Yes. This is what the original question should have been.
Is Enterprise part of your personal canon?
- Thread starter indolover
- Start date
- Status
I am master of my own mind. If I have a personal Star Trek 'continuity' in there, isn't that canon inside my own mind?
Quibbling over semantics about this is very silly. Everyone knows what is meant by 'personal canon'. I could see it if we were talking about a religion here but nobody treats Star Trek as a religion. Do they!!!?
Quibbling over semantics about this is very silly. Everyone knows what is meant by 'personal canon'. I could see it if we were talking about a religion here but nobody treats Star Trek as a religion. Do they!!!?
Well, I don't really care about any of that - I just want to watch the characters have adventures. I've got less interest in the "Earth-Romulan War" than just about anything I can think of - it was good backstory for "Balance Of Terror" and nothing more.
Well if the characters are 'just having adventures' in the period Enterprise was deliberately set in and those adventures do not include the Romulan War, it isn't the Star Trek universe.
Sure they do. If an episode doesn't fit exactly within canon with every single episode then you hear as much moaning and whining as you'd hear if someone changed the meaning of a bunch of verses from the Bible.I am master of my own mind. If I have a personal Star Trek 'continuity' in there, isn't that canon inside my own mind?
Quibbling over semantics about this is very silly. Everyone knows what is meant by 'personal canon'. I could see it if we were talking about a religion here but nobody treats Star Trek as a religion. Do they!!!?
And that is the definiton of "personal canon" in the we've been using it on this board lately. Just think of it as an informal term and your head will hurt less..
But the words "personal" and "canon" are, by definition, mutually exclusive. It's not much different from saying "the temperature is hot and cold."
I've been hot in the same room where someone else felt cold. Temperature perception can be subjective.
Works for me. I'm not at all invested in the phrase, but I see nothing wrong with it and understand its usage. Think of it as ironic, or tongue-in-cheek.
I am master of my own mind. If I have a personal Star Trek 'continuity' in there, isn't that canon inside my own mind?
Quibbling over semantics about this is very silly. Everyone knows what is meant by 'personal canon'. I could see it if we were talking about a religion here but nobody treats Star Trek as a religion. Do they!!!?
"All power to the engines!"
Sorry, what you're saying is: "Words have whatever meaning I choose them to have at whatever particular moment I choose." You're basically arguing for the destruction of language. Wait, let's not call it language, let's call it 'books'. For the purposes of this sentence I have decided that the word 'books' is interchangeable with the word 'language'. Why? Who knows! Does it aid in communication to just change the meaning of words on the fly like this? No, actually, it's really confusing!
The word canon has a specific definition. A definition which is directly at odds with the idea that it can be something personal. The only reason the word canon was bought into existence was to define the difference between what is considered 'official' (originally in the sense of the Bible) and what was considered 'personal'. So to say 'personal canon' is an oxymoron, they are two words that can't exist together, they contradict each other. This has nothing to do with Trek or opinion or choice, it's the base structure of language, you are basically denying the function of a word, then saying it doesn't matter because words mean what you want them to mean.
This has nothing to do with the idea that fans can discount certain parts of the canon* and say they they are not part of their personal continuity. I am fine with the concept. I am not fine with the abuse of word definitions, and nor should you be.
*see how I just used the word's actual meaning, and how that meaning contributed to what I was trying to say? Diluting the definition of canon actually ruins its function as a useful word.
Good Lord!
If you want to get that picky, the word 'canon' is not applicable to a work of fiction at all - or at least not to a work that is universally acknowledged as fiction.
Star Trek is not a Holy and Absolute thing. It is not a physical thing. It is an intellectual property so there is indeed a single 'canon' which has legal supremacy as far as production of future works are concerned. The owner does have the right to use its 'canon' to accept or reject any commercial work subject to its approval.
But what is in a person's mind is sacrosanct. A person's mind is a universe unto itself. Technically, the whole concept of 'canon' in the absolute way you are using the word is nonsensical because it is unenforceable. No authority can penetrate my mind or any others. No authority can even keep me from denying known reality (as demonstrated by all the creationists). I can have what ever I want inside my mind. Since I am supreme master in there, I certainly can have my personal canon and perfectly in keeping with the definition of the word.
Absolutely.
Although I don't see why it would be important how we call it or why should I care if someone calls it canon or "personal continuity", we know what they mean, right?
I don't really care as much about things being "historically" correct, because it is fiction that was developed for a long time, it hasn't been written at once. But I would mind big gaps or mistakes.
