Could books Ever become Canon?

[Steve Roby]

I linked a while back to George Lucas's quotes on Star Wars canon. Let me try to make things more clear here.

I think the problem, ultimately, is that Trek has never had a system for integrating those two sets of materials together. Star Wars, B5 and other franchises have done so, but Trek likely can't. They've made the choice to acknowledge one set over the other, and in doing so have cemented that separation into the mindset of many fans.

I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions. (from Starlog by way of wikipedia)

 

[CuttingEdge100]

any one who asks this should automatically get banned.

That's a little overkill. I mean, most people who ask this would be brand new to the board and not know it was wrong to ask this question.

So they'd ask and be summarily banned? That sounds kind of unfair.

At one point Gene Roddenbury was saying that parts of TOS weren't canon and that anything from TNG that contradicted TOS was 'real'.

Really? Can you give me some examples?


CuttingEdge100

 

[Sci]

The Trek books, videogames, comics, etc, IMO should never be made canon.
If you legitimise all that stuff,

Um, they were all written under license from and with the approval of CBS/Paramount, Trek's owners. They're already legitimized.

it may create a mess like the Matrix sequels, where you were REQUIRED to play the game and watch the cartoon to make sense of the live-action movie's story.

Naaaah. The writers of the TV shows/movies would never have the time to keep up with all the books to do that.

Besides, I never played the game or saw the caroon before I saw The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, and they made perfect sense to me.

 

[Smiley]

Here's my rundown of the difference between SW and ST canon policies.

SW: Everything from every medium happened, unless it contradicts something from a higher level of canon. In case of contradiction, only the offending events are thrown out, not the entire story. The prequels and Clone Wars TV shows have contradicted some prior novels, comics, and games, but most of it holds together quite well.

ST: Everything in the live-action series and movies happened. Events in other media, including TAS, might have happened, providing that they remain consistent with all of the canon.

Both systems work just fine, and I am a fan of both universes and their tie-ins. It's all fiction, anyway, so from the fan perspective, a given story is as real as you want it to be, and no studio pronouncement should affect your enjoyment of the products. Trek has the ultimate "have it your way" system since "Parallels" established a multiverse. Anything that is contradicted by new canon can still have happened, just in an alternate universe or timeline.

I think what some people who want Trek books to be declared canon are really seeking is reassurance that the books they like will not be contradicted by future canon productions. Logistically, that just cannot happen in a franchise with decades of history. It's a bummer if a favorite series has to change to adhere to new canon material, but it's also great fun to see the authors do something wonderful to make it all work.

 

[Steve Roby]

Here's my rundown of the difference between SW and ST canon policies.

I think we're on the verge of getting meta here. Is George Lucas talking about canon a canonical source on Star Wars canon? I don't see a whole lot of nuance to parse in "like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one."

Could just be that I'm on everyone's ignore lists, I suppose...

 

[Smiley]

You're not on ignore, Steve. I just give no credence to George Lucas' interview or press statements. He's changed his mind too many times (how many films again?) for me to take him seriously about things like canon and continuity. I go by the new material itself and any policy declared by a Lucas company rep like Leland Chee or Sue Rostoni.

 

[Steve Roby]

I just give no credence to George Lucas' interview or press statements. [...] I go by the new material itself and any policy declared by a Lucas company rep like Leland Chee or Sue Rostoni.

Hmm... interesting approach. It makes more sense to me to give the creator of the whole enchilada the final word, though.

Meanwhile, in other news, a moderator of this forum was witnessed recently moving a topic about Trek books to TrekLit. So there are moderators here; I was beginning to wonder. How many posts will go by in this topic before a moderator notices it should be in TrekLit?

 

[StolenThunder]

I don't think it really needs moving now - the discussion hasn't really been stilted by the forum and it, I suppose, does have some wider Trek significance to justify its presence here.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ That's a shame. It's been at least five or ten minutes since we had a good "are books canon?" debate in TrekLit, and some folks are starting to show withdrawal symptoms.

 

[StolenThunder]

I figured it might not be an unusual topic there.

 

[Sci]

Something to think about....

1. There's a difference between "continuity" and "canon." "Canon" just refers to the original body of work upon which derivative works are based; "continuity" refers to the shared, consistent history of the body of work. Shakespeare had a canon but little continuity between his plays, for instance. "Year of Hell" is part of the canon, but not in continuity with the rest of the ST canon.

2. Novels are required to conform to the continuity in the canon as it exists at the time of publication, but future entries in the canon can establish information that contradicts the novels at will.

3. In theory, the continuity of the canon is supposed to be consistent, but, in reality, future entries in the canon can establish information that contradicts previous entries in the canon at will.

4. Ergo, the only real difference between the novels and the canon is that when a canonical entry has been contradicted, we the viewers still pretend that it hasn't been and that it all fits into one continuity, but we don't pretend the same to be true of novels that have been contradicted.

 

[Braxton]

I don't think it would be logical to claim that all Star Trek books are canon and I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that ALL of them should be part of canon. I think there's a consensus that the books as of late should be considered canon because they have been written so well and have been following a coherent timeline and references are shared among them.

 

[Therin of Andor]

because they have been written so well

You and I might think so, but not everyone agrees.

Pocket probably sold more copies of "The Prometheus Design" than recent titles, and some fans wish that the tie-in novels could return to the so-called "glory days of the 80s" - slim spines and short word counts - or even to the post-memo late 80s, fondly referred to as "the Arnold years".

and have been following a coherent timeline and references are shared among them.

Sure, but inconsistencies still creep in. Just as Nurse Ogawa's child! Or Sariel Rager.

 

[Steve Roby]

I don't think it would be logical to claim that all Star Trek books are canon

Can't argue with that.

and I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that ALL of them should be part of canon.

True enough.

I think there's a consensus that the books as of late should be considered canon because they have been written so well

Quality and canon status are not linked. Otherwise Voyager and Enterprise would have been better than any of the novels, and that's not a case I'd be willing to make.

and have been following a coherent timeline and references are shared among them.

That's continuity, not canon.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^ That's a shame. It's been at least five or ten minutes since we had a good "are books canon?" debate in TrekLit, and some folks are starting to show withdrawal symptoms.

I think I didn't move it originally because I figured people were sick of hearing it in there. Not the best excuse, but since canon discussion can count more than the books, I figured there was no harm leaving it here

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think I didn't move it originally because I figured people were sick of hearing it in there. Not the best excuse, but since canon discussion can count more than the books, I figured there was no harm leaving it here

Sometimes things get moved too quickly anyway.

Had you moved this after the first few posts, people in TrekLit would likely not notice it was a moved post and berate the person for not browsing the other Lit threads first when, in fact, the original poster might not even know there was a Lit section.

 

[dispatcher812]

I did know about the Lit section and for the life of me don't know why I put it here. Again, my apologies. But thanks for all the great responses. I like what some people have said, it all depends on what the individual person feels as to weather or not THEY feel its canon or not.

 

[Sci]

I did know about the Lit section and for the life of me don't know why I put it here. Again, my apologies. But thanks for all the great responses. I like what some people have said, it all depends on what the individual person feels as to weather or not THEY feel its canon or not.

No, it doesn't. Canon is a matter of objective fact -- it is whatever the owners of Star Trek say it is. CBS and Paramount say that Trek canon consists of the live-action TV series and films. Period.

But, as far as continuity, well, yeah, it's all a matter of what you choose to accept into your personal continuity.

 

[dispatcher812]

Sci,

Ok continuity is a better way of looking at it.