Regarding canon: isn't it ironic?

[woodstock]

Star Wars literature has had the blessing of being considered canon for decades now, and was pretty much demolished by a single movie (full disclosure, I've never read any of it). And yet, Star Trek lit takes such care to stay true to the timeline(s), even retconning when new stuff comes out, but it is not considered canon. Thoughts?

 

[Idran]

My first thought is that you've just thrown up the Bennett-signal; he's probably flipping the costume change lever as we speak.

 

[Defcon]

It's as simple as this:

Trek Literature: Honest to its readers about the status of the novels.

Wars literature: Trying to deceive readers for years and years, until the Mouse (I assume) decided to get rid of that bullshit layered canon stuff.

 

[Greg Cox]

Repeat after me: No tie-in book is ever canon, no matter what you may hear, for the simple reason that the movies and TV shows are viewed by millions while the books are read by the tens of thousands. No studio in their right mind is ever going to let the tie-in books, which are read by only a tiny percentage of viewers, establish "canon." The actual shows and movies trump the books, period.

It's not an artistic decision. It's the only practical one.

 

[Christopher]

And it wasn't a single movie that "demolished" the Expanded Universe. Plenty of earlier films and shows have contradicted books and comics in the EU. The prequel trilogy negated a bunch of stuff from the tie-ins, and The Clone Wars portrayed Mandalore in a way that totally contradicted Karen Traviss's novels (and led to the cancellation of one, I think). It's just that, before, the EU publishers tried to adjust to the contradictions or retcon them away and pretend it still all fit somehow. But the makers of the movies and shows never, ever hesitated to contradict or overwrite something in the EU. They adopted characters and places and ideas when they found them useful, but ignored or contradicted them when they found them inconvenient. This is how canon and tie-ins always relate, and Lucasfilm marketing's insistence on applying the label "canon" to the EU was basically false advertising. All it really meant in practice was that all the books and comics and games would try to be consistent with each other, unlike the Star Trek tie-ins that mostly ignored each other except when they didn't. The EU went out of its way to try to make everything fit, even stuff like the Marvel comics and Splinter of the Mind's Eye that were wildly inconsistent with the later stuff, and it required a great deal of retconning and glossing things over. But any implied promise that the films or TV shows would stay consistent with any of that was simply untruthful.

The only difference now is that they've officially made a clean break with the old tie-in continuity and started the whole thing over, rather than trying to patch over the contradictions piecemeal as they've been doing for the past several decades.

 

[woodstock]

I've been reading (working on reading) everything that takes place post-Nemesis, and you guys strive to maintain continuity across all former shows and put out great stories. I just wish the literature wasn't treated like the Windows Phone of the Star Trek universe. These threads are placed in the Miscellaneous category of this forum even! But I and a great many others appreciate the work you do, thank you.

 

[The Wormhole]

Wars literature: Trying to deceive readers for years and years, until the Mouse (I assume) decided to get rid of that bullshit layered canon stuff.

While it's true Disney nullified the Expanded Universe and all the associated baggage (like the silly "tiers of canon") they apparently are still considering the tie-ins canon, and any novel, comic or video game released after April 2014 allegedly has canonical status. They even have a group of canon consultants to maintain consistency, who theoretically have authority to even make changes to the new movies if they are inconsistent with anything. Although I'm sure it'll certainly be a day when a Hollywood director agrees to make a change to their movie just so it'll be consistent with a tie-in novel or comic.

 

[Christopher]

While it's true Disney nullified the Expanded Universe and all the associated baggage (like the silly "tiers of canon") they apparently are still considering the tie-ins canon, and any novel, comic or video game released after April 2014 allegedly has canonical status. They even have a group of canon consultants to maintain consistency, who theoretically have authority to even make changes to the new movies if they are inconsistent with anything. Although I'm sure it'll certainly be a day when a Hollywood director agrees to make a change to their movie just so it'll be consistent with a tie-in novel or comic.

