Authors: Canon

[JarodRussell]

Authors: Canon / Continuity

A question to all the authors out there: are you allowed to create new "canon", your own continuity? Like ignoring a series like Enterprise, killing off original characters like Data, destroying a major planet like Vulcan or a ship like the Enterprise, creating an entirely new mirror universe like Abrams did with the new movie?

 

[Greg Cox]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

A question to all the authors out there: are you allowed to create new "canon", your own continuity? Like ignoring a series like Enterprise, killing off original characters like Data, doing what Abrams did with the new movie?

That's an easy one.

No!

 

[JD]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

Well, there are the Myriad Universe books now.

 

[Paris]

Good god! Not more "canon" questions . Don't let Christopher see this . What you have to remember is that the term "canon" really only refers to what appears on screen, not what occurs in the books or video games. Maybe the term "continuity" would be more accurate? The authors and editors at Pocket Books have been tying in almost all of the 24th Century books into a cohesive "continuity" since 2004 or so.

When it comes to destroying worlds...David Mack decimated several worlds in Destiny,

Spoiler: Destiny Spoiler

including Deneva

, a planet that was visited in TOS and has been mentioned here and there since its debut. In terms of killing off major characters; Peter David killed off

Spoiler: Spoiler for Before Dishonor

Kathryn Janeway

in 2007's Before Dishonor.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

A question to all the authors out there: are you allowed to create new "canon", your own continuity? Like ignoring a series like Enterprise, killing off original characters like Data, destroying a major planet like Vulcan or a ship like the Enterprise, creating an entirely new mirror universe like Abrams did with the new movie?

As stated, you're confusing two different concepts. The books aren't allowed to ignore anything onscreen in the sense of directly contradicting it (except in cases where it's been contradicted/superceded by other screen canon, such as "The Alternative Factor"'s take on antimatter or ST V's take on the travel time to the galactic center), but other than that, the books have reinterpreted screen events (such as the death of Trip Tucker and the events of VGR: "Fury"), killed off original characters, destroyed planets, and created new parallel timelines. However, none of that has anything to do with canon. A canon is the original, core work as distinct from derivative works. Since the books are derivative works, they are never, ever part of the canon, any more than Hawai'i or Puerto Rico is part of the continent of North America.

 

[Paris]

^What did I tell ya

 

[Rush Limborg]

(Squeezing eyes shut in frustration): Please, not another "canon" thread....

Please...not another "canon" thread....

PLEASE, NOT ANOTHER "CANON" THREAD!!!

 

[TerriO]

Mommy, he said the "C" word!



As you can probably tell, JarodRussell, that question gets asked...quite frequently, actually.

It should probably be added to the FAQ or something.

 

[Mike Farley]

I think the Star Trek books should be considered canon, just like the Star Wars books are.

*ducks*

 

[captcalhoun]

Mommy, he said the "C" word!



As you can probably tell, JarodRussell, that question gets asked...quite frequently, actually.

It should probably be added to the FAQ or something.

why? no one ever reads the FAQ...

 

[Jaron]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

any more than Hawai'i or Puerto Rico is part of the continent of North America.

They are in my personal continentinuity!

 

[Marie1]

Mommy, he said the "C" word!



As you can probably tell, JarodRussell, that question gets asked...quite frequently, actually.

It should probably be added to the FAQ or something.

why? no one ever reads the FAQ...

[Manjula] All that (work) for nothing![/Manjula]

 

[Steve Roby]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

They are in my personal continentinuity!

This post wins the thread.

 

[Elder Knight]

I'd say that you were the authority on continentinuity.

 

[JarodRussell]

Good god! Not more "canon" questions . Don't let Christopher see this . What you have to remember is that the term "canon" really only refers to what appears on screen, not what occurs in the books or video games. Maybe the term "continuity" would be more accurate? The authors and editors at Pocket Books have been tying in almost all of the 24th Century books into a cohesive "continuity" since 2004 or so.

