On the other hand, I prefer Nancy Holder's Queen of the Slayers novel as a post-finale story than I have the "season 8" comics. Go fig'.Now, me, I tend to prefer the Whedon-"produced" Buffy Season 8 comics to the previous comics,
On the other hand, I prefer Nancy Holder's Queen of the Slayers novel as a post-finale story than I have the "season 8" comics. Go fig'.Now, me, I tend to prefer the Whedon-"produced" Buffy Season 8 comics to the previous comics,
I tend to think that making the books canon is a BAD idea, considering some of the iffy content out there.
Did these same people avoid going to see The Dark Knight, Iron Man, or any of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies for the same reason? If so then fine.Anecdotally, I know people for whom this is a deal-breaker. They read Star Wars novels but not Star Trek novels because they perceive the former as "real" and the latter as "not real," precisely because of the differing approaches taken by the franchises; ditto some things within a franchise, like those who'll read the Buffy Season 8 comics but not the Buffy novels, for the same reasons. Their arguments are always variations on, "If it's not 'really' part of the larger story, why should I bother?"
If not, then they're liars and hypocrites, and I will call them that to their faces, because you know what? None of those movies are canon, either! The canon of Batman and Iron Man are the comic books published by DC and Marvel, respectively. The canon of LotR and HP are the novels by, respecitvely, J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling. The movies aren't canon, so they're not really "part of the larger story." The former two, in particular (along with most comic book movies) go considerably more off the beaten path than any tie-in novel ever has.
I sincerely doubt that anyone has avoided going to see the most popular movie of 2008 because it wasn't canon, and if they say they did out loud, they will be laughed at and ridiculed. Yet it's the exact same argument that's used to dismiss tie-in prose fiction, which is patently absurd.
^ Do they offer up reasoning -- or interesting facsimilies thereof -- for why Trek has to be this way, as opposed to King Arthur, Robin Hood, Batman, Superman, James Bond, etc.?
Personally, I don't get it, and I say that as a diehard TOS fan from diapers.
^ Do they offer up reasoning -- or interesting facsimilies thereof -- for why Trek has to be this way, as opposed to King Arthur, Robin Hood, Batman, Superman, James Bond, etc.?
Personally, I don't get it, and I say that as a diehard TOS fan from diapers.
Their logic boiled down to, "That's the way it's always been and it shouldn't change or else I won't like it."
To be fair, I suspect it has to do with the idea that Star Trek is our real future, and therefore any suggestion of multiple continuities or such disrupts from the mental illusion that Trek will really happen. But that's just my suspicion.
Indeed, that's exactly what I was trying to say...thanks for finishing the translation into English Lit Major for me.I think that the idea you were searching for here is that discontinuities in a series' metanarrative impede some readers' ability to maintain the willing suspension of disbelief required to enjoy the story. Hence their powerful desire for reassurance that they can emotionally invest in the prose tie-ins without risking a moment of cognitive dissonance during a later film or TV viewing experience within the same fictional universe/timeline.For the people you're talking about, it's important that the chapters flow together--that a male character who dies in Chapter 23 doesn't become a female character who's alive in Chapter 37, that sort of thing--and either something counts as a chapter, or it's not part of the book. On one level, everyone recognises (of course) that "all these stories are equally fictional," but if some parts of the metanarrative are ignored/contradicted by other parts, it can take away the "realness" of some or all of the story (which one has to be invested in to some extent if the story's going to matter to you at all).
Of course...and I mean, I'm here, I'm reading the books, so I'm not one of those people.Unfortunately, we cannot offer such an assurance. But that was a risk we knew when we took these gigs...![]()
Again, this is exactly what I was trying to say before. (This seems to be a good day for others anticipating my responses.I don't think it's so much that they're liars and hypocrites as that they have different creative expectations from Star Trek than from, say, Batman.Did these same people avoid going to see The Dark Knight, Iron Man, or any of the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies for the same reason? If so then fine.Anecdotally, I know people for whom this is a deal-breaker. They read Star Wars novels but not Star Trek novels because they perceive the former as "real" and the latter as "not real," precisely because of the differing approaches taken by the franchises; ditto some things within a franchise, like those who'll read the Buffy Season 8 comics but not the Buffy novels, for the same reasons. Their arguments are always variations on, "If it's not 'really' part of the larger story, why should I bother?"
If not, then they're liars and hypocrites, and I will call them that to their faces, because you know what? None of those movies are canon, either! The canon of Batman and Iron Man are the comic books published by DC and Marvel, respectively. The canon of LotR and HP are the novels by, respecitvely, J.R.R. Tolkien and J.K. Rowling. The movies aren't canon, so they're not really "part of the larger story." The former two, in particular (along with most comic book movies) go considerably more off the beaten path than any tie-in novel ever has.
