According to IDW, their comics are canon?

[Christopher]

I'm from the generation where things like novels, comic books, FASA roleplaying games, Star Fleet Battles, the Franz Joseph tech manual, and other miscellaneous books, games, publications, etc. were all considered 'canon' between TOS/the TOS films and the TNG era of the '80's, simply because there was nothing else going on in that intervening time.

I never heard anyone use the word "canon" in those days. There was no perception that a story needed a specific label applied to it to define it as valid, or that we needed anyone's official authorization before we were permitted to read or enjoy a story, or that there was some objectively "correct" version of the universe that we had to conform to. There were just stories, and we made our own individual choices about which ones we wanted to "count."

After all, there's no reason to use the word "canon" at all if you assume everything counts. The only purpose for the word is to define what counts in opposition to what doesn't. It's like how nobody called the Great War "World War One" until there was a "World War Two" to differentiate it from.

And there was also nobody in charge telling people that it wasn't 'canon.'

There never really has been. Roddenberry and Arnold asserted that authority in the '89 memo, but they had no actual power to make it stick, beyond telling the tie-ins they couldn't reference TAS.

After all, the original work being the canon and tie-ins not being the canon is the default. That's just what the words intrinsically mean, so nobody has to declare it. The only times it's even an issue are those rare exceptions (admittedly less rare these days) where the tie-ins are regarded as canonical (usually because they're from the original creators and the main series is no longer in production to contradict them). The rest of the time, it should go without saying.

But the unfortunate truth is that as of now, and for some time, CBS/Paramount calls the shots as to what's canon or not. But that doesn't mean that you can't buy a novel or a comic and appreciate it for what it is (or not appreciate it if it's a piece of crap.)

Again: "Canon" is not a seal of approval. It's not an official label. It's just a descriptive shorthand for the original body of work as distinct from its imitations by outside creators. So nobody has to "call the shots." The stuff from CBS/Paramount is the canon for the same reason that the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels by Arthur Conan Doyle are the canon: because it's the original set of works and that's simply what the word means.

And it's not "unfortunate," because canon is not a value judgment. It is all equally make-believe. As long as you enjoy a story, it doesn't matter if it fits with other stories. It's just different, and different is not wrong.

 

[Orphalesion]

but they would say that they shouldn't have to read a tie-in (or spend extra money) to understand a movie.

But that's true! A work of media shouldn't need supplement material. If anything it should just be an extra for people who really, really want some more.

Plus, at the very least in the past until very recently, tie-ins weren't always as readily available in many places in the world, especially not untranslated.

Plus wasn't the TMP novelization the one that says most of humanity floats around as naked telepaths in "mass-minds" and stuff like that? Which is really contradicted by later Star Trek shows.

 

[Dukhat]

I never heard anyone use the word "canon" in those days. There was no perception that a story needed a specific label applied to it to define it as valid, or that we needed anyone's official authorization before we were permitted to read or enjoy a story, or that there was some objectively "correct" version of the universe that we had to conform to. There were just stories, and we made our own individual choices about which ones we wanted to "count."

After all, there's no reason to use the word "canon" at all if you assume everything counts. The only purpose for the word is to define what counts in opposition to what doesn't. It's like how nobody called the Great War "World War One" until there was a "World War Two" to differentiate it from.




There never really has been. Roddenberry and Arnold asserted that authority in the '89 memo, but they had no actual power to make it stick, beyond telling the tie-ins they couldn't reference TAS.

After all, the original work being the canon and tie-ins not being the canon is the default. That's just what the words intrinsically mean, so nobody has to declare it. The only times it's even an issue are those rare exceptions (admittedly less rare these days) where the tie-ins are regarded as canonical (usually because they're from the original creators and the main series is no longer in production to contradict them). The rest of the time, it should go without saying.




Again: "Canon" is not a seal of approval. It's not an official label. It's just a descriptive shorthand for the original body of work as distinct from its imitations by outside creators. So nobody has to "call the shots." The stuff from CBS/Paramount is the canon for the same reason that the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels by Arthur Conan Doyle are the canon: because it's the original set of works and that's simply what the word means.

And it's not "unfortunate," because canon is not a value judgment. It is all equally make-believe. As long as you enjoy a story, it doesn't matter if it fits with other stories. It's just different, and different is not wrong.

I know nobody was using the word ‘canon’ back then. That’s why I put it in quotes.