When it comes to destroying worlds...David Mack decimated several worlds in Destiny,

Spoiler: Destiny Spoiler

including Deneva

, a planet that was visited in TOS and has been mentioned here and there since its debut. In terms of killing off major characters; Peter David killed off

Spoiler: Spoiler for Before Dishonor

Kathryn Janeway

in 2007's Before Dishonor.

Interesting. So do you have to keep her dead and the planet destroyed for your novels or can you ignore that?

 

[Therin of Andor]

So do you have to keep her dead and the planet destroyed for your novels or can you ignore that?

T'Pau and Garrovick are examples of characters who have both been killed off in TOS novels, only to be returned in later novels. The novels have to stay true to canon (live-action, as screened), not other novels or comics, but recent ENT, TNG, DS9 and VOY novels have been contributing to ongoing sagas, so departures from that status quo is more unlikely.

With TOS/TAS, the "Crucible" trilogy took some departures from the way other TOS and TNG novels had developed certain characters, but they still remained true to "canon'.

 

[Christopher]

Interesting. So do you have to keep her dead and the planet destroyed for your novels or can you ignore that?

There's no "have to" involved. The only thing the books have to do is stay consistent with onscreen Trek. Beyond that, it's at the discretion of the editors and authors. There is an overall book continuity that's evolved over the past decade, and any book that's meant to be part of that continuity would naturally try to remain consistent with it (although there are occasional glitches that slip through the cracks). But adherence to that continuity is not mandatory and there are books that stand apart from it -- such as the Crucible trilogy, which tied in to ST's 40th anniversary and was designed to be grounded solely in onscreen Trek so as to be more accessible for new or casual readers, and the "Shatnerverse" books by William Shatner and Judith & Garfield Reeves-Stevens, which occasionally borrow some elements from the book continuity but are incompatible with them in other ways. And there are various standalone books that neither explicitly tie into the main novel continuity nor overtly conflict with it. Indeed, if 2010's announced schedule is any indication (which it may not be), it's possible that the interconnected novels may not be dominating the book line as fully in the future as they have been for the past eight or nine years. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of a balance between interconnected books and standalone books.

And of course there are various books that are explicitly in alternate universes, including the Mirror Universe series, the Myriad Universes anthologies, and the upcoming novel line based on the continuity of the J. J. Abrams movie. Although, ironically, the Mirror Universe series crosses over directly with the main book continuity and is essentially part of it, and some of the MyrU tales share concepts with it as well.

 

[Paris]

Interesting. So do you have to keep her dead and the planet destroyed for your novels or can you ignore that?

Maybe I shouldn't have replied...i'm not actually one of the authors. Just someone who had an answer. As far as I know, when the actual authors write trek novels taking place in the prime universe and post-Destiny, then yes...

Spoiler: planet desimated in Destiny

Deneva

is uninhabitable. Also, from what i've read here and there,

Spoiler: PAD's victim

Janeway

is staying dead. That is of course until someone brings her back from the dead .

 

[TheAlmanac]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

Since the books are derivative works, they are never, ever part of the canon, any more than Hawai'i or Puerto Rico is part of the continent of North America.

It's interesting that you should use that particular analogy, since even professional geographers disagree on what constitutes a continent...

Culturally or politically speaking, Hawai'i is usually considered "more" a part of North America because it's a state, even though it's in the middle of the Pacific, but Puerto Rico is still politically affiliated with the same country on that continent--just in a different way.

Geologically speaking, neither of them can claim to be part of the continent of North America, but eastern Russia can--and yet no one ever thinks of it that way.

In other words, that definition is not as rock-solid as you make it out to be.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Authors: Canon / Continuity

^That's exactly my point. Hawai'i is still a physically separate entity from North America even though it has a political connection to a nation located in North America. The political connection does not create a physical connection, and the two identities should not be confused. By the same token, if a Trek novel and the onscreen canon share continuity, that still doesn't mean the novel is part of canon, because canon and continuity are two separate things that should not be confused. There are multiple ways of defining identity, and canon is only one very limited concept that people tend to mistakenly equate with other forms of identity.