What is the current philosopohy of canon?

[ChallengerHK]

I've been reading a lot of stuff here, and it's fueled a resurgent interest in the reason I came here in the first place: finding out the current state of Trek canon. (I learned two new terms here, fanon and head canon. I dig them both.)

So, what is the state of canon? By which, I don’t mean what’s now called canon and what’s not. I know that the producers retconned some Voyager episode, and Roddenberry at least tried to retcon an entire series, and I ignore both of those pronouncements. What I’m wondering is, has Trek gotten so big, given so many conflicting answers to so many questions, that there’s no possibility for such a thing as canon any longer.

For me, back when I was heavily involved in this, part of the fun was coming up with a believable, logical explanation for seeming contradictions, but I wonder if that’s become too difficult, or even impossible. Granted, it was a lot easier back in the day when there were two series and a handful of movies. I’ve seen it suggested that each series is essentially its own continuity. Insofar as there is one, is that really the consensus now?

 

[Lord Garth]

TNG, DS9, and VOY are all connected and overlap each other. In fact, DS9 and VOY are literally extensions of TNG. You have to think of all three as part of the same package. 21 seasons or not.

ENT takes place 200 years before TNG/DS9/VOY and 100 years before TOS. Any differences can be explained away as things change over the centuries and not everyone is a History Major.

DSC takes place 10 years before TOS but looks different. The creators' approach seems to be the story is the same but the visuals were rebooted.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Short version: If it's live-action, it's canon and new canon overwrites old canon.

Longer version: They give no fucks, and insist a show with an entirely different look and tone fits perfectly just before The Original Series. They're not even trying so why should we?

 

[The Old Mixer]

The First Rule of Trek BBS: "Consensus? What the hell is that?"

 

[Christopher]

Canon is a term that has far less meaning than fans assume. It's really just a descriptive nickname for the original body of work as distinct from its tie-ins, adaptations, or fan fiction. Without those derivative works, the term wouldn't need to exist at all. It doesn't mean a consistent continuity, since many fictional canons alter their continuity over time, like Marvel Comics with its sliding time scale, Star Wars with the Special Editions, or Dallas retconning a whole season away as a dream. It just means the stuff from the creators or owners of the property, the stuff that isn't derivative work by other people/groups. And those creators or owners are free to reinterpret their creation as they go, because ultimately they are just telling a story. They pretend it's a consistent whole, but they refine or alter the details over time to correct mistakes, work in new concepts retroactively, modernize outdated elements, or the like -- and of course, since creators are as fallible as anyone else, they sometimes just forget what they did before and introduce continuity errors. Naturally, the larger a canon becomes, the more numerous these alterations become. It's not a matter of philosophy, it's just the way it happens.

I think the modern preoccupation with the word "canon" just gets in the way of discussions about continuity. Star Trek continuity has always been full of inconsistencies, long before that word became a hot topic (e.g. James R./T. Kirk, lithium/dilithium crystals, UESPA vs. Starfleet, Angela Martine/Teller, Lt. Leslie dying in "Obsession" and being fine the next week, etc.). Fans debated continuity just as much then, but they didn't care what label you used to describe it, they just talked about the thing itself.

Short version: If it's live-action, it's canon.

The idea that the animated series is non-canonical was always a myth. Roddenberry and Richard Arnold put out a memo in 1989 declaring as much, but they had no actual authority over TNG itself at the time, as proven by the fact that it wasn't long after that "Unification" alluded to "Yesteryear." And there were a number of TAS references in later shows, like DS9 referring to the Klothos as Kor's ship. The only actual influence the memo ever had (over anything besides fan opinions) was in prohibiting the tie-in novels and comics from using TAS elements, because Arnold had approval power over the tie-ins at the time. It was never actually binding on the shows themselves.

I suspect that Roddenberry's attempt to decanonize TAS was merely part of his attempt to discredit D.C. Fontana's contributions to Star Trek as part of his ongoing battle to deny her the TNG co-creator credit she rightfully deserved. The irony is, TAS was the one Star Trek series that Roddenberry was given total, unfettered creative control over, yet he chose to entrust it to Fontana instead. So for him to turn around and say that it wasn't "real" Star Trek because he didn't personally make it was staggeringly hypocritical and petty.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I see your point. To make sure that I understand, are you saying that there's no such thing as a unified continuity, even from episode to episode?

 

[Christopher]

I see your point. To make sure that I understand, are you saying that there's no such thing as a unified continuity, even from episode to episode?

No, it's not all or nothing. Continuity exists, but it's not absolutely perfect. Nothing created by humans is flawless. You try to keep your continuity reasonably consistent, to make any retcons as plausible as you can and avoid mistakes as much as you can, but it's impossible to have 100% success, and the larger the canon grows, the more inconsistencies it will unavoidably have, even if it fits together reasonably well in broad strokes.