 

[fireproof78]

Long before that memo, I had many frustrating discussions with people in 1980 and beyond. They had urgent questions about TMP, which could be filled in and satisfied by the novelization (or even the comic adaptation) but they would say that they shouldn't have to read a tie-in (or spend extra money) to understand a movie. The Canon Debate of the 90s just gave them a formal reason to reject all tie-ins.

I think if someone rejects all tie-in's then that's missing the point of tie-in materials.

 

[Christopher]

But that's true! A work of media shouldn't need supplement material. If anything it should just be an extra for people who really, really want some more.

Well, as with most things in life, it isn't black-and-white. The ideal is for a movie or show to be sufficiently enjoyable on its own, but supplemental materials can enhance that enjoyment by providing more depth and perspective. And yes, sometimes something might not be sufficiently clear to the viewer in the original work, because we all experience things differently and something that's clear to one viewer might confuse another. In that case, novelizations or behind-the-scenes articles can help enhance understanding by offering a different perspective.

Plus wasn't the TMP novelization the one that says most of humanity floats around as naked telepaths in "mass-minds" and stuff like that? Which is really contradicted by later Star Trek shows.

Not at all. "Admiral Kirk's Preface" at the start of the book refers to an increasing number of "new humans" who were "willing to submerge their identities into the groups to which they belong." But that "group consciousness" wasn't described as telepathy, merely as a choice to define identity collectively rather than individually. The interpretation of the new humans as telepathic was a choice made by later novelists, specifically Sondra Marshak & Myrna Culbreath in Triangle and (independently) myself in The Higher Frontier. And only Triangle portrayed them as having a literal hive consciousness.

As for the "naked" part, maybe you're thinking of the first-draft script for "In Thy Image," the TV pilot that evolved into TMP, which described a group of San Francisco civilians including some "brief and tasteful adult nakedness" to show that future humans had outgrown shame in their bodies.

I think if someone rejects all tie-in's then that's missing the point of tie-in materials.

Well, the point of them is to be an optional supplement. If people aren't interested in them, that's their choice. But that doesn't mean they need to be "rejected" either, because there's no point making value judgments about entirely imaginary creations.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, the point of them is to be an optional supplement. If people aren't interested in them, that's their choice. But that doesn't mean they need to be "rejected" either, because there's no point making value judgments about entirely imaginary creations.

Yes, if the not engaging is due to disinterest, not just rejecting it because it doesn't have the canonical stamp.

 

[Orphalesion]

Well, as with most things in life, it isn't black-and-white. The ideal is for a movie or show to be sufficiently enjoyable on its own, but supplemental materials can enhance that enjoyment by providing more depth and perspective. And yes, sometimes something might not be sufficiently clear to the viewer in the original work, because we all experience things differently and something that's clear to one viewer might confuse another. In that case, novelizations or behind-the-scenes articles can help enhance understanding by offering a different perspective.

I know I should know better than to get in a discussion with you.
But...doesn't that kinda full under the "something extra for people who want more" I mentioned.

Not at all. "Admiral Kirk's Preface" at the start of the book refers to an increasing number of "new humans" who were "willing to submerge their identities into the groups to which they belong." But that "group consciousness" wasn't described as telepathy, merely as a choice to define identity collectively rather than individually. The interpretation of the new humans as telepathic was a choice made by later novelists, specifically Sondra Marshak & Myrna Culbreath in Triangle and (independently) myself in The Higher Frontier. And only Triangle portrayed them as having a literal hive consciousness.

As for the "naked" part, maybe you're thinking of the first-draft script for "In Thy Image," the TV pilot that evolved into TMP, which described a group of San Francisco civilians including some "brief and tasteful adult nakedness" to show that future humans had outgrown shame in their bodies.

Thanks for the explanation here, having never read it myself, I must have confused a few of the things others told me about it. Which really points to the problem of using expanded universe material in discussions.

Well, the point of them is to be an optional supplement. If people aren't interested in them, that's their choice. But that doesn't mean they need to be "rejected" either, because there's no point making value judgments about entirely imaginary creations.

But then, for the sake of levelling the field in a discussion about Trek, does it not make sense to exclude the "optional" parts? That's the mean reason I do it. And as I said, those optional parts might not always be readily available for everyone.

