the problem with canon

[Luther Sloan]

One of my favorite episodes is "Far Beyond the Stars". This clearly tells us that nothing is really real, anyways.

However, that said. On the other hand: that doesn't mean you can't bring out the wizard "Cough* sorry, I mean Q or local temporal anomaly card to explain the stupidity.

I mean, why do I bother to make sense of something that isn't real to begin with? Well, then why bother to believe in warp cores, or transporters, or vulcan love slave holo-suite programs, or TR-116 rifles, or jumja sticks?

Sure, a lot of you may not demand perfection in your fiction like me. And I do realize that Star Trek is riddled with flaws. And they are in fact... just that... flaws. But that doesn't mean a person can't push their imagination a little (and get those brain cells pumping as fun a little excersize) and give a rationalize explanation to explain those flaws as if they were in fact a part of the universe of Star Trek.

Oh, and yes. Any crazy rationalization on my part to explain the stupidity or flaws within the series is just fanon on my part. I do get it. I just find it funny that it bothers other people that I would come up with my own personal rational explanations within the Trek-verse. I mean, you don't have to believe what I say. You can be content to continue on in thinking the way that you do. I am not going to stand in your way. If you want to take the series for what it is and just ignore the flaws or just realize it is fictional goofs... then fine. By all means feel free to think that way.

But canonistas like myself should not be burned at the stake because we like to explain the possibility of how Chakotay might want to eat a steak in one episode even though it is was clearly shown to us (time and again) that he is a vegetarian.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity. Things don't have to be in the same continuity to be considered canon, IMO.

Personally, I think the only time continuity is a problem is when there's a desire to make some changes within that continuity. Otherwise, I think some of the best Trek stories have come out of Trek's continuity--TWOK, "Relics," "Trials and Tribble-ations," "In A Mirror Darkly"--just to name a few...

 

[RandyS]

The only canon in Star Trek is the Phase Canon mounted to the bottom of the Enterprise (Archer's).

 

[T'Girl]

Re: So, just what IS canon?

But seriously, haven't fans of Trek had to revise "canon" through the years? Didn't people around 1987 have to accept Picard as the new Enterprise captain and Archer as the Enterprise NX-01 captain-before-Kirk?

That would be more of an addition to canon than an revision.

Canon: All the live action film and TV Trek productions, including the new JJ Abrams film. Nuff said.

Yes this. Pieces of art are canon like Yesteryear, Best of Both Worlds, Balance of Terror, right along side utter shit like The Children Shall Lead, ST Eleven and Counterclock Incident .

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity. Things don't have to be in the same continuity to be considered canon, IMO.

...

There's also the problem that people sometimes confuse "canon" with "quality."

As in "That episode sucked because it violated canon."

As opposed to "The episode sucked because the characterization was flat and the dialogue was boring." (Or whatever.)

Personally, I'd rather watch a good episode that fudges the canon than a mediocre episode that fits the continuity perfectly.

 

[stj]

Aside from confusing "canon" with "continuity," and rating either more highly than it deserves, Star Trek has a canon problem that only hits really old franchises like it: It is outdated by reality. The Eugenics Wars didn't happen (Greg Cox bold and valiant attempt to redefine them notwithstanding,) and sleeper ships are not flying. Star Trek has died of old age. A soulless zombie like the new movie just prove it.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity. Things don't have to be in the same continuity to be considered canon, IMO.

...

There's also the problem that people sometimes confuse "canon" with "quality."

As in "That episode sucked because it violated canon."

As opposed to "The episode sucked because the characterization was flat and the dialogue was boring." (Or whatever.)

Personally, I'd rather watch a good episode that fudges the canon than a mediocre episode that fits the continuity perfectly.

In such instances, I think it becomes a case of how well a story is written in general, IMO. But there used to be a time when continuity wasn't really a big issue at all because there really wasn't a focus on Star Trek's past like there has been the last ten years or so...

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity. Things don't have to be in the same continuity to be considered canon, IMO.

...

There's also the problem that people sometimes confuse "canon" with "quality."

As in "That episode sucked because it violated canon."

As opposed to "The episode sucked because the characterization was flat and the dialogue was boring." (Or whatever.)

Personally, I'd rather watch a good episode that fudges the canon than a mediocre episode that fits the continuity perfectly.

