• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Canonicity

I feel like Weird Al can make a parody of The Police's "Synchronicity I" with the title of this thread.

Perhaps I can give him a head start...


"Canonicity"

With one script, with one show
You will know Canonicity
Writers trance, actors dance
Fans' shared romance of Canonicity

Disconnecting principle
Linked to the visible
Totally perceptible
Nothing expressible
Science susceptible
Logic so flexible
Casually connectable
Nothing is proveable

If we share this nightmare
We can dream "WAKING MOMENTS", si
Kurros' tank will think
Founders' Great Link, Canonicity

Disconnecting principle
Linked to the visible
Totally perceptible
Nothing expressible
Science susceptible
Logic so flexible
Casually connectable
Nothing is proveable
Oh!

We know Hugh, they know Breen
Mitchell ESP, Canonicity
Betazed falls, Mr. Hohm tall
Worf admires gall, Canonicity

Disconnecting principle
Linked to the visible
Totally perceptible
Nothing expressible
Science susceptible
Logic so flexible
Casually connectable
Nothing is proveable

One/two beeps, Pike's chair wide
You're inside Canonicity
Effect precedes cause
Sub-atomic flaws
Scientific impausibility
Canonicity

Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity
Canonicity, oh!
 
The only canon that matters is in my head. Take Spock for example. In my head:

He never sang Major General with Number One in a turbolift;
He is a Vulcan-Human hybrid therefore sterile so Saavik was not impregnated by Zombie Spock on Genesis.
Romulan-Vulcan reunification failed. Sela has Spock's head mounted on a paperweight on her desk on Romulus.

I have more canon material about other characters if anyone is interested.
 
I don't know why there's this pervasive sense that anyone other than the owners of the property can declare what canon is. It's using the term incorrectly.
Because fans believe they own the property. It matters so much to them that the actual owners of the property don't know what they are doing. Those who have invested the hours and hours of reading books, or fan fiction or trivia details feel that as part of their identity and so there is this sense of ownership. With it comes a sense that the actual owners either don't care, or are evil in use of their property. Which is quite the interesting perspective in Star Trek in particular since there is this idea of embracing multiple perspectives. :vulcan:
 
I don't know why there's this pervasive sense that anyone other than the owners of the property can declare what canon is. It's using the term incorrectly.
Even the people who make Trek have used the term canon incorrectly, since they often are really talking about continuity. Otherwise, you can have things that totally aren't in continuity still be canon. But since it's easier to say or write "canon," well...
 
I don't know why there's this pervasive sense that anyone other than the owners of the property can declare what canon is. It's using the term incorrectly.
Actually, it's usually the people that come after that make up canon lists, be it religious texts, scholarly works, or works of fiction.
For example, it was the fans of Sherlock Holmes that used the term canon to describe Doyle's works, not Doyle, and they excluded even some of Doyle's own Holmesian works (like plays). Some fans even excluded stories by Doyle that occurred after Holmes and Moriarty die at the Falls.

So the idea of others besides the creators making up lists about the works and calling them canon is as old as the hills.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top