I sincerely doubt that anyone has avoided going to see the most popular movie of 2008 because it wasn't canon, and if they say they did out loud, they will be laughed at and ridiculed. Yet it's the exact same argument that's used to dismiss tie-in prose fiction, which is patently absurd.
I got into a big argument on the Trek XI board a few weeks ago about whether or not it was a good idea for multiple Trek continuities to exist (since that's what a lot of folks are saying the new movie amounts to -- a new Star Trek continuity). And a lot of folks are strongly against the very idea of a new Trek continuity, even though they have no problem with it with other franchises.
These are folks who want Star Trek to constitute a single, completely self-consistent fictional continuity. Period. They can accept multiple versions of the Batman story, or the King Arthur legend, or what-have-you. But for Trek, there, to borrow another franchise's catchphrase, can be only one.
I don't agree with their attitude, but I wouldn't call them hypocrites just because they have different creative expectations.
I know you weren't implying difficulty with any individual, but you were implying that the optional Star Trek approach was preferable to the mandatory Star Wars approach. "Having to deal with Leland Chee" was just shorthand for "having to deal with the complications and convolutions of Star Wars continuity," as Chee is in charge of such matters at Lucasfilm.I wasn't implying that it was difficult to work with any individual; I was simply saying that it's nice to have the freedom to do both interconnected works and standalone works, depending on what's best for the story.I'd be very curious to hear from someone who's written for both franchises to see how they feel about the differing approaches, and whether they think having to deal with Leland Chee is really such a headache.The only thing it means in practical terms is that the creators of SW tie-in fiction try to be consistent with each other's works as well as with filmed canon. And since that's mandatory for them, it creates all sorts of complications and convolutions as they try to reconcile all the inconsistencies and pretend it all fits together. In ST fiction, we have the freedom to make consistency optional, which gives us a lot more creative leeway, if you ask me.
I don't have to read every precedent cited in a US Supreme Court ruling (or even your garden-variety column about the law) in order to understand the ruling (or column).Lets say that there's a movie or series set in this continuity post-Nemesis. It's never going to happen, but just for shits and giggles, lets say that it does.
What are you going to say to the barely literate masses who gave up on Star Trek, or never gave it a chance to begin with?
"Hey! Come back! Give us another chance. Oh, but you've gotta read this freakin' huge collection of tie-in novels first." That'll go over well.
And if there's not going to be anything more in this continuity except the books (seems very likely), then what difference does it make whether they're canon?
I agree with these points, and I would agree that the novels as they currently stand represent a de facto Expanded Universe...Aside from Shatnerverse and Crucible, TheAlmanac, all the Trek books these days ARE consistent, exactly as you described.
And the set of everything - TV and books - as a whole is certainly no less consistent than the Star Wars books. They just call exactly the same set of practices something different.
I don't think it's an all-or-nothing proposition for them, either--a canonical book that sucks will still suck--but I think that the perception of canonicity is an intrinsic part of their decision process in choosing (or not choosing) to emotionally invest in a new story.I just find it weird that they're basing their recreational choices, not on what's enjoyable, but on what's consistent. Are they anhedonic? Do they care so little for pleasure and fun that only conformity gives them satisfaction?Anecdotally, I know people for whom this is a deal-breaker. They read Star Wars novels but not Star Trek novels because they perceive the former as "real" and the latter as "not real," precisely because of the differing approaches taken by the franchises; ditto some things within a franchise, like those who'll read the Buffy Season 8 comics but not the Buffy novels, for the same reasons. Their arguments are always variations on, "If it's not 'really' part of the larger story, why should I bother?"
...
Granted, the Buffy comics that contain continuity errors do bug me a bit; I would prefer it if they were consistent. So I can understand the idea that a story is more satisfying if it feels like it can belong in the canon. But if they're well-written, I can still enjoy reading them even if they don't feel entirely "real" to me. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
I think they'd probably view a bad (but canonical) episode the way one views a law that one disagrees with--annoying and frustrating, but somewhat unavoidable.Is a really bad episode of the show itself, an awful, wrong story that's technically in canon despite enormous logic and continuity flaws, really preferable to a superbly written novel that authentically captures the flavor of the characters and universe and is entirely consistent with existing canon but is never going to be acknowledged by the show? Would these people you're talking about really rather watch "The Alternative Factor" or "Threshold" than read Avatar or A Time to Heal?
The United States has an actual, separate Constitution as a document, while the United Kingdom doesn't, but both countries talk about actions being "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."
Since you mentioned a certain other franchise...Highlander 2 is a pretty bad movie, but it's made worse for purporting to be a Highlander movie, and the typical response to that movie from Highlander fans ("It never happened!") sounds very much like a canonical ruling.
If anything, it's Star Trek's "fault" for creating and maintaining the "single, completely self-consistent fictional continuity" expectation in its audience. Having done so for over forty years, you can't be too surprised that some people are invested in it.
