The Star Trek Books FAQ

Yeah, I was talking about the CHRONOLOGY. The second edition also only covers the 21st century events in FIRST CONTACT, and not the 24th century events at the beginning.

 

This should updated with the annoncement of Warpath.

 

It should probably be updated for a lot of things.

I will add it to my list-of-things-I-intend-to-do-over-vacation-but-probably-won't-because-it's-so-much-easier-to-watch-televison.

 

To put this in perspective, it means only 54% of televised live-action Star Trek has been "Chonologized," and only 79% has been "Encyclopedified." I'd pay for updates (preferably integrated, not appended).

 

I'd be the first in line to buy the "Ultimate" editions of Encyclopedia and Chronology, but I'd propably throw my back out carrying them to the checkout counter.

Why not an e-book version on CD or for download as a PDF? It could contain the complete book contents, but cost only a few cents for Pocket Books to produce and distribute? We could then print out the books on our own printers, if we were so inclined. ...

 

^ Such books would still have to be researched and written, and edited, and formatted for e-Book format, no doubt in some manner that would make use of the electronic media in ways that wouldn't be possible under a strictly print format (ie, search, cross-referencing, 3-D views/zooms, virtual tours of ships -- as examples off the top of my head -- otherwise, what's the point?).

That's gonna run more than a few cents....

And there's no way they'd go to all that trouble so that it could easily be copied or printed.

For the time being, at least, the money it costs to produce such books isn't worth the money made by sales of such books. I know Pocket continues to examine and investigate whatever avenues might be available in order to offer such publications -- they just haven't found one that'll work from a business standpoint. Not yet, anyway.

 

^^

Well, sure, they would have to pay the authors to write and edit the book, but once it's done, distributing it as an eBook costs very little.

There are already many eBooks available, such as the entire "Strange New Worlds" series, which are just the complete book in electronic format.

I'm saying, since several editions of the Encyclopedia and Chronology are already written, paying the authors to update them would probably cost less than originally writing them in the first place, and if the final edition is released only as en eBook, then there would be no printing, shipping, and distribution costs.

Yes, an interactive CD with animation, video clips, and sound effects would be cool -- and Paramount has released such things in the past -- but I'd be happy with just a simple PDF eBook of an updated Star Trek Encyclopedia or Chronology.

 

Yes, but eBooks only sell a tiny fraction of what print books sell. We're talking 3-4 figures of sales, as opposed to the 5-6 figures of a print book. Pocket would lose far more money doing it as an eBook than they would ever lose doing it for print.

 

Well, clearly, that's because books belong on things made from dead trees...

 

The only reason that I tend to disagree with the opinion of what is canon and what isn't is because Paramount itself (Star Trek.com) contradicts the statements here and the ones made by Steve Roby. I'm frankly too tired to look it up for the thousandth time in the last 5 years but I'll tell you what it says (...and implies) and you can go look it up.

To simplify: Canon is anything that was on TV or in the movies excluding the Animated Series (however there are exceptions to that as elements of TAS are considered canon). Novels are generally not considered canon. The only exceptions to this rule are Mosaic and Pathways written by VOY co-creator Jeri Taylor that provide the back-stories for Janeway and her crew. Reference materials (TNG:Tech Manual, Trek Encyclopedia, etc.) are considered canon if they were written by Star Trek production personnel. Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and the Trek tech manual (Franz Joseph?) would not be considered canon as they were not written by Trek staff.

Now, these are not my words, these are Paramount's words that can be easily found here with a little work. I've always found these guidelines to be satisfactory, but people have been arguing with me for years about them. As far as Jeri Taylor's writings contradicting another Trek staffer's writings, this happens all the time on screen. Why should the fact that something that was written (in the only 2 novels that Paramount considers canon) happens to contradict other canon Trek screenwriting negate it's validity? Again, I'm not pulling this out of thin air, it's officially stated as such on Paramount's website.

By the same token, what is more valid as far as canon goes: what was in an original theatrical release or what was added/or removed from the Director's Cut/Special Edition DVD?

So what is it? What Paramount states on its official website or what everyone thinks canon is? Like I said, I lean toward Paramount's opinon and no one has ever been able to say anything to contradict this and make me change my mind. If there is a valid argument for against what Paramount has said about the definition of Trek canon is I'm more than willing to be open minded to it.

The only other problem I see is that Trek may be done from TV forever unless some major changes occur. Isn't it likely that the only official vehicle for new Trek stories will someday be the novels and future novels may one day indeed be considered canon?

-Shawn

 

StarTrek.com is not "Paramount itself." It is, like the Pocket novels, a licensed tie-in to Star Trek.

That is a claim made on ST.com, but since ST.com is not Paramount, it does not actually represent official Paramount policy. It also conflicts with the simple facts, because a number of things in Pathways were contradicted by later episodes of VGR.

Completely and utterly untrue. The authors of those works refute that in their own introductions. They say outright that they're merely offering one possible interpretation and do not intend to inhibit anyone's creativity in the process. Indeed, the shows themselves sometimes contradicted conjectural material in the Tech Manual, Chronology and so forth. Those works -- and even the official, behind-the-scenes writers' bibles -- were only meant as supplements to the shows, as possible sources of inspiration for future writers. They were not meant to restrict or limit future writers, so all they did was make suggestions which writers for the shows were free to use or ignore as they wished.

Therefore, nothing offscreen is canon. Even the most authoritative offscreen references are subject to onscreen contradiction, because they merely support the show, not the other way around. The show, the canon, is the work itself; everything else (including Startrek.com, by the way) merely supports or derives from it. It would be ridiculous for a TV show watched by tens of millions to be restricted by things from a book read by mere hundreds of thousands, let alone by an internal, behind-the-scenes reference read by mere hundreds. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.