Ultimately, all fiction is about the willing suspension of disbelief. We all know this is just made up, that it's actors reading scripted lines for a camera on a stage somewhere, but we choose to ignore the unreality of it and play along with the conceit that it's real. And part of that is playing along with the conceit that it's entirely consistent even when mistakes or deliberate revisions are made. Any work of fiction is going to have imperfections that expose the artifice, but if they're not too egregious and/or we're sufficiently invested in the story, then we choose to let them slide because we want to play along with the pretense that it's real.

 

[Lord Garth]

Sometimes you have a call a spade a spade and say something doesn't fit but, most of the time, explaining things away or trying to figure how they could possibly fit can be fun. Timo is a genius at it.

I'm not even going to try to visually reconcile TOS and DSC. As much as I like both, I know when to say "Uncle". But Timo, I'd love to see what he could come up with. He could do it. It would make for a good read.

 

[The Wormhole]

The current attitude among TPTB is that TV shows and movies are canon, everything else isn't.

"Consensus? What the hell is that?"

This works best if you imagine the Jake Sisko Prophet from Emissary saying that.

 

[GNDN18]

This is canon:

It’s a canonical cannon, I’m sorry to say.

 

[The Wormhole]

^^Hey, they killed Wesley, so I'm cool with them being canon.

 

[Christopher]

The current attitude among TPTB is that TV shows and movies are canon, everything else isn't.

That's not really an "attitude," that's simply what the word means. "Canon" is merely a nickname for the original work as opposed to derivative works. In the case of something like a prose series (such as Sherlock Holmes, which is what the nickname was originally used for), it means the original prose stories. In the case of a comic book series, it means the comic books. In the case of a TV/movie series, it means the TV shows and movies. It's just a figurative word (borrowed from religious usage) for the work of the original creators, in whatever medium it happens to exist.

Yes, sometimes there are exceptional cases where the creators of a canon produce it in more than one medium, like the canonical novels and comics tying in to Babylon 5 or Star Wars, but what makes it canonical in that case is the direct involvement of the core creators, since they're the only ones who can really keep the whole thing consistent. (E.g. the post-series Buffy and Serenity comics overseen by Joss Whedon, the Avatar and Korra comics plotted by Konietzko & DiMartino, etc.) The one major exception is the current Star Wars multimedia canon, but that's because Star Wars is a huge operation that can afford to have a whole division devoted to overseeing everything and keeping it all consistent. That's an incredibly difficult job to do on that scale and hardly anyone else has ever tried to pull it off.

In the case of Star Trek, the makers of the shows and films have never been involved enough in creating tie-ins for them to be canonical, except when Voyager showrunner Jeri Taylor wrote the tie-in novels Mosaic and Pathways -- which were considered canonical while she was still showrunner, but were disregarded and contradicted by her successors.

 

[urbandefault]

People worry way too much about "canon."

Watch Star Trek and enjoy it, or not.

Don't worry about making it all fit together, because it doesn't. It's just stories about people in space settings, tied together by its beginnings in a 1960s TV show.

It's all good, but it's not a bunch of historical documents. The future hasn't been written yet.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Same as it's always been. The people making the show decide what they want to use and what they want to ignore.

 

[Shawnster]

I see your point. To make sure that I understand, are you saying that there's no such thing as a unified continuity, even from episode to episode?

Canon and continuity are used interchangeably by fans everywhere, including here. This is despite Christopher's best efforts to help educate us.

The idea of the word canon can be illustrated by its connection with the Bible. The Bible contains only so many books. That is considered the Bible canon. There are other writings that are not in the Bible. They are considered apocryphal writings, something extra, made up, did not happen, not part of the Bible canon.

Canon = real, happened, legitimate. Apocryphal or non canon = made up, after the fact.

In Star Trek terms canon is what the creators and producers created and produced. It's what we see on screen. Television and movies created by the writers and producers specifically for the franchise.

Apocrypha or non canon is everything else. Pocket Books. Comics. Fan films. Star Trek Continues. Prelude to Axanar. Even books written by Greg Cox and Christopher Bennett are, to my understanding, not canon. These fine authors try to adhere to canon, but what they write is not the gospel accounts of Star Trek.

Continuity is different. Continuity is, as Christopher described, a slippery beast to get your hands on. With all works of fiction, there will inevitably be contradictions. Heck, you will find contradictions in two non fiction books about the same person or event.

Contradictory information does not have anything to do with canon. Canon will contain contradictions. James R. Kirk or James T? Lithium or dilithium? Remus or Romii?