Yeah. Basically, they aren't doing anything new; they're just making a fresh attempt at doing the same thing they tried to do before. Given Abrams's apparent preference to maintain firm control over tie-ins to other Bad Robot properties, I expect that as long as he's involved with producing the movies, he'd want to keep the tie-ins closely coordinated with the movies. But it'll still be the movies that set the lead. And eventually, some later producer of the franchise might have ideas that wouldn't reconcile with the do-over EU, so we'd get the same thing that happened with the old EU where contradictions were introduced and new EU works had to retcon or dance around things in order to pretend it all still fit.

I mean, even just within an ongoing canon, the pretense of continuity is often dependent on choosing to turn a blind eye to the inconsistencies and mistakes. So of course that's doubly (or exponentially) true in "extended canons" as well.

 

[Enterprise1701]

Wars literature: Trying to deceive readers for years and years, until the Mouse (I assume) decided to get rid of that bullshit layered canon stuff.

While it's true Disney nullified the Expanded Universe and all the associated baggage (like the silly "tiers of canon") they apparently are still considering the tie-ins canon, and any novel, comic or video game released after April 2014 allegedly has canonical status. They even have a group of canon consultants to maintain consistency, who theoretically have authority to even make changes to the new movies if they are inconsistent with anything. Although I'm sure it'll certainly be a day when a Hollywood director agrees to make a change to their movie just so it'll be consistent with a tie-in novel or comic.

I don't see why they bother to do this with things like young readers' movie adaptations which abridge many details or video games with alternate endings and stuff.

 

[Idran]

Repeat after me: No tie-in book is ever canon, no matter what you may hear, for the simple reason that the movies and TV shows are viewed by millions while the books are read by the tens of thousands. No studio in their right mind is ever going to let the tie-in books, which are read by only a tiny percentage of viewers, establish "canon." The actual shows and movies trump the books, period.

It's not an artistic decision. It's the only practical one.

Eh...I can think of one major exception to tie-in books not determining canon, though it is outside the specific "movies and TV shows" category you mention: Warcraft. In fact, it's a not-uncommon complaint among the player base that major revelations are only presented in novel form and only alluded to in-game, but still binding on the storyline in-game. (And being an MMO, and as such having little player choice influence on the plot, it legitimately is a situation whereby major story elements in a non-interactive storyline are described entirely in a licensed side medium taken in by only a fraction of a percentage of the fanbase.)

For one specific huge example, the ultimate fate of the main antagonist of the previous expansion was only described in a novel, and then that fate was directly influential on the current expansion without ever actually being shown in-game, only referenced. In another case, two expansions ago a major character that had been missing for years as a huge plot element that had been hinted at for most of that time as a dangling plot thread reappeared with little fanfare in the in-game narrative seemingly out of nowhere to those that only played the games, because the story of his reappearance was laid out in a novel. That same plotline also involved a separate major character present from the start of the MMO suddenly becoming an antagonist, and again those that only followed the storyline in-game would have no understanding in it beyond a vague description about how it happened.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

They even have a group of canon consultants to maintain consistency,

I wonder what the qualifications for that job are.

 

[Greg Cox]

Repeat after me: No tie-in book is ever canon, no matter what you may hear, for the simple reason that the movies and TV shows are viewed by millions while the books are read by the tens of thousands. No studio in their right mind is ever going to let the tie-in books, which are read by only a tiny percentage of viewers, establish "canon." The actual shows and movies trump the books, period.

It's not an artistic decision. It's the only practical one.

Eh...I can think of one major exception to tie-in books not determining canon, though it is outside the specific "movies and TV shows" category you mention: Warcraft. In fact, it's a not-uncommon complaint among the player base that major revelations are only presented in novel form and only alluded to in-game, but still binding on the storyline in-game. (And being an MMO, and as such having little player choice influence on the plot, it legitimately is a situation whereby major story elements in a non-interactive storyline are described entirely in a licensed side medium taken in by only a fraction of a percentage of the fanbase.)

