What Books Are "Canon"?

Of course, I don't think we have to worry about any new on-screen adventures for these franchises. I'd say if Whedon had any intention of doing so he wouldn't be supervising comics to continue the storylines of the shows.

Hell, some would argue it was a foregone conclusion since its opening weekend in theatres that Serenity would be the last on screen adventure for the Firefly verse, yet we didn't see comics set after the movie until this year.

 

Still worth the risk.

 

Actually, if we had a profanity filter which sniffed out all the times we used the word canon, well let's just say someone new to the site would be confused by all the asterisks seen in any given thread.

 

Hey, look what's still online, 11 years later:

Every Fan's Canon Primer

A tad out of date in a couple of spots but still essentially sound, I think.

 

^ This. End of discussion.

 

Precisely. And just because certain of FJS's images (flashing on display screens during the scene of V'GER scanning the ship's computer banks) and ship names ("Scout Columbia NCC six two one to rendezvous with Scout Revere NCC five nine five on stardate seven four one one point four") became canon in TMP doesn't make anything else from his books canonical, any more than (I forget which movie did it first) giving Sulu's first name as Hikaru makes anything else from The Entropy Effect canonical.

I vaguely recall hearing that around the same time RA and others were clamping down on any attempts at inter-novel continuity, they were also actively discouraging screenwriters from "canonizing" even the tiniest bit of throwaway from novels (theirs or anybody else's).

I also seem to recall that the late James Doohan grew to loathe and detest Shane Johnson's Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise.

 

^I don't agree that a canon production using those images for split-second visuals that nobody was expected to see clearly constitutes those specific items "becoming canon." Canon is a noun referring to the overall body of work that includes the stories told by the original creators or franchise owners. It is not an adjective describing single details within individual stories, since any detail can be ignored or contradicted, and many details are just background texture or approximations not meant to be taken literally. If you can see the seam on an alien monster's costume, that doesn't mean the monster is canonically made of rubber.

 

Veey interesting...had never even heard about this before. Wouldn't even think something like this would be enough raise his ire, necessarily; can you give any more details on it?

 

Hah!

Nor are the strings on the pipe-cleaner puppets in "Catspaw" canonical . . . .

 

What is the opinion on the crew bios for the NX-01 crew from "In a Mirror, Darkly"? I know they weren't really shown on screen for very long, but with HD they are pretty clear, so it's all pretty legible.

 

I remember once teaching a class about diegetic and non-diegetic sound in film and someone asked if the little squares around the TIE fighters in 'Star Wars' were non-diegetic, since they were clearly just a special-effects artifact and not really meant to be part of the 'world' of the film... I don't remember how I answered them but I do remember having to pause and think about it first.

 

The makers of future Trek productions would be free to use or ignore them as they saw fit. As for tie-in authors, we could probably ignore them too, at least the parts that didn't actually appear onscreen; but as long as they're available to draw on, they're a useful resource.

As I said before, canon is simply a label for the overall body of work. It is not supposed to be a piece of litmus paper you apply to every single tiny detail to see if it changes color. All these fan arguments over whether this granular detail or that one is "canon" is just fans giving themselves something to argue about. Trek has always had sources of information out there that went beyond what was clearly presented onscreen -- sources like the writers' bible and The Making of Star Trek and the TNG Technical Manual and the Chronology and so forth, information that represented the thinking of people officially involved with the productions and thus generally listened to by the audience. They weren't binding in some way, because the fans were not subject to anyone's authority on the matter; they were simply resources that could be drawn upon for the telling of stories. That's all that actually matters.

So my opinion about the Sussman bios is that they're useful. That's the only answer that actually means anything.

 

Mike Sussman, writer of the episode and who also wrote those bios said he never intended them to be canon as he didn't realize how readable they would be on screen. And indeed, what TATV established about Shran contradicted what was in those bios. Although, the novel continuity hasn't followed TATV, so I guess that makes the bios nebulous indeed.

 

Shatner's Collision Course, although not part of the novelverse, alluded to Hoshi's fate from the TATV bio, and I believe her husband from said graphic cropped up in the first Rise of the Federation novel.

 

Actually it was The Romulan War: To Brave the Storm that introduced Takashi Kimura and his relationship with Hoshi. ROTF just followed that precedent. Indeed, I wish I could have been the one to introduce Kimura and start their relationship from scratch, since picking up with them already a being couple made it harder to find an arc for them.

 

If I remember right, some fan asked him a question about it at a Creation convention in the Los Angeles area (Pasadena, as I recall), and his reply minced no words.

 

Here's something that's common but has got to be non-canon: lip movements. We've had explicit establishment of the ubiquity of universal translators and non-Federation races who don't speak English. Lip movements for speech that is obviously translated for the audience can't possibly be real.

 

I've often thought this! Even my wife, who isn't hugely into the technical minutiae of Trek, once asked if what we were seeing was 'interpreted' for us so that people's lips matched?

Is there some kind of third way explanation? Could technology get so advanced that uh... the sounds could match the lip movements, 'Bad Lip Synching' style?

 

I'm puzzled by that, too. Was it that some fans actually thought he wrote it, or was it that it had his "name" on it and yet he wasn't seeing any royalties?

I suppose, from his POV, it could get irksome. There's a book out there, attributed to your character, that you had nothing to do with and aren't seeing any money from, and yet fans keep asking you to sign it as though you're really the author.