Hard to say, but it's not our call. By definition, the only people who have a right -- or a need, for that matter -- to decide what is canonical are the people writing new Trek episodes or movies. Canon isn't meant to be binding on the fans; it's a guideline for the makers of the shows. So asking other fans for opinions on what constitutes canon is a pointless exercise, because our opinions, by definition, don't apply to that particular question.

Indeed, since nobody's currently making new Trek, the whole question of canon has become pretty much a non-issue.

As for those of us who write tie-in fiction, our mandate is to remain consistent with onscreen canon, but that doesn't forbid us from incorporating compatible material from other sources, including variant cuts of movies, or even deleted scenes if we wish (for instance, the recent TNG novels built on the deleted NEM reference to Beverly Crusher rejoining Starfleet Medical, while ignoring its deleted character of Commander Madden).

In Ex Machina, I chose to treat the Director's Edition as the "true" story, since it represents the director's intended version of the film, the one he would've released to theaters originally if he'd had more time to finish it. But that's got nothing to do with canon. The people who make the shows define canon, and if they wanted to go by the theatrical or ABC version of TMP instead of the DE, that would determine canon. What I decided only determined the contents of my book.

The only way the novels would be considered canon is if the makers of some future Trek series decided to acknowledge them. Because, for the three millionth time, canon simply means what the makers of the actual show itself choose to be bound by. It's only relevant to them. And as long as nobody's making new onscreen Trek, canon is simply a non-issue.

 

The only relevant definition of "canon" is what the writers of the TV series and movies are obliged not to contradict. For the moment, that constitutes TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the movies. Whether or not that changes is for the future to decide.

Anything else falls into the realms of "personal continuity," which is purely and wholly subjective.

 

Can you fix your quoting there? it's a little hard to spot your comments.

As for startrek.com being the official arbiter: you say yourself it's created by Paramount Digital Entertainment, right? Well, Paramount Digital Entertainment, like Pocket, is part of the Viacom empire, but it is not the part of that corporate entity that produced the Star Trek movies and TV series.

 

Yes, operated by an affiliate of Paramount. That doesn't mean that it's personally assembled by the people actually making the show. It's just produced by some folks hired by the corporation that also hired them. The website is not some statement of official doctrine or law. It's just a piece of entertainment, put together by some guys hired to put together an entertaining website.

(For that matter, Pocket Books and Paramount are both owned by Viacom, so they are technically affiliated.)

It doesn't matter what some employees at Paramount Digital thought either, because canon is defined by those actually making the show. The statement on ST.com about Jeri Taylor's novels being canon was true when it was written, because at the time, Jeri Taylor was still the show-runner on Voyager and chose to treat her books as authoritative sources. Once she left the show, her successor did not feel beholden to the conjectures she made in her books, therefore they were no longer considered part of the canon. The statement on the website is nearly a decade out of date. It may have been true at the time, but it isn't any longer.

Exactly. Which is why it's such a waste of effort to make a big deal about what is or isn't "canon" in the first place. It's just not that important. It isn't binding on the fans, and as you say, it isn't even absolutely binding on the people who made the shows. So why does it even matter?

Yes, those materials are official. But "official" is not "canonical." As you say yourself, the shows were free to contradict the material in those official sources -- thereby proving that being official does not make something part of canon. What is meant by saying that those materials are official is partly just that Paramount approved them, and partly that tie-in works are expected to abide by their conjectures until and unless they are contradicted by onscreen canon. Official is a tier above unofficial, to be sure, but neither is on a par with canon.

That is the strangest thing I've heard all day. Canon means the actual content of the shows. And of course it's the writers who decide what's in the show. That's their job. The "owner of the property," as you put it, hired them for the specific purpose of creating the show's universe and deciding what happens within it. Yes, Paramount approved their decisions, and did have the discretion to reject or change those decisions. But it hired them specifically to make those decisions.

Besides, "Paramount" is not a single entity. It's a corporation made up of individual human beings, executives who make the decisions that constitute "Paramount policy." When you talk about "Paramount," you're talking about those individual people who made the decisions. And in the case of Star Trek, the relevant individual embodying "Paramount" was a fellow named Rick Berman. He was a Paramount executive whose job it was to oversee ST, to make the decisions about its creative direction, and to hire the people who wrote it.

The producers were writers. The writer/producers on the show's regular staff collaborated with each other and with freelance authors to make sure that their scripts remained consistent with the canon that the staff defined.

 

Good point, didn't realize (but should have guessed) that Viacom owned Pocket Books.

I think if I dig deep enough, I will find out that Viacom owns me !

And no, Iwill not fix my quoting.

-Shawn

 

I can't take issue with any of that. The reality is...there i no canon...period. It gets changed and convoluted too many times even on TV and film.

I think it's an issue of common sense. You can't consider novels part of the official Universe period. But, it would seem to meake sense to me to consider the reference materials written bt Trek staff official even if they do get contradicted in the fuure.

The truth is that you, Pocketbooks and the fans really have no more say in what is canon and what isn't than PDE. WHo decided this at PDE and why has been allowed to be up there for 5 years if its not accurate? After all they do represent Star Trek and Paramount. But, again, I think it goes to common sense and as you pointed out each individuals own interpretation.

I just like the debate.

Now, what our your opinions on the policy in Iraq?

-Shawn

 

Then why is this conversation being discussed at all?

 

Well, thank you for taking that quote totally out of context.

-Shawn