The Star Trek Encyclopedia getting first update since 1999!

[Idran]

^Link doesn't work for me. :/

Try this one, to save you a bit of effort.

 

[DonIago]

But now I'm afraid to look.

 

[Galileo7]

Re: UPDATED Star Trek Encyclopedia - fall 2016!

Yes! I'm VERY excited and will definitely get this. I was always bummed that it stopped short, as it were. w00t!

Agree. Yeah!

 

[Klaus]

Boy, I'm glad I'd never encountered him based on those highlights. Although maybe he could have answered my long-running burning query about how many angels could dance on the head of a photon torpedo.

 

[DarrenTR1970]

As long as we're talking about updating the Okuda Chronolgy, I'd like to see the Animated Series included, now that it has been released on DVD.

 

[ryan123450]

Great idea. As a matter of fact I hope TAS is included in the updated Encyclopedia. Though since it's not mentioned in the announcement, I doubt it will be.

 

[Christopher]

As long as we're talking about updating the Okuda Chronolgy, I'd like to see the Animated Series included, now that it has been released on DVD.

Good point. The old policy that sidelined it is long since defunct, and elements of it have been referenced in TNG, DS9, and ENT -- not to mention that the Spock-childhood scenes in the '09 movie were practically remakes of scenes from "Yesteryear." A Trek reference that doesn't include TAS is an incomplete Trek reference.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

As long as we're talking about updating the Okuda Chronolgy, I'd like to see the Animated Series included, now that it has been released on DVD.

Good point. The old policy that sidelined it is long since defunct, and elements of it have been referenced in TNG, DS9, and ENT -- not to mention that the Spock-childhood scenes in the '09 movie were practically remakes of scenes from "Yesteryear." A Trek reference that doesn't include TAS is an incomplete Trek reference.

Yeah. It would be fun to see it "re-canonized" and incorporated into the Chronology.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Most importantly, if TAS is canonized, then Nasats are canonical.

 

[Christopher]

Most importantly, if TAS is canonized, then Nasats are canonical.

Well, being mentioned in a book doesn't make it canonical. Being official onscreen Star Trek makes it canonical. Talking in terms of something being "canonized" is taking the ecclesiastical metaphor too literally. Canon status in fiction isn't the result of some body formally asserting something to be canon. "Canon" is merely a metaphor used by fans and critics to refer to the original core material as distinct from its tie-ins and derivative works. The core material is automatically the canon, because the word is simply a figure of speech.

Besides, the policy to disregard TAS was revoked decades ago. As I said, most of the later Trek series have acknowledged elements from TAS. Heck, the most explicit TAS acknowledgment, the reference to the "Yesteryear" backstory in "Unification," happened while the so-called "ban" on TAS was still in place -- proving that the "ban" was pretty much baloney to begin with. (I think that, in practice, it was more a restriction on tie-ins than on the actual shows, which is why the original Chrono and Encyclopedia had to exclude TAS while TNG itself was free to acknowledge it.) So it's not as if TAS needs a 2016 book to "restore" a status that it regained over 20 years ago, if it ever actually lost it to begin with.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Most importantly, if TAS is canonized, then Nasats are canonical.

Well, being mentioned in a book doesn't make it canonical. Being official onscreen Star Trek makes it canonical. Talking in terms of something being "canonized" is taking the ecclesiastical metaphor too literally. Canon status in fiction isn't the result of some body formally asserting something to be canon. "Canon" is merely a metaphor used by fans and critics to refer to the original core material as distinct from its tie-ins and derivative works. The core material is automatically the canon, because the word is simply a figure of speech.

There's more of a practical distinction to the word "canon" (and phrases like "Word of God") than you're acknowledging, but I won't rehash that whole discussion (again).

Suffice it to say that I assume material from "The Alternative Factor" and "Threshold" will appear in this new edition of the Encyclopedia, but you'd be hard-pressed to still consider the events of those episodes canonical.

Besides, the policy to disregard TAS was revoked decades ago. As I said, most of the later Trek series have acknowledged elements from TAS. Heck, the most explicit TAS acknowledgment, the reference to the "Yesteryear" backstory in "Unification," happened while the so-called "ban" on TAS was still in place -- proving that the "ban" was pretty much baloney to begin with. (I think that, in practice, it was more a restriction on tie-ins than on the actual shows, which is why the original Chrono and Encyclopedia had to exclude TAS while TNG itself was free to acknowledge it.) So it's not as if TAS needs a 2016 book to "restore" a status that it regained over 20 years ago, if it ever actually lost it to begin with.