Head canon or fan canon can be used as terms to resolve continuity errors. They can also be used to describe the extra, apocryphal material you accept as true. I accept New Voyages/Phase II and STC as canon, the final portions of the 5 year mission. I accept as canon Saavik being half Romulan. I accept Klingons always looked as they did since 1979 with ridges. I accept most of Forbin's kitbashes and most of Franz Joseph's work as canon.

 

[Lord Garth]

In other words: conflicting canon is like conflicting religion. I believe in no religion but those who do argue that one is true and the other is either flat-out not or at best a misinterpretation.

For contradictions in real-life events: I tend to believe either the truth is somewhere in the middle or every story has at least two sides, then I see if I can maybe piece together what really happened if I put together enough sources.

 

[Christopher]

The idea of the word canon can be illustrated by its connection with the Bible. The Bible contains only so many books. That is considered the Bible canon. There are other writings that are not in the Bible. They are considered apocryphal writings, something extra, made up, did not happen, not part of the Bible canon.

Now that I think about it, that's actually a pretty good analogy. After all, the Bible is full of self-contradictions. It's not about internal consistency, it's just about what's part of the main story and what isn't.

Canon = real, happened, legitimate. Apocryphal or non canon = made up, after the fact.

Except I think fans take the metaphor too literally when they cast it in terms of reality or legitimacy. "Real" isn't a word that makes sense when talking about fiction. It's all made up, canon as much as apocrypha. It's just a question of which made-up stories fit with each other, and that's simply a matter of classification, not value.

Even books written by Greg Cox and Christopher Bennett are, to my understanding, not canon. These fine authors try to adhere to canon, but what they write is not the gospel accounts of Star Trek.

True. Canon is what the core creators make or directly supervise. We're not the core creators. We're freelancers hired by a publisher that's under license from the studio to produce what are essentially promotional materials. For the most part, the core creators are too busy making the actual shows to pay much attention to what we do in the tie-ins, so they'll do their own thing unaffected by us. I like to say that if canon is history, tie-ins are historical fiction.

In the case of the current Discovery tie-in novels, there's a bit more direct involvement, since Voyager novelist Kirsten Beyer is a staff writer on the show, so she's been appointed as a liaison between the staff and the tie-in authors, and is co-writing the tie-in comic. But that doesn't make the DSC novels and comics canonical; it just makes them better-informed about what canon is doing, so that they won't have as many inaccuracies as the early tie-ins to past Trek series. If it were the actual showrunners or another executive producer directly plotting the tie-ins, then they might be canonical, but instead it's a junior staff writer coordinating with the novelists, so it's still apocryphal.

In other words: conflicting canon is like conflicting religion. I believe in no religion but those who do argue that one is true and the other is either flat-out not or at best a misinterpretation.

Again, that's taking it wayyyy too seriously. It's all equally imaginary, so any debate over what counts in a fictional canon should just be an academic question with no stakes. Just because the word is a metaphor taken from religion doesn't mean it's supposed to be treated like religion.

 

[Lord Garth]

Again, that's taking it wayyyy too seriously. It's all equally imaginary, so any debate over what counts in a fictional canon should just be an academic question with no stakes. Just because the word is a metaphor taken from religion doesn't mean it's supposed to be treated like religion.

If it helps, in my mind, all of it is fiction. I have no stakes because not only do I have no religion, I am in fact agnostic leaning towards atheist. I commonly say, "I won't know until I die and I'm not in a hurry to die."

But in terms of the world at large where there are stakes over actual religions, then I agree that debate over Star Trek Canon is entirely academic. The worst stakes we ever have to worry about are a flame war, not a Holy War.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Somehow I fouled up the quoting function here, but I was quoting someone upstream who was basically saying "fix what you can and ignore the rest"

This is an interesting approach. I'll have to ponder this.

 

[ChallengerHK]

First, thanks for the thoughtful replies.

Based on some of those replies, I'm not making myself clear in the original post. I'm not asking what canon is; I understand it in both the religious and secular senses. Nor am I asking what the producers believe is canon; they've made their opinions pretty clear.

For those who brought in religion, there were some good comments. The one thing I think I disagree with is that "it's just a tv show" thought, although obviously, it is a tv show.

Let me jump universes for a moment. In Empire, Yoda says that the Force is an energy field that "surrounds us, and penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together." There's some degree of depth to that, whether you believe it's true or not. The Phantom Menace went on to retcon a lot of the original trilogy, including, as some writer I once read put it, changing the Force from a mystical religion to an infectious disease. My point is (I think) that while these are mere entertainments of the one hand, they also have the power to comment on important concepts, to rise above their station, as it were. The Force as a means to becoming one with the Universe is heady stuff, possibly heady enough to get people questioning themselves and reality. The Force as something one can inject onself with...not so much.

I think Star Trek falls into this category, for different reasons, and I think that's one reason to pursue a canon/continuity. (There is also, as someone upstream pointed out, the shear fun of it) Let me know what you think.