RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,643
Posts: 5,427,869
Members: 24,811
Currently online: 435
Newest member: Damix

TrekToday headlines

Trek Messenger Bag
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

Star Trek Live In Concert In Australia
By: T'Bonz on Sep 18

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15


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."

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 16 2013, 02:56 AM   #46
throwback
Captain
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

I don't think it is fair to blame the fans as if they were the ones who invented this notion of canon and them applied it to the franchise. This invention belongs to the TPTB.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 03:52 AM   #47
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

throwback wrote: View Post
I don't think it is fair to blame the fans as if they were the ones who invented this notion of canon and them applied it to the franchise. This invention belongs to the TPTB.
Yes, fans didn't invent the concept of a Trek canon. However, fans can be blamed for misunderstanding what canon actually is & misusing the term on a constant basis.
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 03:53 AM   #48
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

EliyahuQeoni wrote: View Post
throwback wrote: View Post
I don't think it is fair to blame the fans as if they were the ones who invented this notion of canon and them applied it to the franchise. This invention belongs to the TPTB.
Yes, fans didn't invent the concept of a Trek canon. However, fans can be blamed for misunderstanding what canon actually is & misusing the term on a constant basis.
Exactly. Fans mistake "canon" for "continuity." They aren't the same thing.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 04:04 AM   #49
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

throwback wrote: View Post
I don't think it is fair to blame the fans as if they were the ones who invented this notion of canon and them applied it to the franchise. This invention belongs to the TPTB.
Not really. "TPTB" generally don't have to worry about the question of canon, because what they create is automatically canon. That's simply what the word means. Historically, it's only been fans who have had any reason to worry about the question of what stories were and weren't part of the canon. Originally, of course, canon was a religious term referring to the writings that were officially approved by the church as the genuine word of God, as opposed to the apocrypha, alternate texts that don't mesh with the church-approved ones. Apparently it was Sherlock Holmes fans who first applied the term to distinguishing the core writings of Arthur Conan Doyle from Holmes pastiches (i.e. fanfic) by other authors.

The idea that canon is something imposed by "TPTB" dates back to Roddenberry's 1989 memo where he tried to define what was and wasn't counted as part of Star Trek canon as he saw it, including the omission of the animated series from the list. That created the perception among fans that canon was something specifically dictated by the creators and defined by what it excluded. But contrary to what fans have assumed for the past couple of decades, that memo didn't represent standard operating procedure for all creators. Heck, Roddenberry's successors didn't even continue to honor the memo after he died. There's also been Lucasfilm's attempt to define formal "levels of canon" for Star Wars tie-ins, but of course those so-called "canonical" books have been freely ignored and contradicted by actual new canon, because it was erroneous for Lucasfilm to use the word "canon" that way in the first place. Canon simply means the core work by the original creators, or their inheritors. Anything parallel or supplemental done by other creators, any tie-in running alongside the main work, is not part of the canon. That's not a value judgment, not a condemnation, merely an acknowledgment of distinct categories and their distinct natures.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 05:50 PM   #50
Lt. Cheka Wey
Commander
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

The Star Wars canon is fairly intact despite the prequels and the Clone Wars.
Lt. Cheka Wey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 05:55 PM   #51
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Star Wars canon is fairly intact despite the prequels and the Clone Wars.
Star Wars canon is a muddled mess because of the prequels and Clone Wars. It doesn't help that Lucas took some things introduced in the EU, like Coruscant and Kashykk while blatantly contradicting other things.
__________________
"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
Old June 16 2013, 06:36 PM   #52
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

^That's just the point -- that it's a mistake to equate canon with continuity, and it was misleading for Lucasfilm to use the label "canon" to describe its tie-ins. As with any other franchise, Lucasfilm has been free to draw on elements of its tie-ins or contradict them as it saw fit. There's really nothing unusual about that -- fictional franchises have been borrowing ideas from their tie-ins since the Superman comics borrowed characters like Jimmy Olsen and Perry White from the 1940s radio series and gave Superman the power of flight like in the animated shorts. Indeed, I expect there are probably much older examples. But of course they've only borrowed some elements and otherwise struck their own course.

And that's the natural way for it to happen -- different creative works inspiring and cross-pollinating each other. The problem comes from the attitude that canon represents some kind of barrier intended to isolate different works from one another, that canon and not-canon need to be aggressively segregated and forbidden from interacting lest people be -- gasp! -- confused. This is the damage done by the '89 Roddenberry memo, because that was what popularized the notion of canon defined in terms of what it excludes and rejects. Whereas Lucasfilm went with a deceptively broad definition of canon that suffered from being overly inclusive to the point that the label became meaningless. They both complicated the idea of canon far more than it needed to be, especially since they pulled in conflicting directions.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 07:21 PM   #53
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

The Star Wars EU is directly based on the way Star Trek did it. See this comment from George Lucas:

I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 07:42 PM   #54
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The Star Wars EU is directly based on the way Star Trek did it. See this comment from George Lucas:
Yes, but that's different from what they used to say. Back when the tie-ins were the only new SW content in town, they could stay as consistent with canon as they wanted, and thus they put forth the notion that they represented a sort of secondary level of canon. But once Lucas actually started making new Star Wars, then naturally, of course, he considered what he created to be distinct from and preemptive of any alternative interpretations of his creation done without his direct involvement. As the creator of the franchise, he was entitled to make it the way he wanted and not be bound by what others had done based on his work -- though of course he was free to borrow useful elements from it if he so wished.

