Are there any canon books?

You mean the one that wasn't actually written by George Lucas, and was in fact ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster, yes?

And 'personal continuity', people, makes much, much more sence than the horrible 'personal canon'.

Edit: Love the dialogue, Steve. Funniest thing I've seen all week.

 

^What he said. This question comes up so often, it should really be part of a FAQ - probably in gigantic flashing letters.

 

Steve, you are my new hero.

 

LMAO!!!!

That one just got archived, with proper credit attributed to Mr. Roby of course, and to be unleashed at a future date when circumstances warrant (and by my watch, that should be about 14 seconds from now).

Damn, I needed that laugh. Thanks, Steve!

 

Steve, can I PLEASE quote this elsewhere with appropriate linkage and credit? This is brilliant.

 

That was the same period I was reading all of the Alan Dean Foster "Log series" TAS novelizations... And the same era when ADF ghost novelized the first Star Wars novelization...

My problem: I strongly suspected that ADF wrote the Star Wars book because it felt likt his style--and this was confirmed some years later... But, regarding the ST-TMP novelization, the whole book just didn't Feel like ADF's writing... And to this day I've read quite a few ADF books (virtually all of his Commonwealth series), including his novelizations of other films such as Darkstar, and I still can't believe that ADF novelized ST-TMP...

 

The problem I have with it is the fact that Enterprise is most definitely not canon, despite being "official"... The whole deal is like a sad joke on the part of TOS fans...

 

I couldn´t care less if books are canon or not. For me it´s more important that i enjoy the book when i read it, than that it fits into a certain continuity and is a official part of the Star Trek canon history. OK, it´s great if you get a great read and it doesn´t contradicts the novels you have read earlier or the TV-shows and movies, but for me the overall quality is far more imortant than if novels are canon or not.
There is The Final Reflection for example. It was heavily contradicted by TNG, the movies and several novels, and it´s therfore maybe one of the most uncanonic (does this word exists?) novels out there, but it´s still a great novel.

 

Certainly, and thanks to you and the other folks who said nice things about it.

And if Suzi is still reading this thread: Suzi, I hope you didn't read my little rant as anything personally directed against you. I'm guessing you're relatively new to this ancient debate. Every time it comes up there are a few folks who haven't seen this old battle play out dozens of times over the years, and the exasperation some of us feel whenever it rears its ugly head again may seem a little harsh to the newer fans. Trust me, no matter where you stand on the issue, in a few years you too will be exasperated when the subject arises again.

And Defcon cuts to the heart of the matter. The Final Reflection, Diane Duane's Romulan books, Federation... it doesn't matter that canon Trek may have contradicted them. They're still well worth reading.

 

Good for you. I don't feel that canonicity (Just for the record, I may have made that word up) should factor into deciding whether a story is good or not. It should keep true to characters and situations and abilities and the like, but that is not the same as being canon.

 

'The problem I have with it is the fact that Enterprise is most definitely not canon, despite being "official".'

Are you saying that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman don't consider Enterprise to be valid source material when they make Enterprise? That doesn't make any sense. I think you are inventing some brand new word out of thin air and as a remarkable coincidence spelling it "canon".

davidh

 

Nope. It's correct

 

This makes no sense, and I have yet to see anyone give definitive proof that Enterprise cannot be canon.

The fact we don't see an NX-01 illustration in TMP or TNG is not, in my opinion, proof.

Nor is the often-misquoted dialog from Will Decker in TMP.

Anything based on Fanon conjectures -- or (and James will appreciate this) conjectures in the Chronology/Encyclopedia is likewise not proof.

And we need to identify what is an oversight or a writing error. Remember that DS9 -- which very few here would dare to call not canon -- said clearly that the Eugenics Wars happened in the late 21st Century, rather than the 1990s, due to a writer error in one episode.

Cheers

Alex

 

In many discussions, people are confusing the terms "canon," "continuity," and "quality." These three terms have NOTHING to do with one another, and their mingling together in the same discussion is far too often abused.

"Canon" -- What has been shown in any and every Trek episode, regardless of quality or continuity. As opposed to "non-canon," which means derivative works such as books, comics, and games.

"Continuity" -- When one episode makes reference to facts established in another episode. ALL episodes are canon, so that is not a factor in determining continuity. There are numerous continuity errors in all canon episodes, from 1966 to today. No series has a monopoly on continuity errors.

"Quality" -- This is a subjective judgment, whether you personally like an episode, actor, or entire season of episodes. This rarely has anything to do with either "canon" or "continuity." People just love some episodes, whether or not they have continuity errors, and people just hate other episodes, whether or not they have continuity errors. The only difference is, people tend to expend more energy nitpicking continuity errors in the canon episodes they hate, while ignoring the errors in the episodes they love.

Let's try to keep these terms straight. Continuity clearly does not determine quality ("Enterprise" has far fewer continuity errors than any other Trek series, regardless of its "quality"), and quality certainly does not define canon ("SPOCK'S BRAIN" and "The Best of Both Worlds" are BOTH canon, as is every episode of "Enterprise").

Some books may have great quality and continuity, but they're still non-canon.

 

Ron Moore admitted that the line on DS9 was an error, so I rate that one in the same category as Admiral Morrow's "the Enterprise is twenty years old" line in ST III, a non-binding slip of the tongue on the part of the character.

 

Personally, I hated that novel. Thought it was the dullest, most pedantic piece of crap I've ever seen the "Star Trek" name on.

Speaking of excellent novels that totally contradict the shows, Diane Carey's "Final Frontier" is a perfect example in that there's no way it and the show "Enterprise" could both exist in the same universe ... but that doesn't stop me from picking up the book after an episode of ENT and still thoroughly enjoying both.

(Interestingly, though, BOTH feature a British-accented security lieutenant named Reed...)

 

That's right, and the problem with Enterprise is that every episode has both, oversights And writing errors...

Call it a two-time loser...

There's just no way that E can peacefully coexist with TOS...

 

ENT is still way ahead of a couple of its latter-era counterparts in minimizing both oversights and writing errors, at least insofar as correlating with filmed TOS is concerned.

I find no difficulties at all with the two series coexisting.

Now, if I were to be hanging onto every fan-created preconception about the 22nd Century built up over the past 3 decades, well, then yeah, ENT has problems. Fortunately for me, I'm not.

Best,
Alex

 

Agreed on both counts.

 

Hi, im abit surprised my thread got 38 answers i only looked at it once when it had three. No hard feelings or anything.