...and if/when material from TAS isn't included in the Encyclopedia, many people will take that to mean it doesn't count as "core material."

You yourself have also acknowledged that conflicts with TAS in the tie-ins are (still) treated differently than conflicts with live-action episodes--but I suspect that would change (along with perceptions) if TAS material does get included after all.

 

[Christopher]

Suffice it to say that I assume material from "The Alternative Factor" and "Threshold" will appear in this new edition of the Encyclopedia, but you'd be hard-pressed to still consider the events of those episodes canonical.

They're part of the canon, but they are not in continuity. Every canon disregards or retcons parts of itself, which is why it's a mistake to treat canon and continuity as synonyms.

...and if/when material from TAS isn't included in the Encyclopedia, many people will take that to mean it doesn't count as "core material."

And there's a fundamental difference between what many people believe and what is objectively correct. The people who actually make the shows have felt free to acknowledge TAS; surely that matters more than the assumptions made by some of the fans. The point is that TAS is already as much an official part of the canon as anything else. It's already fully included on Memory Alpha and StarTrek.com, it's been referenced by other shows and films, and the only two people in authority who ever wanted to exclude it (Roddenberry and Richard Arnold) lost any power to do so over two decades ago. The notion that TAS is non-canonical has been an outdated myth for nearly a quarter-century. Including it in the new Encyclopedia would not make it canonical; it would merely be acknowledging what has already been the case for a long time.

You yourself have also acknowledged that conflicts with TAS in the tie-ins are (still) treated differently than conflicts with live-action episodes--but I suspect that would change (along with perceptions) if TAS material does get included after all.

You're ascribing a disproportionate amount of importance to a single book. The STE is a tie-in just as much as any novel or comic. Heck, as I suggested before, that's probably why the old STE and STC had to leave out TAS even when TNG was free to acknowledge it -- because the Roddenberry/Arnold canon memo had more influence over the tie-ins than over the actual show. IIRC, it was mainly about setting the parameters of what tie-in authors were expected to "count" as source material. (After all, "canon" is a word that really only has meaning in contrast to tie-in materials. If the core work is all there is, then there's no need to call it canon, because there's nothing it needs to be differentiated from.)

 

[Idran]

Suffice it to say that I assume material from "The Alternative Factor" and "Threshold" will appear in this new edition of the Encyclopedia, but you'd be hard-pressed to still consider the events of those episodes canonical.

They're part of the canon, but they are not in continuity. Every canon disregards or retcons parts of itself, which is why it's a mistake to treat canon and continuity as synonyms.

If you can use word/phrase A to successfully communicate concept B to someone or someones, then B is a definition of A within that group; that's what a definition is.

Like, this might sound smart-alecy or meta, but I'm sincere when I ask: how do you define "definition" if not "a meaning associated to a word or phrase that can be reliably communicated to some group or individual by the usage of that word or phrase"?

 

[Christopher]

^But the problem is that people tend to use "canon" to mean multiple different, conflicting things, which creates confusion, not clarity. I prefer to distinguish canon from continuity because it adds clarity. Just because lots of people do something, that doesn't mean we're forbidden from suggesting a better way.

 

[Idran]

^But the problem is that people tend to use "canon" to mean multiple different, conflicting things, which creates confusion, not clarity. I prefer to distinguish canon from continuity because it adds clarity. Just because lots of people do something, that doesn't mean we're forbidden from suggesting a better way.

Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, I can understand that. Though I don't think it's an issue in exactly the way you say; I think it's more that disparate groups use it to mean different things, and the confusion comes into play when those groups cross-communicate with one another. It's more like a code-switching issue, I think. Though I could be wrong about that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Any word on a Kindle version of the encyclopedia? Would that even be possible?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Yes, okay, poor choice of words and phrasing there.