You see the same process with Trek, going both ways. In the '80s, when there was little new Trek content, the novels and comics were able to develop their own ongoing continuities (though distinct from each other). But when new Trek shows came along, they overrode the books and took the lead in defining new continuity, and the tie-ins' brief was pretty much to follow their lead and stay out of their way. And now that there aren't new shows or Prime-universe movies being made, the books are again free to build their own ongoing continuity -- whereas meanwhile the comics are attempting to do a continuity that's consistent with the ongoing movie series but finding themselves contradicted by it despite their best efforts.

And you see it with other franchises. The Buffy comics done during the series got contradicted all the time by the show, but now the show is gone and the comics are supervised by Whedon and count as canon. The Babylon 5 novels published during the run of the show, which Straczynski tried to oversee and keep canonical, all ended up being mostly apocryphal because he wasn't able to oversee both the show and the books directly at the same time; but the novel trilogies that came out after the show, which he personally plotted and shepherded through the writing process, were indeed canonical.

This is what needs to be understood. The determiners of canon aren't some studio board handing down regulations; they're the creators of the work itself. Canon simply means the original output of the core creators -- or their inheritors, in the case of a legacy franchise like Trek, Doctor Who, or future Star Wars installments. Anything that other people do in parallel, that the creators or showrunners have only limited control over, is by definition not canon because they're not the ones making it. They can try to treat the supplemental material as part of the canon, try to supervise it closely enough to keep it consistent, but as we've seen in cases like Star Wars, B5, and now the Abramsverse comics, it usually ends up being contradicted anyway.
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 16 2013, 08:02 PM   #55
Lt. Cheka Wey
Commander
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Star Wars canon is fairly intact despite the prequels and the Clone Wars.
Star Wars canon is a muddled mess because of the prequels and Clone Wars. It doesn't help that Lucas took some things introduced in the EU, like Coruscant and Kashykk while blatantly contradicting other things.
Really? How many books re complelty noncanon because of what happened post 99?
Lt. Cheka Wey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 01:33 AM   #56
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Star Wars canon is fairly intact despite the prequels and the Clone Wars.
Star Wars canon is a muddled mess because of the prequels and Clone Wars. It doesn't help that Lucas took some things introduced in the EU, like Coruscant and Kashykk while blatantly contradicting other things.
Really? How many books re complelty noncanon because of what happened post 99?
Just off the top of my head, there was a bit of a controversy a few years back when Clone Wars completely ignored everything about the Mandalorians established in the EU.
__________________
"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
Old June 17 2013, 02:21 AM   #57
Kevman7987
Commander
 
Kevman7987's Avatar
 
Location: Erie, PA, USA
View Kevman7987's Twitter Profile
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post

Star Wars canon is a muddled mess because of the prequels and Clone Wars. It doesn't help that Lucas took some things introduced in the EU, like Coruscant and Kashykk while blatantly contradicting other things.
Really? How many books re complelty noncanon because of what happened post 99?
Just off the top of my head, there was a bit of a controversy a few years back when Clone Wars completely ignored everything about the Mandalorians established in the EU.
It doesn't really matter. Thanks to JJ Abrams, Bad robot, and Disney, Star Wars VII will probably erase 95% of the post-Jedi EU within the opening sequence (unless there is a tme-traveling Romulan that kills Padme and Anakin after the twins are born or something and thereby erases 150%).
__________________
"Don't do it, Meat!"
"Don't do it, Cheese!"
Kevman7987 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2013, 07:14 AM   #58
Lt. Cheka Wey
Commander
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post

Star Wars canon is a muddled mess because of the prequels and Clone Wars. It doesn't help that Lucas took some things introduced in the EU, like Coruscant and Kashykk while blatantly contradicting other things.
Really? How many books re complelty noncanon because of what happened post 99?
Just off the top of my head, there was a bit of a controversy a few years back when Clone Wars completely ignored everything about the Mandalorians established in the EU.
Kevman7987 wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Lt. Cheka Wey wrote: View Post
Really? How many books re complelty noncanon because of what happened post 99?
Just off the top of my head, there was a bit of a controversy a few years back when Clone Wars completely ignored everything about the Mandalorians established in the EU.
The Traviss RC books were bad minus the first one but it was reconciled. I don't mind Traviss leaving despite the fact that she could forget about her mando worship for some books.

It doesn't really matter. Thanks to JJ Abrams, Bad robot, and Disney, Star Wars VII will probably erase 95% of the post-Jedi EU within the opening sequence (unless there is a tme-traveling Romulan that kills Padme and Anakin after the twins are born or something and thereby erases 150%).
They said that about the prequels too.
Lt. Cheka Wey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 08:14 PM   #59
Idran
Commander
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

On the topic of the use of "canon" as synonymous with "continuity" in fandom circles: To be fair, if a large subculture of people use a word with a given new definition in such a way that the intended meaning communicated by that word is understood by everyone within that subculture, then hasn't the definition of that word simply shifted as a subculture-specific jargon term, diverging from the original term as language always does? Couldn't it be that fandom isn't using the word "canon" wrong per se, but is simply using it as a jargon term within their subculture as a derivation of its original meaning outside fandom?
Idran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2013, 08:24 PM   #60
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: I thought they said the JJ-comics were canon?

^Which would be fine if it didn't still simultaneously have a different meaning, leading people to confuse or conflate the two meanings and arrive at some gross misconceptions about how canon works -- like the idea that it's something imposed on both creators and audiences by some nebulously defined higher authority. The problem is that the word is used in multiple different ways at once and that obfuscates the issue.
__________________
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 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 08:19 AM.

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