For one specific huge example, the ultimate fate of the main antagonist of the previous expansion was only described in a novel, and then that fate was directly influential on the current expansion without ever actually being shown in-game, only referenced. In another case, two expansions ago a major character that had been missing for years as a huge plot element that had been hinted at for most of that time as a dangling plot thread reappeared with little fanfare in the in-game narrative seemingly out of nowhere to those that only played the games, because the story of his reappearance was laid out in a novel. That same plotline also involved a separate major character present from the start of the MMO suddenly becoming an antagonist, and again those that only followed the storyline in-game would have no understanding in it beyond a vague description about how it happened.

Interesting. I'll take your word for it because I don't know anything about modern computer games. (Solitaire and Hearts are about my speed.) But I admit this surprises me.

In general, nothing is "canon" if it can be contradicted at whim later on. And it's hard to imagine a situation in which a multi-million dollar movie or TV series would feel obliged to remain consistent with a $6.99 paperback that most moviegoers have never read or heard of.

You'd think that would apply to the gaming industry, too, but apparently not? Weird.

 

[Christopher]

In general, nothing is "canon" if it can be contradicted at whim later on.

Tell that to Bobby Ewing. Or Greedo.

Sure, consistency in a canon is the ideal, but a canon is still a story being made up as it goes, and storytellers sometimes change their minds. So canon is just as subject to being contradicted as tie-ins are. It's just that, in both cases, it's the original creators (or their successors who are working for the copyright owners) who get to decide what gets acknowledged or contradicted, and the tie-in creators who have to follow their lead.

 

[Greg Cox]

In general, nothing is "canon" if it can be contradicted at whim later on.

Tell that to Bobby Ewing. Or Greedo.

Sure, consistency in a canon is the ideal, but a canon is still a story being made up as it goes, and storytellers sometimes change their minds. So canon is just as subject to being contradicted as tie-ins are. It's just that, in both cases, it's the original creators (or their successors who are working for the copyright owners) who get to decide what gets acknowledged or contradicted, and the tie-in creators who have to follow their lead.

Which is only appropriate since we're borrowing their toys, playing in their sandbox, etc.

 

[David cgc]

I think assuming the Warcraft storyline is being dictated by the novelists is believing the tail is wagging the dog. I don't know much about WoW, but most of the other game tie-ins I am familiar with have the parent company take the lead in developing the story. It's more likely for things to cross-pollinate, with releases on both sides coming much less frequently than Trek books and episodes did, but I'd bet all those storylines were decided on the development team and the authors got an outline instructing them to go from point a to point c. Something like how the two "Countdown" comic series were set up, with a few elements to put in place for the upcoming movie, but because they were going to be in the movie.

 

[Christopher]

Which is only appropriate since we're borrowing their toys, playing in their sandbox, etc.

Exactly. It's not about mandated consistency, it's simply about who's making the decisions. Some fans have this idea that canon is something dictated by some office at the studio that the showrunners are required to follow. But it really just means "whatever the showrunners make up." They're creating the work and deciding its shape, and other people like us are borrowing what they create in order to supplement their work.

 

[Leto_II]

Repeat after me: No tie-in book is ever canon, no matter what you may hear, for the simple reason that the movies and TV shows are viewed by millions while the books are read by the tens of thousands. No studio in their right mind is ever going to let the tie-in books, which are read by only a tiny percentage of viewers, establish "canon." The actual shows and movies trump the books, period.

It's not an artistic decision. It's the only practical one.

Eh...I can think of one major exception to tie-in books not determining canon, though it is outside the specific "movies and TV shows" category you mention: Warcraft. In fact, it's a not-uncommon complaint among the player base that major revelations are only presented in novel form and only alluded to in-game, but still binding on the storyline in-game. (And being an MMO, and as such having little player choice influence on the plot, it legitimately is a situation whereby major story elements in a non-interactive storyline are described entirely in a licensed side medium taken in by only a fraction of a percentage of the fanbase.)

For one specific huge example, the ultimate fate of the main antagonist of the previous expansion was only described in a novel, and then that fate was directly influential on the current expansion without ever actually being shown in-game, only referenced. In another case, two expansions ago a major character that had been missing for years as a huge plot element that had been hinted at for most of that time as a dangling plot thread reappeared with little fanfare in the in-game narrative seemingly out of nowhere to those that only played the games, because the story of his reappearance was laid out in a novel. That same plotline also involved a separate major character present from the start of the MMO suddenly becoming an antagonist, and again those that only followed the storyline in-game would have no understanding in it beyond a vague description about how it happened.