It is easy to say, and with full right that there are some illogical things in Enterprise but when you consider that it was written last and set first, it is understandable.
I liked Enterprise, it's my favorite. It has its good, great, magnificent and less great things, maybe it was almost bad sometimes, but in my opinion rarely and still I enjoyed it.
At first it was hard to put yourself in 22nd century but after watching it a while that's exactly how it was supposed to be, things had to change in 200 - 300 yrs. Still, ST spirit was there and that's the main thing I care about.
At the end when I think about Enterprise I mostly feel the gap and the unknown it left. We should've seen more...
Although I don't see why it would be important how we call it or why should I care if someone calls it canon or "personal continuity", we know what they mean, right?
I don't really care as much about things being "historically" correct, because it is fiction that was developed for a long time, it hasn't been written at once. But I would mind big gaps or mistakes.
It is easy to say, and with full right that there are some illogical things in Enterprise but when you consider that it was written last and set first, it is understandable.
I liked Enterprise, it's my favorite. It has its good, great, magnificent and less great things, maybe it was almost bad sometimes, but in my opinion rarely and still I enjoyed it.
At first it was hard to put yourself in 22nd century but after watching it a while that's exactly how it was supposed to be, things had to change in 200 - 300 yrs. Still, ST spirit was there and that's the main thing I care about.
At the end when I think about Enterprise I mostly feel the gap and the unknown it left. We should've seen more...
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I'll say it again: some of you take this shit WAY. TOO. SERIOUSLY.
I'll say it again: Welcome to the BBS!
Outside of the Bible, which needed the word to differentiate between what was 'officially' in the Bible and what was not, the second biggest application of the word canon is to the 'Sherlock Holmes' stories, in which people would discuss and theorize the cases as though they were actual cases. This was a popular pasttime for Holmes enthusiasts. Sometimes people would mention Holmes stories that were not written by Conan Doyle, and people would say: "Well we don't count those because they are not part of the canon." meaning that there are 'official' Holmes stories that, regardless of what you think of their quality are considered to be part of the overall story. Lots of people didn't like it when Holmes was bought back to life, but in the canon, he indeed had been. You could have your own 'personal Holmes continuity', but if you wanted to participate in discussions of Holmes, you needed a frame of reference to that everyone knew what the fuck you were talking about. That's the whole point of the word canon, do differentiate between the 'official' version and the multiple and myriad unofficial, personal interpretations.
So the statement:
is actually exactly what I am getting at. If I use the word canon to mean 'the onscreen live-action depictions of Star Trek', which is what it means, but you think it means 'whatever I, personally, consider to be part of the fictional Star Trek universe at the time of discussion', then we are not communicating. That's why words have meanings at all- so that we all know what they mean and can use them to have discussions.
I'm not talking about enforcement, I'm talking about using the correct word to describe the correct thing. I'm pointing out that the word 'canon' has a definition that would aid this conversation if it was used correctly. Because it's not being used correctly, it's actually damaging the discussion because people are talking at cross-purposes.
A panda eats, shoots and leaves.
A panda eats shoots and leaves.
One comma. A world of difference in meaning. One depicts a gangsta panda leaving a restaurant. The other depicts what a panda actually does. Language is important so I am inclined to agree with Destructor here.
And, as I'm nowhere near perfect when it comes to grammar and correct word usage, I definitely agree with this
A panda eats shoots and leaves.
One comma. A world of difference in meaning. One depicts a gangsta panda leaving a restaurant. The other depicts what a panda actually does. Language is important so I am inclined to agree with Destructor here.
And, as I'm nowhere near perfect when it comes to grammar and correct word usage, I definitely agree with this
I guess the fourth season is, since it is the only ENT I can stand to watch.
Somebody doesn't understand what canon means.Is Enterprise part of canon? *edited for accuracy*
Nope, never will be despite the best efforts of revisionists.
Somebody doesn't understand what canon means.Is Enterprise part of canon? *edited for accuracy*
Nope, never will be despite the best efforts of revisionists.
Nothing could be further than the truth
Yet you mention "revisionists" as if canon cannot be rewritten. It can and has been many many times, by the franchise owners, as is their right. That's why Kirk's middle initial is T and not R, and why antimatter went from being able to destroy a universe in "The Alternative Factor" to being the fuel for the Enterprise's warp drive later.Somebody doesn't understand what canon means.Is Enterprise part of canon? *edited for accuracy*
Nope, never will be despite the best efforts of revisionists.
Nothing could be further than the truth
- Status
