That doesn't mean that the explanations offered in the books are to be ignored. I agree. Think of the books as an unofficial 'extended universe'. That is a good explanation.
While I do understand everyones fuss, many stories in books can contradict each other. So in that instance, which story does the fan follow? Or What if in the case of the book Trek book "Pathways" where what fans accepted as canon is now meanless because the show itself made some of the storys in it now non-canon. Star Wars fans for years accepted the book "Splinter of the Mind Eye" as canon, until the prequels written by Lucas made that book non-existant. Do to such things, stories about these character in books have to be ignored because as you said, they're unofficial as well as often contradictory to what the creator or writers of the offical show had in mind. Fans can accept what they choose but if Paramount rewrites it, then what fans believe in won't matter. Just like fans that don't see Kes as being bad, B&B and "Fury" shows fans don't run the franchise, only those the own the rights to the characters do. Only way to offically affect canon is to join the writers guild and write an ep. for Trek to be aired., that way it can't be contested.
Ezri II you were friendlied/cautioned for drive by trolling here. Since that hint didn't work the above comment gets you an actual warning this time. Comments to my PM inbox if anyone feels the need.
When it comes to what is "canon", the events in the books and contradictions, I think that common sense can and will rule what is acceptable or not. A common rule is that the events on the screen always "wins" over something stated in the book but that there may be some exceptions even there. If you study my season 1-3 Voyager books reviews at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Park/1964/bookreviews.html you will see that there are some odd things and contradictions there which in some cases have to be overlooked or ignored due to what happened in the TV series. For example, in one book, Janeway's fiancee is called Mark Mason while we learned later on that his name was Mark Johnson. Jere we must assume that Mark Johnson is the real name. In some early books, Kes and Neelix shared the same quarters which they didn't do in the TV series. here we must simply overlook and ignore what's stated in the books. However, we can't be such rigid fundamentalist that we totally dismiss what's written in the books, except when it's an obvious contradiction to what is stated in the series. There are some events in "Pathways" which has been contradicted by later events in the series (which in some cases is a shame because the explanations and events in "Pathways" are simply more appropriate) but that doesn't mean that the whole book should be dismissed as "non-canon" and therefore worthless. Besides that, there are contradictions in the TV series as well. According to the official Stardates (which must be regarded as "canon" as well) the events in "Investigations" took place before the events in "Lifesigns". Here we must actually dismiss the Stardates as wrong and assume correctly that the events in "Lifesigns" did take place before the events in "Investigations". When it comes to certain events, like the destruction of Kes and the Seven-Chakotay relationship, events which are loathed by many fans and possible books dealing with that, and possibly changing that too, what might be written ina book might be changed in some movie or new TV series. But let's face it: There will never be any Voyager movie, new series or any TV series at all which will deal with those things! Therefore we can assume that what's been going on in the Voyager relaunch books is the continuing story of Voyager, "canon" or not and as such it can be accepted by the fans. And to be honest, I wonder if we would have this debate if it had been Captain Kirk and the stupid destruction of that character in "Generations" we had been debating. Would there be any opposition, criticizm or references to "canon" if some book restored Kirk by stating the Kirk seen in Generations as some hologram or whatever?
They should just have left Kirk alone and never brought him in in the movie "Generations". It was just meaningless to bring him back into a timeline where he didn't belong just to kill him off. The whole scenario with him trapped in that Nexus was weird and unnecessary.
A lot of people are "rigid fundamentalist" about the books not being canon and become rather upset when books are brought up as an answer. Now personally I think of all relaunch as canon and what-happened-next and since there are probably going to be no movies to dispute this I am allowed my canon indulgences. But I know not to bring up book events as if they were canon in discussions because many are quite fundamentalist about it. And really, I sympathize because I'm the same way about the EU in Star Wars. I'm curious Lynx, did you not watch the rest of VOY once Kes was gone? I was once intensely exasperated by something that occurred in The Phantom Menace but I managed to develop an elaborate in-universe explanation for it and ended up quite happy. But I do understand the feeling of betrayal.
I did actually stop watching Voyager for two years after Kes was kicked out. But then I decided to give it another chance. So there was a shop where I lived then where it could be possible to rent video tapes and they had season 4 and 5 of Voyager. So I rented those tapes until I had caught up with the episodes on TV (note that the TV station which did air Voyager was about half a year after the US scedule). But after watching "Fury", I stopped watching Voyager for good. The only exception was "Endgame". And yes, I do have an "in-universe" explanation for the events in "Fury" as well which is rather close to the "String Theory" explanation. It's simply about the pathetic creature in "Fury" being something from a mirror or alternative universe or Suspiria in disguise. Or to quote Kes herself from a story I wrote: "“It was a being from another universe who tried to destroy the ship, not me. I would never dream to hurt anyone on this ship because you are all my friends”. Which sums up the whole thing pretty well.
