Are the Blish novelizations canon?

[ZapBrannigan]

Some definitely were like Arena which was only twelve pages long I recall or am I wrong? Where as others are over done in the extreme!
JB

The same thing happened in The Star Trek Concordance as the episode adaption books: TOS got short entries, and TAS got lengthy detail to a fare thee well.

 

[BillJ]

TOS got short entries, and TAS got lengthy detail to a fare thee well.

Probably because it was lesser known.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

He was the sole credited author, therefore he was the one entitled to residuals (if any). That's what credits are for -- to determine who gets paid what. Roddenberry or Fontana could've pushed for a co-writer credit on the final script, but they let Ellison get 100% of the credit and the profit (and he repaid that generosity with decades of hostility).

Yes, I get that, and I never meant to imply that Ellison didn't deserve residuals for TCOTEOF. I just find it odd/interesting that Ellison would make such a big stink about a novel quoting dialogue that he didn't write. I would've thought that that would be what mattered the most to him.

 

[ChallengerHK]

I just find it odd/interesting that Ellison would make such a big stink about a novel quoting dialogue that he didn't write. I would've thought that that would be what mattered the most to him.

Smart writer, but consistency was not one of bis bugaboos.

 

[Christopher]

Smart writer, but consistency was not one of bis bugaboos.

Nothing inconsistent about it. Writing is a job. We need to pay our bills the same as everyone else. Credit is about getting paid, not getting acknowledged. And very few of us, even big famous names like Ellison, are rolling in money.

Besides, whether a single isolated line was Ellison's or not is beside the point. The entire work was his idea. Every line in it, whether written by him or someone else, was part of the overall story that he conceived. The original characters and concepts in the story were his, and the pre-existing characters were talking about events he conceived. None of it would've existed without him, so that's why he's entitled to credit for it.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Besides, whether a single isolated line was Ellison's or not is beside the point. The entire work was his idea. Every line in it, whether written by him or someone else, was part of the overall story that he conceived. The original characters and concepts in the story were his, and the pre-existing characters were talking about events he conceived. None of it would've existed without him, so that's why he's entitled to credit for it.

There's a somewhat subtle difference at work here, or maybe a potential difference.

First, we are talking about a particular element of the episode as screened that he did not personally create.

Second, it depends on how he phrased it. If it was "I know it sucked, but I'm responsible to the overall story, and I still want my paycheck," then I'd support him entirely. If, OTOH, it was "Every bit of the greatness of that episode is due to me; adore me," then I'd said Sorry, Harlan, but no.

 

[Phaser Two]

Nothing inconsistent about it. Writing is a job. We need to pay our bills the same as everyone else. Credit is about getting paid, not getting acknowledged. And very few of us, even big famous names like Ellison, are rolling in money.

Besides, whether a single isolated line was Ellison's or not is beside the point. The entire work was his idea. Every line in it, whether written by him or someone else, was part of the overall story that he conceived. The original characters and concepts in the story were his, and the pre-existing characters were talking about events he conceived. None of it would've existed without him, so that's why he's entitled to credit for it.

I wonder if he could have figured out a remotely plausible way for the crazed McCoy to get off the ship? Whoever wrote that section of the teleplay sure didn't.

 

[Christopher]

First, we are talking about a particular element of the episode as screened that he did not personally create.

No, we are talking about his contractually guaranteed right to compensation for the use of excerpts from the episode he is credited for. That is not granular. There is no individual decision that has to be made for every line within the work. The contract applies to the entire work. As he was the sole author given screen credit for the episode, that means he'd be the one who got residuals (if any were promised in the contract) for any and all excerpts from it. The historical niceties of who wrote which line in which draft are beyond the purview of the contract and irrelevant to any question of financial compensation.

Second, it depends on how he phrased it. If it was "I know it sucked, but I'm responsible to the overall story, and I still want my paycheck," then I'd support him entirely. If, OTOH, it was "Every bit of the greatness of that episode is due to me; adore me," then I'd said Sorry, Harlan, but no.

Again: This is not about the merit of the work. Writing is a paying profession. Contracts determine who is entitled to payment for what. People don't sue each other over merit. They sue over money. Ellison sued for financial compensation he argued he was contractually entitled to. The only phrasing that matters is what the contract said.

 

[ChallengerHK]

That is not granular.

Anything can be granular, or not granular, depending on what you're trying to say about it.

Again: This is not about the merit of the work.

Merit is exactly where we're disagreeing, but not about the merit of the work or lack thereof. What I'm saying (and largely, I think, agreeing with you), is that if he was enforcing his contractual rights, then he was exactly correct. If, however, he was trying to take credit for a decision that he did not make, all contractual rights aside, if he wanted to make people think that all the greatness of that episode sprang from him, then he would be wrong. He deserved the payment and the credit (by law; this part has nothing to do with artistic merit); he did not deserve to say "It was great, and I am the sole reason why."

I am also a writer (I suspect that you are a much more successful writer). Once, long ago I had a piece radically rewritten so that it was nothing like my intent, not even in the ballpark, not even on the planet. I deserved payment, I took the (very small) check, cashed it and was happy with it. On the rare occasion where people talked to me about it, however, I never said that any part of it that was not what I wrote was mine, or cause to celebrate either the piece or my part in it.