 

[fireproof78]

But then, for the sake of levelling the field in a discussion about Trek, does it not make sense to exclude the "optional" parts? That's the mean reason I do it. And as I said, those optional parts might not always be readily available for everyone.

This is often why i struggle with debating lore in terms of books and other materials with Trek fans. More often than not those discussions hinge upon key data points that I have no familiarity with nor do I know the context of yet are treated as critical or drawing comparisons with past works that are not necessarily there.

 

[BillJ]

But then, for the sake of levelling the field in a discussion about Trek, does it not make sense to exclude the "optional" parts? That's the mean reason I do it. And as I said, those optional parts might not always be readily available for everyone.

As the franchise continues to grow, there are simply more and more people who aren’t going to be familiar with it all. The CBS stuff also isn’t readily available for everyone as much of it is now behind a paywall.

 

[Orphalesion]

As the franchise continues to grow, there are simply more and more people who aren’t going to be familiar with it all. The CBS stuff also isn’t readily available for everyone as much of it is now behind a paywall.

But through streaming all of it is still available to people, easier than ever, really.
The same cannot be said for some out-of-print novel or comic from the mid-80s that might not have been translated into every language the shows are available in.

 

[BillJ]

But through streaming all of it is rstill available to people.
The same cannot be said for some out-of-print novel or comic from the mid-80s that might not have been translated into every language.

Not seen too many people use 70’s/80’s comics or novels as data points in arguments. Most of the time when they are brought up, it is material that is much closer to now.

 

[Christopher]

But then, for the sake of levelling the field in a discussion about Trek, does it not make sense to exclude the "optional" parts? That's the mean reason I do it. And as I said, those optional parts might not always be readily available for everyone.

What do you mean by "leveling the field," though? It's not a competition. You don't lose anything if you don't recognize a reference. It's just recreation. There's nothing at stake.

And nobody knows everything about any field. In any conversation you have with other people, you're going to hear references you don't recognize. It happens to me all the time, like when people mention popular music or sports. Even within a given field, few of us have thoroughgoing knowledge -- for instance, I know a lot about Spider-Man comics up to about a decade ago, but I'm not current on the more recent stuff, and there are plenty of other Marvel comics I have little familiarity with.

But the cool thing is, if you don't understand what someone mentions, you can just ask, and they'll tell you, like with your question about the TMP novelization just now. It's not a serious problem if you don't know something, because all you have to do is ask and find out.

 

[Orphalesion]

What do you mean by "leveling the field," though? It's not a competition. You don't lose anything if you don't recognize a reference. It's just recreation. There's nothing at stake.

Of course it's not a competition. But if a conversation requires in-debt knowledge about supposedly "optional" parts of the franchise, then it gets exclusive. That's what I meant by levelling the field.
Also what is the problem with restricting general discussion tot he core of the franchise (shows and movies)? I mean there is a novel forum where, I assume, everything from the expanded universe is treated as gospel and the people there are probably knowledgeable about it.
Also you have in the past screamed at me for "daring" to not know things form your novels, and that's not very inviting to discussion.

But the cool thing is, if you don't understand what someone mentions, you can just ask, and they'll tell you, like with your question about the TMP novelization just now. It's not a serious problem if you don't know something, because all you have to do is ask and find out.

True, but not everybody gives information as readily as that, I have been told here on this board to "just read it" in the past. Plus it can get pretty tedious if somebody has to ask about things every couple of messages and then hope that somebody will explain.

 

[Christopher]

Of course it's not a competition. But if a conversation requires in-debt knowledge about supposedly "optional" parts of the franchise, then it gets exclusive. That's what I meant by levelling the field.
Also what is the problem with restricting general discussion tot he core of the franchise (shows and movies)?

You're contradicting yourself massively. In one sentence you object to things being exclusive, and in the next you propose "restricting" what people are allowed to talk about. What you're really saying is that you want things to be exclusive in your favor instead of other people's, and that's just selfish.

The only place you get to "restrict" other people's conversation is on your own Facebook or Twitter page or your own blog. That space is yours and you can decide what's discussed there. But this is a public forum, an open space for everyone. No one person gets to dictate what other people are allowed to talk about.

If other people are talking about something you don't follow, that's their right. You're not required to be a part of it. You won't be tested on it afterward. It's just friendly conversation, or it's supposed to be. So it doesn't matter if you don't follow it. Just ask, or find another conversation you're more comfortable with. This is a large forum, with a lot of different things being discussed. There should be room for everyone.

