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

I suppose it depends how you define 'canon.' Sherlock Holmes fans use it to mean novels written by Conan Doyle. The Bible means the 4 gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

If you apply the same sort of criteria to DW, I would argue that the likes of books, radio dramas, DW unbound and the Cushing movies fall outside the definition of canon, no matter how influential they have proven to be or how well they fit in within the continuity of the series.

The reason fans make such a fuss over the word "canon" is that they assume it's a value judgment, a seal of approval for what's real or worthwhile or acceptable. But it isn't. It's just a descriptive label. The canon is the original, core body of work, as distinct from derivative works by other creators or companies (i.e. licensed tie-ins or fanfiction). That's all the word means. It doesn't mean "real" or "right," because virtually any long-running canon will retcon or ignore earlier parts of itself, so canon is no more exempt from being contradicted than tie-ins are. Fans use "canon" as a synonym for "continuity," and that's generally the goal, but it's not absolute, because a canon can rewrite its own continuity, or it can add ideas from non-canonical works into its continuity (e.g. the Star Wars prequels and TV series incorporating characters, species, planets, etc. created for the comics and novels in some cases while ignoring them in others).

So canon does exist; it just doesn't mean as much as fans mistakenly assume it does. Doctor Who has a canon, but that canon has a very loose and mutable continuity.

[DalekJim]

Everybody should do what I do and just choose their own canon. There's no way I'm accepting lazy shit like Voyage of the Damned or End of Time and not Alien Bodies or Chimes of Midnight. The show contradicts itself so many times that trying to argue there is any "official canon" is pretty pointless.

I do the same with Trek, just focus on the stories I believe matter. Thankfully JJ Abrams had the dignity to remove his own story (Minus Romulus destruction and vanishing Spock!) from the Trek canon without me having to.

In sci-fi/fantasy television or film, half the work is us using our imagination. The concept of the author in the most classical sense, is pretty dead. Hence why I believe that the TOS Klingons were supposed to all have ridges, and that it's just a production design inconsistency going on instead of an in-universe transformation. This completely contradicts Worf in DS9 acknowledging the difference or the ENT virus story. But I don't care, as I feel we all have our own individual story we weave together.

I hate the concept of an "official" canon as we lose that and have to bow down to some stupid authority given by a corporation. As if I'm seriously gonna ignore TAS from my Trek canon because Roddenberry threw a hissy fit.

[Christopher]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Everybody should do what I do and just choose their own canon.

But what you're talking about is continuity. As I already said, it's a mistake to think that "canon" means "continuity" or "what is real." Canon means nothing more than the core material as distinct from derivative materials. It's not a matter of individual opinion. Your personal continuity can include a mix of elements from the canon and elements from outside the canon, while excluding others. But a personal preference is, by definition, not a canon.

By analogy, think of canon as like a continent and personal continuity as like a country. The United States is a country that includes some, but not all, of the continent of North America, and includes one state and a few territories that are not part of the continent. Russia is a country that includes territories that are part of the continents of Europe and Asia, while excluding other parts of both continents. A country is not a "personal continent" -- it's something different from a continent. While the two can overlap to a large extent, they are not synonyms.

The show contradicts itself so many times that trying to argue there is any "official canon" is pretty pointless.

Only if you make the mistake of equating canon with continuity. What you are talking about is continuity. Canon is what is official by definition.

Thankfully JJ Abrams had the dignity to remove his own story (Minus Romulus destruction and vanishing Spock!) from the Trek canon without me having to.

He put it in a different continuity. But it is part of the canon, because it is a Star Trek production owned and distributed by the studio that owns the franchise.

[DalekJim]

The term "canon" is predominantly used in nerd circles to refer to official continuity. I know it has another meaning but I'm assuming that isn't what is being discussed here.

[Christopher]

DalekJim wrote:

---

The term "canon" is predominantly used in nerd circles to refer to official continuity.

But the problem is that that usage leads to immense confusion and totally unnecessary arguments and stress because people are using the same word to mean two different things and thus blur the concepts together. Things would be so much clearer if people would just understand the difference between canon and continuity.

[DalekJim]

They don't need to understand any difference as the term canon has changed over time to mean which stories count/"actually happened" in a fictional universe. This is how the English language evolved in the first place. People misusing words and giving them new meaning until the old was forgotten.

[Christopher]

Language change is beneficial if it improves clarity and understanding. The corruption of the meaning of "canon" has just created decades of pointless bickering and confusion. It's a maladaptive mutation and one that should thus be resisted.

[Mr. Adventure]

Christopher wrote:

---

By analogy, think of canon as like a continent and personal continuity as like a country.

Maybe, but for every person who only accepts Trek TOS or old/new BSG or Who there's someone whose personal <insert your favorite word here> includes the official canon material PLUS fan fiction, side stories, audio adventures, etc. etc. In fact, I'd wager there's more who add than subtract.

[Christopher]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Maybe, but for every person who only accepts Trek TOS or old/new BSG or Who there's someone whose personal <insert your favorite word here> includes the official canon material PLUS fan fiction, side stories, audio adventures, etc. etc. In fact, I'd wager there's more who add than subtract.

Yes, which is why both of the countries I actually mentioned -- the United States and Russia -- contain territory that goes beyond a single continent. The whole point of my analogy is to say exactly what you just said: that a personal continuity can include -- or exclude -- both canonical and extracanonical material. But personally counting a tie-in novel doesn't make it part of your "personal canon" any more than Hawaii is part of the USA's "national continent." Each fan has one's own personal continuity, while the studio has its canon. That's the distinction.

I've been adding tie-ins to my personal Star Trek continuity for decades, and yes, there are canonical episodes I exclude from it. I play that game just like anyone else does. I mean, my gods, I've written nearly 20 works of tie-in Trek fiction, all of which I count as part of my personal continuity, along with dozens of other novels and storie that my novels and stories interconnect with. So of course I'm aware that personal continuity is mostly about addition rather than subtraction.

[Atticus]

Christopher wrote:

---

Language change is beneficial if it improves clarity and understanding. The corruption of the meaning of "canon" has just created decades of pointless bickering and confusion. It's a maladaptive mutation and one that should thus be resisted.

Yep.

[Mr. Adventure]

Christopher wrote:

---

Yes, which is why both of the countries I actually mentioned -- the United States and Russia -- contain territory that goes beyond a single continent. The whole point of my analogy is to say exactly what you just said: that a personal continuity can include -- or exclude -- both canonical and extracanonical material. But personally counting a tie-in novel doesn't make it part of your "personal canon" any more than Hawaii is part of the USA's "national continent." Each fan has one's own personal continuity, while the studio has its canon. That's the distinction.

Yeah, rereading that now I see that, serves me right for getting in a thread about canon.


I'm going back to my personal country now, hold my calls everone...

[Sindatur]

Mr. Adventure wrote:

---

Yeah, rereading that now I see that, serves me right for getting in a thread about canon.


I'm going back to my personal country now, hold my calls everone...

I find whenever threads turn towards discussing Canon, someone almost always gets shot