 

[Christopher]

Merit is exactly where we're disagreeing, but not about the merit of the work or lack thereof. What I'm saying (and largely, I think, agreeing with you), is that if he was enforcing his contractual rights, then he was exactly correct. If, however, he was trying to take credit for a decision that he did not make, all contractual rights aside, if he wanted to make people think that all the greatness of that episode sprang from him, then he would be wrong. He deserved the payment and the credit (by law; this part has nothing to do with artistic merit); he did not deserve to say "It was great, and I am the sole reason why."

Well, sure -- I'm the first to agree that the final draft was far better than Ellison's. But that's a completely different conversation from the specific question of why he sued for the use of excerpts in the Crucible trilogy and the Hallmark ornament. You're blurring two distinct subjects together.

After all, Ellison spent decades complaining about what was done to his episode, but it was only in those two specific cases that he took legal action. So that legal action wasn't about his general attitude about the episode. It was specifically about the use of verbatim quotations or audio excerpts from the episode. It was a matter of contractual entitlement and financial compensation, not critical appraisal of literary merit or the creative history of the work.

 

[ChallengerHK]

You're blurring two distinct subjects together.

Agreed, and I thought that was the point of the OP's post to which we were responding, However. If your interpretation of events is correct (and you present some compelling evidence) then he was correct in his actions.

 

[Christopher]

Agreed, and I thought that was the point of the OP's post to which we were responding

The original question was, "Why wasn't Ellison suing him for ruining COTEOF as well?" I answered that in the following post -- because his reason for suing over Crucible and the ornament was specifically about their (allegedly) unauthorized use of verbatim quotes. Then JonnyQuest037 wondered why "Ellison would make such a big stink about a novel quoting dialogue that he didn't write," and I explained that, again, it was a matter of the contractual right to payment for direct excerpts from the work. Whichever question you mean, they were both easily answered by explaining what he was actually suing about.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Whichever question you mean, they were both easily answered by explaining what he was actually suing about.

Do you think that we can both agree that, without your response, the original questions could have been "Why was he bragging about creating something he didn't create?" That was the way I interpreted them, and the source of my response.

 

[Christopher]

Do you think that we can both agree that, without your response, the original questions could have been "Why was he bragging about creating something he didn't create?" That was the way I interpreted them, and the source of my response.

Then your interpretation is incorrect. Both questions were asking about Ellison's lawsuit. Why you would imagine that has anything to do with "bragging" is beyond me.

And aside from that, the question as you phrase it is predicated on a false premise. The only legitimate response to it is to explain why the premise is wrong to begin with. Regardless of the niceties of which reviser wrote which word, the original story concept was his, the first draft and many of the revised drafts were his, and none of it would have existed without him. Therefore, he was the creator of the work. Everyone else involved was refining his creation, adding to it, but it was still fundamentally his. Harvey already explained why it was unlikely that any of the rewriters would have been deemed deserving of shared credit had the episode gone to arbitration. After all, staff writers rewrite every script as a matter of course.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Then your interpretation is incorrect. Both questions were asking about Ellison's lawsuit. Why you would imagine that has anything to do with "bragging" is beyond me.

Sooo....No?

 

[Neopeius]

In the sense of continuity, no, because they clearly differed from the aired episodes they adapted. But in the broader usage of "canon" to mean the body of artistic works from a certain creator or genre that are considered essential for a thorough experience (as in, say, "the canon of English literature" or "the canon of film noir"), I'd say the Blish adaptations would certainly have been on that list of must-have books, since there wasn't that much else, and since the episodes weren't yet available on home video.

In the sense Neopeius was asking, whether concepts from the Blish collections were adopted in later canon, I think that was addressed earlier in the thread, but the main things I can think of are the 23rd-century setting (though I'd say it was The Making of Star Trek that established that definitively in fans' minds) and Vulcan being 40 Eridani.

Great answer!

 

[Neopeius]

My biggest gripe is that I felt the adaptations felt too abbreviated.

I agree. Foster's were better.

 

[Neopeius]

Nothing inconsistent about it. Writing is a job. We need to pay our bills the same as everyone else. Credit is about getting paid, not getting acknowledged. And very few of us, even big famous names like Ellison, are rolling in money.

Dammit. Maybe I picked the wrong career.

On the other hand, Harry Turtledove once told me, "If you wonder if you've made a mistake choosing to be a writer, you probably have."

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Writing is a job. We need to pay our bills the same as everyone else. Credit is about getting paid, not getting acknowledged. And very few of us, even big famous names like Ellison, are rolling in money.

I've heard that writing is a career where you can make a fortune but not a living. Stephen King reportedly has $500 million for some reason, but his novelist contemporary John Irving apparently has about one percent of that amount, which puts him only in the upper middle class.

And Irving was the absolute national rage in 1978. There were network TV commercials for his novel The World According to Garp. Not for a movie, but for a new novel just published. It remained a bestseller for years, and people who devoured that runaway hit, a lot of them sought out his other titles. And again, even a superstar like John Irving ended up with just a modest fortune, the kind of money that has to be carefully husbanded if you're going to live on it.

Meanwhile, the typical person who spends, say six months writing a book, would have made more money working at Walmart.

 

[dupersuper]

I've heard that writing is a career where you can make a fortune but not a living. Stephen King reportedly has $500 million for some reason, but his novelist contemporary John Irving apparently has about one percent of that amount, which puts him only in the upper middle class.

Wait, 5 million dollars doesn't qualify as rich any more?