If the encyclopaedia update encompasses the entire canon of on-screen Trek, as we hope it will, then Nasats will be officially acknowledged as existing within Star Trek by this edition of the encyclopaedia. This will be a good thing, because the encyclopaedia carries a lot of (mostly unwarranted) weight as a reference source, because "encyclopaedia" is not a word to be trifled with. It is a word that demands respect, it is a word that says, "comprehensive" and "authoritative" and "if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist". Those who are left off of the encyclopaedia approval list can bleat about how they're as official as anyone else all they want; no-one's going to acknowledge them. Just because one is not legally in exile doesn't mean one is fully accepted among the community, after all. But if Encyclopaedia comes along and invites you in for tea, your chances for recognition are improved.

I want to see Nasats invited in for tea.

Well, the name isn't official, but Green will be acknowledged as existing, and through him his species.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, I can understand that. Though I don't think it's an issue in exactly the way you say; I think it's more that disparate groups use it to mean different things, and the confusion comes into play when those groups cross-communicate with one another. It's more like a code-switching issue, I think. Though I could be wrong about that.

No, you're right. The fan definition in which canon is about what individual stories or details are "true" is different from the professionals' approach in which everything they do is part of the core work (which is known in critical terms as the canon to distinguish it from derivative works), but that work is subject to refinement so that individual parts of it may be flexibly interpreted or disregarded as needed. Also, as I suggested, many fans take the label "canon" too literally and assume it means that some higher authority has to formally designate part of a TV or film series as canon before it qualifies, which is true of ecclesiastical canon but not true of literary or fictional "canon." While there are occasional instances of official sources clarifying what they consider to constitute the canon, as with Lucasfilm or the '89 Roddenberry memo, those are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Suffice it to say that I assume material from "The Alternative Factor" and "Threshold" will appear in this new edition of the Encyclopedia, but you'd be hard-pressed to still consider the events of those episodes canonical.

They're part of the canon, but they are not in continuity. Every canon disregards or retcons parts of itself, which is why it's a mistake to treat canon and continuity as synonyms.

(After all, "canon" is a word that really only has meaning in contrast to tie-in materials. If the core work is all there is, then there's no need to call it canon, because there's nothing it needs to be differentiated from.)

If someone says, "'Threshold' isn't canon anymore," I know exactly what that means, and that has nothing to do with tie-ins. I can come up with many more examples (even from franchises without any tie-ins), and I have before in other threads where this comes up. No one else finds any ambiguity in the sort of phrase I used above.

...and if/when material from TAS isn't included in the Encyclopedia, many people will take that to mean it doesn't count as "core material."

And there's a fundamental difference between what many people believe and what is objectively correct. The people who actually make the shows have felt free to acknowledge TAS; surely that matters more than the assumptions made by some of the fans. The point is that TAS is already as much an official part of the canon as anything else. It's already fully included on Memory Alpha and StarTrek.com, it's been referenced by other shows and films, and the only two people in authority who ever wanted to exclude it (Roddenberry and Richard Arnold) lost any power to do so over two decades ago. The notion that TAS is non-canonical has been an outdated myth for nearly a quarter-century. Including it in the new Encyclopedia would not make it canonical; it would merely be acknowledging what has already been the case for a long time.

I could point out that novels and comics have been referenced by the shows and films without making those canonical, and I could go on about descriptive-versus-prescriptive and the Supreme Court analogy used by the Abrams team, but it feels like talking to a wall on this issue.

You yourself have also acknowledged that conflicts with TAS in the tie-ins are (still) treated differently than conflicts with live-action episodes--but I suspect that would change (along with perceptions) if TAS material does get included after all.

You're ascribing a disproportionate amount of importance to a single book.

And you're not acknowledging the importance other people place on it. People wouldn't be talking about things they hope are in there if they thought being in there didn't matter--Memory Alpha would just take care of their reference needs nicely.

For the curious, here's what the First Edition had to say on the matter:

In a related vein, this work adheres to Paramount studio policy that regards the animated Star Trek series as not being part of the "official" Star Trek universe, even though we count ourselves among that show's fans.

That edition suggests people look to the Concordance for TAS information--a recommendation removed from the Second Edition, though the above part remains, suggesting that the policy was still in place as of December 1997. That edition goes on to add:

Of course, the final decision as to the "authenticity" of the animated episodes, as with all elements of the show, must clearly be the choice of each individual reader.

Descriptive, not prescriptive, although I'm sure you have a reason in mind why the Okudas aren't "objectively correct," either.