Then you misunderstand greatly because it has nothing to do with being a "rigid fundamentalists". It has everything to do with accepting what is legally binding property of a business comglomerate and what is not. Accepting what is legal owned by Paramount is true and what isn't, well simply isn't. Why? Well, because if books were allowed to be canon, then I could write a book about Janeway farting and it would legally be part of Trek canon. I'm am not saying you can't accept books as your own personal view of these characters, that's what the books are for but they aren't legally recognized by Paramount. That's the point I'm trying to get across.
I am perfectly aware of what is canon, why it is canon and why the books are not canon. I was posting about my personal view of canon, which I don't hold to be correct in any way. The "rigid fundamentalist" line is Lynx's, I'm merely reusing it in response to her String Theory post. I have never brought up books as canon or lamented some point in them not being canon LOL. This is why *my* in-universe explanation for Fury has no reference to the books.
This is very sad. It makes me want to take your hand and say "come Lynx.. sit right down and let me tell you a tale.. a tale of a faithful ship.. with 7 of 9, the Doctor and a kick-ass Captain.." Then I would bring you your favorite food and drinks while you watched VOY seasons 6 and 7 in their entirety. Of course you would be tied to your chair so you couldn't escape.
I see your point when it comes to the juridical aspect of the issue and I also agree that there must be some guidelines for what has been going on in the Star Trek universe. In those cases I totally agree about your statements about "canon". I also think that there must be some continuity for Star Trek and its characters. If someone writes a book where Janeway quits Starfleet, marries Keiran MacDuff and starts a grocer shop on the Satarran homeworld, it would be totally out of character, not to mention when the next book comes out and she's still in Starfleet. The same for radically changing other characters as well. In fact, I've always reacted strongly against such violations of established "canon". But to totally dismiss the books by simply wawing them off as "non-canon" isa bit rigid, especially when those books are written and published by permission of Paramount and those who own the rights to Star Trek and its characters. Which also means that the authors of the books have to consider certain guidelines (or what's "canon" in the Star Trek universe). That also means that a book with the scenario I mentioned above with Janeway, MacDuff and the grocer store at the Satarran homeworld wouldn't be published by Simon&Schuster. What I do react to is when "canon" is used as some sort of weapon to slap the faces of those who might wish a continuation of a certain story in the books or correction of certain events which might also occur in the books. If an autor brings back Data in a realistic way which s based on the events in "Nemesis", there's no reason to dismiss such an event as long as it won't be contradicted by similar events in an upcoming movie or continuation of the TNG series, a possibility which I find very small at the moment.
Hmm...............I would prefer to be fried over a slow-burning fire for a week if I have to be tortured. Now why would I want to watch season 6 (again) and season 7 of Voyager after being insulted twice by those in charge of the show, not to mention that something important is missing in those seasons? Not to mention that I prefer to watch seasons 1-3. They are more entertaining. However, if Kes would be brought back in a for me acceptable way in some book or movie, then I might consider watching those seasons at least once, only to get a conclusion of the Voyager story.
Because you were promised your favorite food and drink? This could be an opportunity here. Personally, I'd hold out for a case of my favorite expensive champagne.
^^ In that case I would go for a big steak (which would be very good) and a barrel of Jack Daniels (which would made me very drunk and hopefully asleep when "Fury" starts).
I'm curious if the Ocampans on there homeworld were killed or enslaved by the Kazon by now. We know the Caretaker was stocking them up with 5 years worth of energy then was trying to seal all the holes at the same time the Voyager crew was trying to escape. Seems to me that the Kazon could have easily borrowed down to the ocampans once the energy shielding was depleted after a few years.
Good question. Now that Kes is all super-powerful she should go back and protect her people. She should.. become the caretaker herself.
Fortunately I do work in book publishing so I do know a little about this. While I understand everything else you say here and have to bring up the fact that Viacom/Paramount licenses the Trek name and characters out to Simon& Schluster. They honestly don't care about canon in books as much as you think and don't make the authors of the books hold to it.(as long as it isn't extreme) It's up to the authors themselves how much they want to stick to it. This is why I was saying anything written by the writers of the show can make any book non-canon. Paramount themselves don't recognize the books as "official" canon. They basically made for the fans for your continued enjoyment and merchendising profit. The books are like the Elite Force Voyager game. It's supposed to take place within the "Voyager Universe" but just outside of actual canon. If Gene Roddenberry was still alive and owned merchendising rights to Trek, then what you said will hold true because all approval of how certain characters are used in the books would have to go thru him. Much like anything in mechendising for Star Wars going forward has to be approved by George Lucas. That is why they needed his permission to kill Chewbacca in the comics. He approved it, so it's now canon. It's really all legal red tape and mumbo jumbo. However, I'm glad you have a better understanding of the point I was making.