RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,063
Posts: 5,397,613
Members: 24,735
Currently online: 481
Newest member: phurren

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

New DS9 eBook To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Trek Ice Cube Maker and Shot Glasses
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

City on the Edge of Forever #3 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

TV Alert: Shatner TNG Documentary
By: T'Bonz on Aug 25

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 9 2013, 03:51 AM   #1
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Do we take "fanon" too literally?

There is a lot of 'fanon' which is generally accepted by the audience, such as dates and times of events or character back stories, in leiu of any actual on-screen evidence establishing different. I can understand why we do this. Especially in terms of TOS, these kinds of details were never fully established in any linear form. There are gaps in where characters come and go, whether they were aboard all along or only transfered there later (hello Chekov!); the dates and times that these events take place, like where The Motion Picture stands in relation to The Wrath of Khan; and so on. Later spin-off shows were produced at a time when continuity mattered just a bit more, so in those cases a lot of these fine details were actually filled out on-screen. All the same, there are always gaps.

Fandom has of course decided to fill in these gaps with their own theories. This 'fanon' is naturally often seen as being better than nothing, and in some cases there's a kind of general consensus about certain things where the 'fanon' has transcended its roots and become firmly established as being the 'correct' view. And even though it might never have been established on-screen per se, for the lack of any better explanations a lot of us find ourselves more than happy to accept this kind of 'fanon' as being fact. Even the Star Trek Wiki, Memory Alpha, contains articles which play fast and loose with the distinction between fanon and fact (Memory Beta is of course even looser still).

IMO even the Okudas, who actually came the closest to canonising a lot of this stuff, really only ever peddled a commerical form of 'fanon'. Their views held more water as a result of them being part of the on-going production team. But what is oft forgotten is that much of what was published in the Encyclopedia and the Chronology was really just higher profile 'fanon', rather than Canon. Even the Okudas themselves admit that a lot of what they wrote was simply conjecture on their part, and some things that they 'established' got debunked in subsequent episodesbut. But again, for a lack of better explanations, many of us are happy to accept what they said as being a general rule of thumb. I suspect this is because we all need to have a common ground on which to talk about events in the Trek universe.

On another tangent, sometimes when a later Trek series like Voyager or Enterprise broke the conjecture that we fans had already accepted as being 'fact', the producers would be accused of contradicting the established continuity... even though more often than not that continuity had never actually been established on-screen in the first place! Is it possible for the series to contradict something that was only ever the purview of fan conjecture? It would appear that the answer is: sometimes it can.

My question is therefore: do we as fans sometimes accept this 'fanon' too readily as being firm 'fact'? Should we instead be questioning and debating these so-called 'facts' more strongly? Or is the use of 'fanon' a crucial tool in our understanding of the Trek universe? Do we need to have this kind of firm foundation in order to help us all join the dots together?
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:12 AM   #2
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

I can only speak for myself...

No, I do not take 'fanon' too literally. I tend not to accept fanon at all.
Tosk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:12 AM   #3
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Lance wrote: View Post
Should we instead be questioning and debating these so-called 'facts' more strongly?
You mean more strongly than we already do?

Is that even possible?

T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:16 AM   #4
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Fanon is sometimes held to more tightly than canon. Witness the claims that latinum is not replicable, something that was never mentioned in any show, but is endlessly repeated.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 10:07 AM   #5
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Considering Trek's ethos of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination, fans sure like to obsess over insignificant minutae. We can't cope with canon, let alone fanon
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 10:47 AM   #6
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

I think we take canon too literally.

But fanon are just ideas that a number of fans came to a consensus on to fill in the blanks of things not shown (or not shown definitively) onscreen. Fanon itself has always bowed to onscreen material--regardless if some fans liked it or not, and is really just an issue for some people on message boards. Outside, the real world (mainstream audiences) could care less about fanon and perhaps have never even heard of it before.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 11:07 AM   #7
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Fanon is sometimes held to more tightly than canon. Witness the claims that latinum is not replicable, something that was never mentioned in any show, but is endlessly repeated.
The claim shows up in Memory Alpha's article too, but fails to specifcally cite the source for the statement.
__________________
Moe: I'll take the blonde!
Larry: I'll take the brunette!
Curly: I'll take the Black and Tan!
--Wee Wee Monsieur (1938)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 11:11 AM   #8
Bry_Sinclair
Commodore
 
Bry_Sinclair's Avatar
 
Location: Along the border of Talarian space
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The only part of fanon I pay any attention to is that Andorians have four sexes, the rest I don't pay much attention to.
__________________
Avatar: Captain Susanna Leijten, U.S.S. Silverfin NCC-4470, Border Service Third Cutter Squadron
Manip by: FltCpt. Bossco (STPMA)
Bry_Sinclair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 11:18 AM   #9
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Melakon wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Fanon is sometimes held to more tightly than canon. Witness the claims that latinum is not replicable, something that was never mentioned in any show, but is endlessly repeated.
The claim shows up in Memory Alpha's article too, but fails to specifcally cite the source for the statement.
It is conjectural, but it definitely fits with the way latinum is regarded in DS9 (if latinum could be replicated, then it really wouldn't be worth anything).
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 11:27 AM   #10
Marten
Captain
 
Location: Southern Sweden
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Melakon wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Fanon is sometimes held to more tightly than canon. Witness the claims that latinum is not replicable, something that was never mentioned in any show, but is endlessly repeated.
The claim shows up in Memory Alpha's article too, but fails to specifcally cite the source for the statement.
If it is replicable, it's useless as a currency, so it logically shouldn't be. Or perhaps it could be increasingly hard to do it, but in a world with unlimited energy that seems unlikely. Overall, it's a reasonable assumption. But perhaps the assumption part is he problem.
Marten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:39 PM   #11
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

My recollection is that the "Latinum is not replicable" bit came from Okuda and Sternbach during an interview. But no, it was never AFAIK actually established with dialogue on-screen. It makes sense, but technically it probably is Fanon. Technically.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:49 PM   #12
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

It works both ways. There are those who follow a strict adherance that only that which is firmly established on screen should count, which leads to some infamous debate on fandom. Like the issue of Bolians' membership in the Federation, supposedly it has never actually been said they are members, and there are those who insist they can't be because of that. The matter became a joke several years back in the Trek XI forum, stating Spock must have a forked penis because it's never been stated on screen that he doesn't.
__________________
"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.

Last edited by The Wormhole; May 9 2013 at 02:38 PM.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:51 PM   #13
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

For me, no, I don't take fanon too seriously. I don't get wrapped around the axle, either, if there are canon issues. If it works, great - if it doesn't, oh well. Both fanon and canon are certainly good topics for discussion, but in the end I just want the story to be good.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 01:58 PM   #14
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Spock must have a forked penis because it's never been stated on screen that he doesn't.


This will of course be established in the next movie, Star Trek For Spock's Penis, due for release Spring 2016.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 03:18 PM   #15
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

All I care about are entertaining stories, canon and fanon be damned.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 11:17 AM.

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