Interesting. I'll take your word for it because I don't know anything about modern computer games. (Solitaire and Hearts are about my speed.) But I admit this surprises me.

In general, nothing is "canon" if it can be contradicted at whim later on. And it's hard to imagine a situation in which a multi-million dollar movie or TV series would feel obliged to remain consistent with a $6.99 paperback that most moviegoers have never read or heard of.

You'd think that would apply to the gaming industry, too, but apparently not? Weird.

There are also several examples in the Babylon 5 universe of onscreen canon being set by previous print stories -- flashbacks to the buried Shadow vessel on Mars (and Garibaldi's finding of a scorched Psi Corps uniform insignia-pin) in the March, 1996 television episode "Messages From Earth," which was originally depicted in a DC Comics issue published in May, 1995; situations and characters surrounding Sinclair's ambassadorhood on Minbar (the DC series and the novel To Dream in the City of Sorrows); backstory from the In Valen's Name comic miniseries; and some other things here and there.

Of course, as Christopher pointed out recently in another thread hereabouts, all of the canonical B5 tie-ins had the advantage of the direct oversight (and, in some cases, actually being written by) the TV series creator, which is why we were able to see story-elements and characters introduced in the novels and comics literally a full entire year before they actually appeared on the TV series (the character Rathenn, for instance).

However, like Buffy and Warcraft, though, these are really the exceptions which prove the rule, with the vast majority of non-filmic tie-ins being considered secondary (if not tertiary) by the major film studios, who literally have millions of dollars riding on the production of a single episode of a series, if not hundreds of millions on a single feature film.

 

[Christopher]

^Right. Again, canon at its most fundamental just means the original creators' work. And that can include works that the original creators do in multiple media. (For instance, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter play is considered canonical. Although it isn't always the case. I suspect that the upcoming Fantastic Beasts movie which Rowling scripted will be considered part of the film continuity rather than the literary canon.)

 

[Leto_II]

Another example that just popped into my head is the Mass Effect game series, which introduced quite a few characters, worlds, political situations, and backstory via the novels (several of which were written by the head writer of the first two games), which set a great deal of the actual in-game canon, and with several of those novel characters later playing a big role in the games themselves (Kahlee Sanders, Kai Leng, et al).

BioWare's Dragon Age novels are another similar example, with characters like Cole getting established by the books first prior to the release of the game Dragon Age: Inquisition.

 

[Idran]

I think assuming the Warcraft storyline is being dictated by the novelists is believing the tail is wagging the dog. I don't know much about WoW, but most of the other game tie-ins I am familiar with have the parent company take the lead in developing the story. It's more likely for things to cross-pollinate, with releases on both sides coming much less frequently than Trek books and episodes did, but I'd bet all those storylines were decided on the development team and the authors got an outline instructing them to go from point a to point c. Something like how the two "Countdown" comic series were set up, with a few elements to put in place for the upcoming movie, but because they were going to be in the movie.

Oh, yeah, I didn't mean to say that authors were determining storyline direction all on their own. Just that Blizzard often decides to have major plot developments play out outside the main core of the franchise in a medium that only a small percentage of the playerbase uses. I assume that their reasoning is that a) some plots work better in novel form than in in-game form and b) the community is quick enough to get details online on Blizzard-recognized fansites and whatnot that no one would be entirely left out without reading the novels, but that's just a guess on my part. But yeah, from what I understand essentially the lore people at Blizzard (they have a department specifically for keeping track of lore) write up an outline that includes these major plot developments and has one of their licensed authors fill out the outline into a full novel.

I might've been focusing on the wrong part of Greg Cox's post in bringing up this example, I realize now? I was focusing on the "plot developments in a relatively-unimportant/unpopular part of the franchise" part, but in terms of who determines the story it is still the same people, so maybe it doesn't fit as a counterexample as well as I thought.