Me too.

'Filling in the blanks' is fine too. Like a detective/mystery novel that doesn't give you all the details...granted, in this case, the details are usually left out or contradicted accidentally, but it's all for entertainment. So who cares?

Personally, the word bugs me more than the idea. "Canon" describes the Bible, not Star Trek. And don't even get me started on 'caNNon', if you're gonna argue about why something does or doesn't apply to or contradict something, at least know how to spell it. ONE N!

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity. Things don't have to be in the same continuity to be considered canon, IMO.

...

There's also the problem that people sometimes confuse "canon" with "quality."

As in "That episode sucked because it violated canon."

As opposed to "The episode sucked because the characterization was flat and the dialogue was boring." (Or whatever.)

Personally, I'd rather watch a good episode that fudges the canon than a mediocre episode that fits the continuity perfectly.

Me too.

'Filling in the blanks' is fine too. Like a detective/mystery novel that doesn't give you all the details...granted, in this case, the details are usually left out or contradicted accidentally, but it's all for entertainment. So who cares?

Personally, the word bugs me more than the idea. "Canon" describes the Bible, not Star Trek. And don't even get me started on 'caNNon', if you're gonna argue about why something does or doesn't apply to or contradict something, at least know how to spell it. ONE N!

To be fair, the Sherlock Holmes fans were refering to Conan Doyle's stories as the Canon long before the Trekkies started to doing it . . .

There's also the tradition of referring to the classics of Western Literature as the Canon. (Our local library system actually uses the term "Canon Literature" instead of "Classics" in its electronic filing system.)

 

[Biggshow]

Personally, the word bugs me more than the idea. "Canon" describes the Bible, not Star Trek. And don't even get me started on 'caNNon', if you're gonna argue about why something does or doesn't apply to or contradict something, at least know how to spell it. ONE N!

Well, you beat me to it. The biggest problem with canon is that it is the most consistently misspelled word in the BBS. So does that mean that "cannon" is canonical?

 

[plynch]

If a "sister" accepts the standard list of Bible books, is she cannunical?

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

^Ouch. Ouch. Never underestimate the power of a bad joke to cause physical pain...sheesh.

 

[plynch]

If there's a dance at a Trek convention, is that a canon ball?

 

[T'Girl]

Yeah, the problem with canon is that it's often confused with continuity.

There's also the problem that people sometimes confuse "canon" with "quality."

And a on going problem with people who confuse "box office receipts" with "believable Star Trek movie."

If there's a dance at a Trek convention, is that a canon ball?

What do you mean IF. I always dance at conventions.

 

[plynch]

If there's a dance at a Trek convention, is that a canon ball?

What do you mean IF. I always dance at conventions.

I've only been to very small conventions (Michigan's Upper Peninsula), so no dances. If it's a canon ball, what if someone were dressed like a character from a novel or TAS (still non canonical to Paramount)? Are they excluded? Of course Arex could only dance waltzes anyway. Be well.

 

[Greg Cox]

Personally, the word bugs me more than the idea. "Canon" describes the Bible, not Star Trek. And don't even get me started on 'caNNon', if you're gonna argue about why something does or doesn't apply to or contradict something, at least know how to spell it. ONE N!

Well, you beat me to it. The biggest problem with canon is that it is the most consistently misspelled word in the BBS.

Although "rogue" and "Khan" probably give it a run for its money . . . .

 

[plynch]

Although "rogue" and "Khan" probably give it a run for its money . . . .

I Kahnt stand it when people misspell the name of such an amazing rouge!

 

[ALF]

Any "problems" with canon are fan-created. 100%.

 

[Shatnertage]

Aside from confusing "canon" with "continuity," and rating either more highly than it deserves, Star Trek has a canon problem that only hits really old franchises like it: It is outdated by reality. The Eugenics Wars didn't happen (Greg Cox bold and valiant attempt to redefine them notwithstanding,) and sleeper ships are not flying.

True. When my wife first saw "Space Seed" and heard that Khan et al were from the 1990s, her first question was, "The Nineties? Shouldn't they wearing flannel and into grunge?"

 

[Therin of Andor]

Arex could only dance waltzes anyway

Friends of mine once worked on a filk song called "Walk Like an Edoan", to the tune of "Walk Like an Egyptian".