Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
I know there is some debate going on right know in a previous thread about whether or not books are canon. Could it be possiable that since CBS now owns the rights to Trek and the recent books are also puplished by CBS, that they could be considered canon?
I know there is some debate going on right know in a previous thread about whether or not books are canon. Could it be possiable that since CBS now owns the rights to Trek and the recent books are also puplished by CBS, that they could be considered canon?
The books aren't canon by definition. If canon were redefined, anything is possible. "Mork and Mindy" could become Trek canon, or "Love Boat."
But since many of the books contradict the show or one another and there may even be too many adventures to fit in the lifetimes of the characters and so forth, this will never happen. I for one am relieved I don't have to face the prospect of anyone taking some of those Kirk novels seriously...I'm thinking of the one where he flies to the Delta Quadrant, punches out Picard and then pulls a lever that blows up the Borg homeworld.
Only when books offer background information that would have served for a resource for the series might they even touch on that realm. I'm thinking of the Technical Manuals here. It is best to say they can reliably inform our understanding of the Trek canon without officially being a part of it.
I know there is some debate going on right know in a previous thread about whether or not books are canon. Could it be possiable that since CBS now owns the rights to Trek and the recent books are also puplished by CBS, that they could be considered canon?
What difference would declaring certain books "canon" make? CBS and Paramount own every character and situation created for the licensed tie-ins, and are free to cherrypick from the books, comics, TAS and the RPGs whenever and however they like, with no need to further compensate the authors.
And they already have, with ship names and registry numbers (from the "ST Starfleet Technical Manual") in TMP, references to T for Tiberius (from TAS) and Hikaru's name (from "T?he Entropy Effect") in ST VI, Kor's ship (from TAS) in DS9, Janeway's backstory (from "Mosaic") in VOY, and Andorian climate, weaponry and rituals (from an RPG manual) in ENT. Thus, non canonical elements can end up being canonized.
It's the licensed tie-ins that are expected to adhere to canon (ie. live action, as screened, ST), not the TV series, movies nor even the fans.
The books are read by less than ten percent of the people who attend movie screenings of ST. Why declare something so obscure as canon, and then force all future licensed tie-ins to adhere to it?
They are not canon at the moment. It is possible that they might be considered canon at some point, but I can see that opening a can of worms (since there are issues of consistancy both between the books and the show and the books and each other).
Personally, when there's a grey area where it's unclear what the case is and there's something in a novel or technical manual that can help shed some light on it, it's nice to reference them. But I always keep in mind that they're basically hypothesizing on the issue just like we are (they just write a cool story at the same time).
I can understand earlier books not being considered. But all the recent stuff for example, post Nemesis, seem to be more consistent in its references that it may be possiable.
Thanks for the link, that was a really, truly entertaining read!
However, I think it's important to point out (as mentioned in the primer) with the hundreds of hours of Trek available, plenty of on screen stuff isn't even regarded as canon.
Star Trek V is said to be out of canon (Roddenbery's idea??) and there's plenty of debate on these forums on other instances. The future scenes from TNG's All Good Things, which I consider canon, other's don't. They regard Q's future as self contained, and not a natural extension of the course of time. And then there is the in-holodeck version of ENT's These Are The Voyages. There's always a thread or two on this forum bickering about the events of that episode. Not sure if there's any DS9 or VOY episodes that cast doubt, but I remember Voyager being very time travel heavy...
Ultimately my point is each fan may think slightly differently when it comes to what they consider fact in the Star Trek universe. Like in TOS when details were often contradicted. Sometimes it's best to ignore it and overlook it. It's a TV show, not the work of God. But a personal belief could help you gain more enjoyment from the show.
Case in point:
The events of TATV shows Trip dying explicitly. However, as it was a holodeck program set years in the future, (and a pretty stupid death, perhaps worse than Tasha Yar's) the events of the novel The Good That Men do help validate the argument that Trip survived the event and history recorded it incorrectly to allow Trip to infiltrate Romulus.
Now this book is no where near canon, but if it allows me to enjoy TATV more, who's going to stop me? Trek can be like the interpretation of a poem.
To quote Doc. Emmett Brown, "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally."
Picard took the experiences from Q's time tripping back with him to the present. That has nothing to do with the fabric of time changing and the destruction of the ENT D. I know, there were plenty of differences. Troi was dead. Worf became a governor. Beverly married and divorced Picard, Data was still alive, etc. But the natural progression seemed to work as well. Geordi could see. The uniforms changed, as they always do in the future of Starfleet.
Look at BTTF series for example. Marty avoided the car accident with Needles at the end of part III, changing the way the future in 2015 would become. Marty would supposedly be "a rich rock star" as he had intended, Marlene and Marty Jr would not have gone to jail. The fax changed, Therin of Andor. What does that mean? Your future is whatever you make it.
So... does that make the events from the future in BTTF non-canon? Because if it does, that means all time travel movies no longer have any impact whatsoever.
Thanks for the link, that was a really, truly entertaining read!
However, I think it's important to point out (as mentioned in the primer) with the hundreds of hours of Trek available, plenty of on screen stuff isn't even regarded as canon.
