Are We Being Gaslighted in Regards to Canon?

[uniderth]

For as long as I can remember the definition of Star Trek Canon was "whatever is seen on screen." I remember this particularly well becasue of my debates regarding Enterprise. This definition never included creator intent, unless that intent showed up on screen. For example there are a lot of ideas writers, directors, etc. had for their stories and characters, or even ideas in scripts, that never appear on screen. So even though it was their intention it was not considered canon.

However, it seems like ever since Discovery came out people have been insisting that we accept creator intention as canon rather than what is seen on screen. Yet, there never was any sort of announcement of this change. It just all of a sudden was that way.

Just to make sure I wasn't going insane I googled it and indeed found referenced to Star Trek canon being "what is seen on screen," going back to 2006.

So why do we have people rejecting the long standing definition of canon in favor of the "creator intent is canon" definition, all the while acting as if it has always been this way? Has anyone else felt like the rules all of a sudden changed when people started insisting that creator intent was canon?

NOTE: The purpose of this thread is not to debate Discovery, instead it is to discuss when, where, why and how the definition of canon has changed and our reaction to that change.

 

[Kor]

I dunno, weren't there certain times when Roddenberry gave some background info on something that appeared on screen, and fandom was expected to just roll with it? I.e. "Just imagine that Klingons have always had these ridges."

Kor

 

[uniderth]

I dunno, weren't there certain times when Roddenberry gave some background info on something that appeared on screen, and fandom was expected to just roll with it? I.e. "Just imagine that Klingons have always had these ridges."

Kor

As far as I remember, though my Star Trek memory doesn't start until the early 90's, That explanation was never considered binding (i.e. canon) and there was still talk about why the Klingons looked different.

That's why Deep Space Nine even brought up the issue in "Trials and Tribble-ations" rather than pretending there was no difference.

 

[Lord Garth]

I was never a fan of ENT, so I don't care about whatever approach they had back then. The people putting together Discovery aren't the same people who put Star Trek together from 1987 to 2005. So the Old Regime had one way of doing things and the New Regime has another. Whoever eventually takes over from Alex Kurtzman will have a different approach even still.

 

[Greg Cox]

DS9 brought up the issue, and then jokingly dismissed it, not because of fan reaction, but simply because there was no way to avoid it if you were going to have Worf and some old-school TOS Klingons in the same scene.

Honestly, I was satisfied with just winking at the issue and moving on. Not sure ENTERPRISE needed to give us a "canon" explanation later.

 

[Soong-type Android]

Honestly, I was satisfied with just winking at the issue and moving on. Not sure ENTERPRISE needed to give us a "canon" explanation later.

Exactly! They knew ENT was being cancelled and wasted two episodes on a ridiculous plot just to explain the makeup designs of the Klingons on the 1960s Star Trek.

 

[1001001]

I'm not sure this was really necessary, given there's another thread on "canon"....

In any event: are you being "gaslighted"? As in "are people trying to convince you that you've gone insane?"

No.

 

[Christopher]

For as long as I can remember the definition of Star Trek Canon was "whatever is seen on screen."

That's a widely misunderstood phrase, and it gets the cause and effect backward. Canon is just a nickname for the story told by the original creators or owners of a property, as distinct from its fanfiction or licensed tie-ins by separate creators. If the original form of a fictional series is in prose stories (like Sherlock Holmes, the first fictional universe to have "canon" applied to it as a metaphor), then the prose is the canon and the films based on it are not. If the original work is a TV and movie series, then the onscreen works are the canon and the prose tie-ins based on it are not. But there are some cases where the same original creators work on both prose and screen forms and thus they're both parts of the canon (for instance, the post-series Buffy comics overseen by Joss Whedon, or the Fantastic Beasts movies written by J.K. Rowling). Canon is defined by the creator(s) of the work, not its medium.

So saying that Star Trek canon is onscreen is not saying that every single image seen onscreen is immutably true. It just means that Star Trek is originally a TV and movie series, and that the adaptations of it in print media are merely derivative, secondary works. But then, there are onscreen works outside the canon too, like fan films and Hallmark ornament commercials. Being onscreen doesn't make something canon. Being the original work makes it the canon.

Also, the canon is the overall body of work, not any individual detail. There are plenty of visual details in Trek canon that contradict each other, like the changing faces of Saavik and Zefram Cochrane, or the fact that Worf had a completely different forehead sculpt in season 1 than he had afterward. Canon is not about what things look like. A canon is a narrative, a series of stories about characters and events. Just because two parts of the canon show the appearance of those characters or their world in different ways does not mean they aren't telling stories set in the same fictional continuity. Robin Curtis's Saavik is the same person as Kirstie Alley's, and Discovery's Enterprise is the same vessel as TOS's, regardless of how they look.

I remember this particularly well becasue of my debates regarding Enterprise. This definition never included creator intent, unless that intent showed up on screen. For example there are a lot of ideas writers, directors, etc. had for their stories and characters, or even ideas in scripts, that never appear on screen. So even though it was their intention it was not considered canon.

That's also not about medium, it's just about the difference between a draft and a finished work. A creative work doesn't spring into being in a single step, but is the end result of a whole process of trial and error and revision. So lots of ideas get considered as possibilities but don't end up in the finished work. That's as true of a work of prose or comics, or of a play or a pop song or a sculpture, as it is of a TV show or a movie. It's just tentative stuff that doesn't end up in the finished work. It's like the marble that gets chipped off in the carving of a sculpture. It's part of the creative process, not part of the result.

