I'm relatively new to the vast world of TOS fandom, but I am interested in reading some of the books based on Original Series lore (one recommended was Crucible: Spock by David George), but which of the books are considered canon? Referral to another thread or list of books considered canon would be much appreciated.
Books based on TOS: What is canon?
- Thread starter Nuveena
- Start date
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2872223&postcount=8
No tie-in books or comics are "canonical".
Canon refers to the parent body of work - live-action, aired Star Trek - from which all tie-ins are then derived. The books can disagree with each other, but they can't go against the canon as existing when they are published.
Every Fan's Primer on Canon:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=729654&postcount=17
The rest of the FAQs:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2872223#post2872223
Here is a complete list of Star Trek books considered canon:
There. You get all that?
A canon, by definition, is the original body of work, as distinct from derivative works in other media or by other creators. No Star Trek novels, ever, anywhere, are canonical.
And why should that matter, as long as they're enjoyable stories? It's not like you're studying for a history exam and have to get the right answers. You're presumably reading Trek novels because you want to be entertained. So don't worry about what "fits" or not, just enjoy the stories.
There. You get all that?
A canon, by definition, is the original body of work, as distinct from derivative works in other media or by other creators. No Star Trek novels, ever, anywhere, are canonical.
And why should that matter, as long as they're enjoyable stories? It's not like you're studying for a history exam and have to get the right answers. You're presumably reading Trek novels because you want to be entertained. So don't worry about what "fits" or not, just enjoy the stories.
Well, our assumption was that you, too, would be a Star Trek fan, and that's why you are here, and why you asked.
I've always wanted to make an argument for an allowance for the technical manuals (and maybe the Klingon dictionary), but I think I'd probably burned at the stake.
^The tech manuals have been contradicted by canon when it suited the story -- for instance, the Moriarty episodes using gibberish about "holodeck matter" in place of what the TNG Tech Manual established about how holodecks work. Any source separate from the onscreen material, no matter how inside, is merely a supplement, a source of ideas which the creators of canon may use or disregard at will. Even onscreen canon sometimes gets disregarded (remember the early first season of TNG when Data used contractions all the time and had feelings?). The canon is the core, onscreen material as distinct from supplementary material in other media, but even a canon isn't defined by consistency, merely the pretense thereof.
And then again, why does it really matter if the books are canon anyway? I'm not more or less entertained when it is considered part of the canon. A.C. Crispin's Yesterday's Son is my favorite Trek book. I couldn't give a flyin' fuck whether it is canon or not.
Well, any of the words in the Klingon Dictionary that appear in the movies are canon - and the book was frequently consulted during the writing of many ST episodes, movies, books and comics! Marc Okrund updated the dictionary after its first MMPB when it was expanded as a trade paperback, and incorporated lots of new material from canon.
The Franz Joseph ST Tech Manual was a sticking point for Roddenberry, since the ST fans who liked space war movies and SF hardware latched on to stuff like Starfleet dreadnoughts, and the ships and volence in the semi-licensed "Star Fleet Battles" games. He hated it when fans suggested, at conventions, numerous ways the ST movies could be "improved" by the addition of material from FJ.
It was used for Star Trek III, V, and VI. It wasn't used on TNG, apart from Q'pla! or however it's spelled, AFAIK. In fact I've got a QVC appearance of Michael Piller from late 1992, just before DS9's premiere, where they're selling the Okrand book and talking about how it was used on the movies. "We don't use it," Piller says, but adds that he hopes the Klingon they write is similar sounding to the fans.
I couldn't tell you if the book was used for Klingon on VOY or ENT.
Of course they didn't use it, they just had the Klingons speak English all the time 
Don't be put off by the ribbing you'll get here - this is the internet after all - they are obligated to haze you a little. Enjoy as much TrekLit as you can get your hands on and decide for yourself which you wish to consider your own Trekverse. Only beware that canon and continuity and JT Kirk are sacrosanct here and discuss them only at your own and very great peril. Welcome and visit the Lit forums - very great fun and informative as well. Get your hands on a book called Voyages of Imagination for a little overview of most of TrekLit's history - I believe it only goes as far as 2003 though. Try the Vanguard books if you are itnerested in TOS era reading with an update.
A lot of Trek authors visit there a lot and after the awe wears off you'll be exhilarated I assure you! Christopher above included.
Canon shouldn't be sacrosanct. It's merely a descriptive category, the original core material as distinct from derivative works, and all the value judgments and fetishistic importance that fans ascribe to it are entirely mythical. As far as tie-ins are concerned, canon is something that all tie-ins are required to be consistent with but no tie-ins belong to, and that's all anyone needs to know. Beyond that, it isn't even an issue. All that should matter is whether you enjoy the stories.
You just got schooled by a Trek-fan and one of the best of the current crop of Trek novelists. For a good TOS (movie era) story go grab Christopher's Ex Machina, a very good follow up to ST:TMP.
Similar threads
- Poll