Star Trek V is said to be out of canon (Roddenbery's idea??) and there's plenty of debate on these forums on other instances. The future scenes from TNG's All Good Things, which I consider canon, other's don't. They regard Q's future as self contained, and not a natural extension of the course of time. And then there is the in-holodeck version of ENT's These Are The Voyages. There's always a thread or two on this forum bickering about the events of that episode. Not sure if there's any DS9 or VOY episodes that cast doubt, but I remember Voyager being very time travel heavy...
Ultimately my point is each fan may think slightly differently when it comes to what they consider fact in the Star Trek universe. Like in TOS when details were often contradicted. Sometimes it's best to ignore it and overlook it. It's a TV show, not the work of God. But a personal belief could help you gain more enjoyment from the show.
Case in point:
The events of TATV shows Trip dying explicitly. However, as it was a holodeck program set years in the future, (and a pretty stupid death, perhaps worse than Tasha Yar's) the events of the novel The Good That Men do help validate the argument that Trip survived the event and history recorded it incorrectly to allow Trip to infiltrate Romulus.
Now this book is no where near canon, but if it allows me to enjoy TATV more, who's going to stop me? Trek can be like the interpretation of a poem.
But its true, everyone likes and hates different parts of both the tv, movies, and books. There is at least one thing everyone has that they'd change.
Thats got to be where are imaginations kick in.
Making something canon changes very little, if anything.
I can understand earlier books not being considered. But all the recent stuff for example, post Nemesis, seem to be more consistent in its references that it may be possiable.
Post-Nemesis books would be the only books that they could say were canon, especially if the 24th century is not going to be seen again on tv or the big screen.
Honestly what difference does it make? The books being canon or not really only make a difference when it comes to what you can cite as evidence in arguments on boards like this.
We have the Trek Lit board for those of us who like to consider some of the books as having 'really happened'.
I think the desire is that it would (not that movie/tv continuity doesn't contradict itself on occasion) then be established so that it would appear in any movies/shows that happened during that period... I guess there are some things/characters people want to see?
The trek lit board is at times a good place to discuss things... I like it there, usually.
The fax changed, Therin of Andor. What does that mean? Your future is whatever you make it.
So... does that make the events from the future in BTTF non-canon?
As a possible future, of course "All Good Things..." was "canon", in that it was live action and onscreen, but it's also since been disproven as our ST's future by the events of "Generations" and "Nemesis".
No licensed tie-in or future ST production must adhere to the futuristic events shown in "All Good Things..." Instead they follow the movies' lead that there is an Enterprise-E, and no Data to become a professor.
Post-Nemesis books would be the only books that they could say were canon, especially if the 24th century is not going to be seen again on tv or the big screen.
And if the post-"Nemesis" books became a live-action TNG-era miniseries or movie, some aspects would likely get changed, trimmed or added to, in order to meet the budget so, even then, only the as-aired stuff would be "canon".
JANE: Is Star Trek part of Star Wars?
DICK: No.
JANE: Is Star Trek related to Star Wars in any way?
DICK: No.
JANE: Does it make sense to compare ten hours of filmed story with five or six hundred hours of filmed story?
DICK: Well, I dunno, not really.
... (cut)
The fax changed, Therin of Andor. What does that mean? Your future is whatever you make it.
So... does that make the events from the future in BTTF non-canon?
As a possible future, of course "All Good Things..." was "canon", in that it was live action and onscreen, but it's also since been disproven as our ST's future by the events of "Generations" and "Nemesis".
No licensed tie-in or future ST production must adhere to the futuristic events shown in "All Good Things..." Instead they follow the movies' lead that there is an Enterprise-E, and no Data to become a professor.
Post-Nemesis books would be the only books that they could say were canon, especially if the 24th century is not going to be seen again on tv or the big screen.
And if the post-"Nemesis" books became a live-action TNG-era miniseries or movie, some aspects would likely get changed, trimmed or added to, in order to meet the budget so, even then, only the as-aired stuff would be "canon".
If they keep the current definition of canon, yeah. CBS can change the definition of Trek canon and say all books that take place in post-Nemesis 24th century are part of Star Trek canon. Only us hardcore fans would know this of course. The chances of this happening would be very slim though. It would probably be best for a miniseries to be made that utilizes these books.
Whenever we have these discussions, someone comes in and says, "Well, I like it, so it's canonical for me!" This accomplishes nothing, except to remove meaning from the term "canon." You like your fanfic, too, but it isn't canonical...by definition.
It's sorta like this...I doubt many people would say, "I like the idea of Jesus saying this particular thing I heard somewhere, so it's in MY Bible." It doesn't take away your right to like the idea of Jesus saying any particular thing, but if someone asks if it's canonical, you say "no" because it's not in the Bible. This is not to get wrapped up in the religious stuff, as that's just an example (although the term "canon" is most frequently used in that sphere).
Anyhoo, the financial/legal hurdles alone would prevent future professional Trek productions from incorporating any significant amount of material originally published in novel format. Most fans don't understand that the creators typically can't afford to pay someone just because they like something that person made up in the past. For example, poorly informed folks who played the FASA Star Trek game are always complaining that Paramount "hates" or "overlooks" the ships that were designed for it, when in fact they just could not afford to pay the outside artist, writer, or whoever every time such an element was used.