I mean there is a novel forum where, I assume, everything from the expanded universe is treated as gospel and the people there are probably knowledgeable about it.

You assume wrongly. There is no "gospel" except the screen canon. There is no "expanded universe" in Star Trek. There has never been an effort to keep every tie-in in mutual continuity. There have been some "local" continuities, such as various comic book series, the post-2000 novel continuity (which included most but not all of the novels), and Star Trek Online, but they have only been consistent within themselves while contradicting one another. They're simply alternate conjectural interpretations of what might have happened beyond screen canon. I like to say that if canon is history, tie-ins are historical fiction.

Also you have in the past screamed at me for "daring" to not know things form your novels, and that's not very inviting to discussion.

I recall no such instances, and that doesn't sound remotely like me. I don't expect everyone to be familiar with my novels; I'm aware that tie-in literature is typically read by no more than 1-2 percent of the TV/film audience. I mean, I wish most of the shows' viewers would buy and read my novels, because then I would've earned out my advances and be making pretty good royalties by now. But my royalty statements tell me clearly that the percentage is far, far smaller than that.

Plus it can get pretty tedious if somebody has to ask about things every couple of messages and then hope that somebody will explain.

But that's the whole point of conversation, isn't it? To learn things from other people?

 

[Greg Cox]

It's perhaps worth noting that "canon" is not a legal concept either, nor ever part of any contract or licensing agreement I've seen in all my years in the media tie-in business.

As much as the internet obsesses over "canon," I can testify that the topic never comes up when I'm negotiating a licensing deal with a studio or trying to get a cover or outline approved by the Powers That Be. It's simply not an issue in the real world.

Indeed, the very idea of lawyers haggling over whether the books will be "canon" or not makes me giggle. There is no "canon" clause in tie-in contracts.

 

[Christopher]

As much as the internet obsesses over "canon," I can testify that the topic never comes up when I'm negotiating a licensing deal with a studio or trying to get a cover or outline approved by the Powers That Be. It's simply not an issue in the real world.

Naturally. "Canon" is just a word for the collective body of stories from the original creators. They don't have to declare that their work is the canon, any more than I have to say "I am five foot ten" in order to be five foot ten. The word is descriptive, not causative.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But that's true! A work of media shouldn't need supplement material. If anything it should just be an extra for people who really, really want some more.

My point is, these fans would say they wanted to know more, but were refusing to buy or read it.

Plus, at the very least in the past until very recently, tie-ins weren't always as readily available in many places in the world, especially not untranslated.

I am in Australia, so the fans I met were Australian. We had a local printing of the novelization of TMP - with captioned colour photos in the middle. I found mine at the checkout of my local supermarket.

Plus wasn't the TMP novelization the one that says most of humanity floats around as naked telepaths in "mass-minds" and stuff like that?

Umm, no. Will Decker's mother was a supposedly member of the New Human Movement. Definitely not "most of humanity".

Which is really contradicted by later Star Trek shows.

Numerous episodes of various later Treks mentioned concepts such as hive minds, beings going beyond the need for physical bodies, and the possible futures of evolving humanity.

True, but not everybody gives information as readily as that, I have been told here on this board to "just read it" in the past. Plus it can get pretty tedious if somebody has to ask about things every couple of messages and then hope that somebody will explain.

I never told them "just read it". I would try to convey that I, personally, had a great time reading the novelization (actually, of all of the Trek movies) and that it answered many questions I had had. But I also wanted them to have a similar experience, so instead of me attempting to explain everything off the top of my head, over and over, why not urge them to read it for themselves? Except they would refuse.

 

[BillJ]

Numerous episodes of various later Treks mentioned concepts such as hive minds, beings going beyond the need for physical bodies, and the possible futures of evolving humanity.

Wasn't the episode "Transfigurations" from TNG season three exactly about that. A race evolving from from physical to energy beings?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Canon to right of them,
Canon to left of them,
Canon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with photon torpedo and phasers,
Boldly they trekked,
Into the jaws of pendantry,
Into the mouth of TrekBBS
Rode the six hundred Trekkies.

 

[Dukhat]

Canon to right of them,
Canon to left of them,
Canon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with photon torpedo and phasers,
Boldly they trekked,
Into the jaws of pendantry,
Into the mouth of TrekBBS
Rode the six hundred Trekkies.

You’re a poet and don’t know it.