 

[Spot261]

Well this seems slightly melodramatic.

 

[fireproof78]

Robin Curtis's Saavik is the same person as Kirstie Alley's, and Discovery's Enterprise is the same vessel as TOS's, regardless of how they look.

This is true and now I sit back and wait for the entertaining responses.

 

[Jedman67]

So why do we have people rejecting the long standing definition of canon in favor of the "creator intent is canon" definition, all the while acting as if it has always been this way? Has anyone else felt like the rules all of a sudden changed when people started insisting that creator intent was canon?

Why does this bother you so much? TV series and movie series contradict each other all the time. Narratives get rewritten or retconned. Characters change, grow, get killed. Backstories get invented that don't fit in the original stories.
So what? Enjoy the show as its being presented and don't let idiots or diehard fans get in your head.

 

[uniderth]

There are plenty of visual details in Trek canon that contradict each other, like the changing faces of Saavik and Zefram Cochrane, or the fact that Worf had a completely different forehead sculpt in season 1 than he had afterward.

Certainly there are minor details that change or have errors. But which species are we to believe Yeoman Colt was?

Why does this bother you so much? TV series and movie series contradict each other all the time. Narratives get rewritten or retconned. Characters change, grow, get killed. Backstories get invented that don't fit in the original stories.
So what? Enjoy the show as its being presented and don't let idiots or diehard fans get in your head.

Mainly becasue Star Trek has had a long tradition of being a fairly consistent single narrative. I'm not saying there weren't changes or errors before, but generally those were minor.

 

[BillJ]

As far as I know, the rules are still the same: what appears on screen is canon.

Certainly there are minor details that change or have errors. But which species are we to believe Yeoman Colt was?

Was the alien called 'Colt' in the episode? If not, then it isn't canon. I think it was a simple error, much like the season one D-7.

 

[seigezunt]

TBH I find this an insulting appropriation of the term "gaslighting," especially because that's not even what's going on here. You are allowed to believe whatever you want about the pretend space show.

Don't like it? Then don't like it. I don't understand the need to establish that something stated as happening in a fictional universe "didn't really happen," because a fan didn't like it.

I think what's really going on is that some fans confuse canon with continuity. Consistency isn't really a requirement of canon.

DS9 brought up the issue, and then jokingly dismissed it, not because of fan reaction, but simply because there was no way to avoid it if you were going to have Worf and some old-school TOS Klingons in the same scene.

Honestly, I was satisfied with just winking at the issue and moving on. Not sure ENTERPRISE needed to give us a "canon" explanation later.

Agreed.

 

[uniderth]

Was the alien called 'Colt' in the episode? If not, then it isn't canon. I think it was a simple error, much like the season one D-7.

If I've researched correctly their name appeared on screen in the credits.

 

[BillJ]

If I've researched correctly their name appeared on screen in the credits.

That's behind the scenes info. Doesn't count any more than "Uhuru" at the end of The Undiscovered Country.

 

[Kor]

As far as I know, the rules are still the same: what appears on screen is canon.



Was the alien called 'Colt' in the episode? If not, then it isn't canon. I think it was a simple error, much like the season one D-7.

Her name wasn't mentioned in the episode, but she was listed as Colt in the end credits.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

Certainly there are minor details that change or have errors. But which species are we to believe Yeoman Colt was?

You're the one saying it doesn't matter if it wasn't onscreen. She was only called Colt in the credits, not in dialogue.

Mainly becasue Star Trek has had a long tradition of being a fairly consistent single narrative.

No, it really, really hasn't. I've spent much of the past 45 years trying to reconcile Trek's many, many inconsistencies in my mind. They're far greater than most people pretend they are. It's just that we've gotten into the habit of rationalizing or ignoring the inconsistencies and convincing ourselves of the fiction that it's a unified whole.

And every new Trek incarnation -- the animated series, the movies, TNG, etc. -- has been met with protests by fans who insisted that it was utterly impossible to reconcile with prior Trek canon due to its huge, fundamental contradictions, only for it to end up becoming accepted as part of the greater whole that the next new incarnation was criticized for being irreconcilable with.

TBH I find this an insulting appropriation of the term "gaslighting," especially because that's not even what's going on here. You are allowed to believe whatever you want about the pretend space show.

I agree. It's deeply offensive and insensitive to equate a little confusion about a work of make-believe with the suffering of victims of domestic abuse.

 

[Nyotarules]

Unless GR became one of the 12 apostles canon is as relevant as the missing loo paper that no one ever had in the franchise

 

[USS Triumphant]

So why do we have people rejecting the long standing definition of canon in favor of the "creator intent is canon" definition, all the while acting as if it has always been this way? Has anyone else felt like the rules all of a sudden changed when people started insisting that creator intent was canon?

Well, the rule was and is that what is on screen is canon. BUT, it's pretty much always been acknowledged that what the episode writers (and Gene) intended can be taken as a sort of B-canon until screen canon shows up that contradicts it. And there's also a sort of C-canon that some of us adhere to, which is that things in the published novels are canon or at least should be honorably recognized unless contradicted on the screen. Which is why it is nice when things happen like "Nyota" being brought into screen canon. (And painful - to me - when things like the Remans are brought in and seriously contradict Diane Duane's awesome Rihannsu books.)

But ultimately, I can't complain too much. Because screen canon is primary.