If you can use word/phrase A to successfully communicate concept B to someone or someones, then B is a definition of A within that group; that's what a definition is.

Thank you. That pretty much sums up where I'm coming from.

Like, this might sound smart-alecy or meta, but I'm sincere when I ask: how do you define "definition" if not "a meaning associated to a word or phrase that can be reliably communicated to some group or individual by the usage of that word or phrase"?

I'm sorry Christopher didn't really address this part of what you were saying.

^But the problem is that people tend to use "canon" to mean multiple different, conflicting things, which creates confusion, not clarity. I prefer to distinguish canon from continuity because it adds clarity. Just because lots of people do something, that doesn't mean we're forbidden from suggesting a better way.

Oh, I see what you mean. Okay, I can understand that. Though I don't think it's an issue in exactly the way you say; I think it's more that disparate groups use it to mean different things, and the confusion comes into play when those groups cross-communicate with one another. It's more like a code-switching issue, I think. Though I could be wrong about that.

I don't actually think there's much confusion or codeswitching going on--other fandoms took this phrasing from Sherlockian fandom decades ago and have been using it ever since.

I can't actually recall any instances elsewhere where using "canon" or "canonical" in this way has led to confusion as to what the speaker/writer meant. Basically, it just seems like "canon" has a particular commonly-accepted definition for a large group of people, and Christopher doesn't like that that definition exists.

If the encyclopaedia update encompasses the entire canon of on-screen Trek, as we hope it will, then Nasats will be officially acknowledged as existing within Star Trek by this edition of the encyclopaedia. This will be a good thing, because the encyclopaedia carries a lot of (mostly unwarranted) weight as a reference source, because "encyclopaedia" is not a word to be trifled with. It is a word that demands respect, it is a word that says, "comprehensive" and "authoritative" and "if an item does not appear in our records, it does not exist". Those who are left off of the encyclopaedia approval list can bleat about how they're as official as anyone else all they want; no-one's going to acknowledge them. Just because one is not legally in exile doesn't mean one is fully accepted among the community, after all. But if Encyclopaedia comes along and invites you in for tea, your chances for recognition are improved.

That's a nice alternate way of putting it. To go back to the Abrams/Orci Supreme Court analogy, being included in the Encyclopedia is an authoritative way of having "standing" in such a court to "admit items into evidence."

The fan definition in which canon is about what individual stories or details are "true" is different from the professionals' approach in which everything they do is part of the core work (which is known in critical terms as the canon to distinguish it from derivative works), but that work is subject to refinement so that individual parts of it may be flexibly interpreted or disregarded as needed. Also, as I suggested, many fans take the label "canon" too literally and assume it means that some higher authority has to formally designate part of a TV or film series as canon before it qualifies, which is true of ecclesiastical canon but not true of literary or fictional "canon." While there are occasional instances of official sources clarifying what they consider to constitute the canon, as with Lucasfilm or the '89 Roddenberry memo, those are the exception rather than the rule.

No, there are plenty of other professionals who use this meaning, too. (Yeah, yeah, "those professional were fans themselves," et cetera. The definition's out there and used by industry professionals.) The phrase "Word of God" wouldn't have any meaning if they didn't, unless you don't consider Joss Whedon or Roberto Orci or any number of showrunners to be professionals...

...but okay, whatever.

You go ahead and keep expressing confusion and criticism that other people use and understand a term in a particular way, and those other people will keep on using and understanding the term that way.

 

[Christopher]

Edgar, there is plenty of confusion. I'm not making this up. I've had conversations with people who actually believed that there was some kind of office at Paramount whose job it was to label things as "canon." They genuinely didn't understand that it's a term of criticism that doesn't need to be officially applied to something. That's just one of the countless misunderstandings that I and many others have noted over the years. I'm hurt and offended by your pettiness in trying to turn this into some kind of ad hominem attack on me personally. Where in the world did that hostility come from? I wasn't angry or confrontational here; I was simply trying to offer a minor clarification. I'm not trying to attack anyone's professionalism; that's a bizarre strong man. I'm simply trying to offer a formulation that distinguishes canon from continuity because I think it helps make things clearer. I don't see that as an attack on or an argument against anyone; it's simply a way of looking at things that I feel is consistent and useful. I'm deeply bewildered by the aggressiveness of your reaction. We can have differences of opinion on this without it getting personal.