I think they'd probably view a bad (but canonical) episode the way one views a law that one disagrees with--annoying and frustrating, but somewhat unavoidable.Is a really bad episode of the show itself, an awful, wrong story that's technically in canon despite enormous logic and continuity flaws, really preferable to a superbly written novel that authentically captures the flavor of the characters and universe and is entirely consistent with existing canon but is never going to be acknowledged by the show? Would these people you're talking about really rather watch "The Alternative Factor" or "Threshold" than read Avatar or A Time to Heal?
Spock's World is In re Marriage Cases, and "Spock's Brain" is Proposition 8. You might prefer one and ignore the other, but the latter (frustrating though it may be) holds more sway, until a sympathetic Supreme Court comes along and chooses to give more weight to the former after all.
Instead of rehashing all the usual arguments about why "canonicity" is a practical impossibility, it might be interesting to ask why this issue is so important to some readers
Instead of rehashing all the usual arguments about why "canonicity" is a practical impossibility, it might be interesting to ask why this issue is so important to some readers
Could it be simply that people like and enjoy the stories, and the events depicted therein, of the books, and would like to see them made "official" so that future tv shows and movies are based in a universe where these stories and events have happened as described, so that they could be followed up upon on screen, and future events happen in a way consistent for a universe where the books have occured and therefore continue the story?
That is always the reason I have assumed people to have about this subject.
Instead of rehashing all the usual arguments about why "canonicity" is a practical impossibility, it might be interesting to ask why this issue is so important to some readers
Could it be simply that people like and enjoy the stories, and the events depicted therein, of the books, and would like to see them made "official" so that future tv shows and movies are based in a universe where these stories and events have happened as described, so that they could be followed up upon on screen, and future events happen in a way consistent for a universe where the books have occured and therefore continue the story?
That is always the reason I have assumed people to have about this subject.
But does it matter if events in a fictional construct is official or not, really?
Could it be simply that people like and enjoy the stories, and the events depicted therein, of the books, and would like to see them made "official" so that future tv shows and movies are based in a universe where these stories and events have happened as described, so that they could be followed up upon on screen, and future events happen in a way consistent for a universe where the books have occured and therefore continue the story?
That is always the reason I have assumed people to have about this subject.
And no matter how much I can sympathize with the "It would be nice if..." attitude, that doesn't change the fact that it's never going to happen, and that making a post on a bulletin board asking for it to happen is going to have no effect at all.
Exactly.To be fair, the term "constitution" means different things. To the US, the Constitution is the legal document, agreed to by the people of the United States, that establishes the existence of the United States and the basic rules by which its government will function.The United States has an actual, separate Constitution as a document, while the United Kingdom doesn't, but both countries talk about actions being "constitutional" or "unconstitutional."
By contrast, in the UK, "the constitution" refers to the sets of traditions, precedents, protocols, and procedures, both Acts of Parliament and unwritten, that clarify how the government will be constituted. Things that have the status of legal tradition but not Constitutional law in the US, such as the right of the US Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, would be considered part of the constitution in the UK.
ETA:
In other words, in the US, "the Constitution" refers to the legal document, whereas in the UK, "the constitution" is another way of saying "the way things work."
FWIW, Highlander: Endgame (and arguably Highlander: The Source) occur in the continuity of the television series...but otherwise, yes, the ten or so Highlander timelines in existence now are quite a mess.I don't see how Highlander can be said to have a canonical anything, since pretty much every new version of it conflicts with or ignores earlier versions. Honestly, I don't think any two successive films in the series are in continuity with each other, none of the films acknowledge the TV series, the TV series ignored the second film, everything ignores the animated series, etc.Since you mentioned a certain other franchise...Highlander 2 is a pretty bad movie, but it's made worse for purporting to be a Highlander movie, and the typical response to that movie from Highlander fans ("It never happened!") sounds very much like a canonical ruling.
Well, when "the fans" are the same as "the staffers," making a distinction between the two is moot.The ironic thing is, when Roddenberry was making TNG, he considered a lot of TOS to be apocryphal. In some ways, I think he intended TNG to be a semi-reboot, a revamping of the continuity that only accepted the plausible parts of the original show and disregarded the sillier or less successful parts. And he made a point of avoiding strong ties between TNG and TOS, aside from "The Naked Now." The only TOS alien race featured in TNG for years were the Klingons, and they were completely revamped from the sinister villains of TOS to a noble, honorable people in TNG.If anything, it's Star Trek's "fault" for creating and maintaining the "single, completely self-consistent fictional continuity" expectation in its audience. Having done so for over forty years, you can't be too surprised that some people are invested in it.
Not to mention that TWOK played fast and loose with continuity too, building on "Space Seed" but directly contradicting aspects of it -- Khan's people lost their multiethnic composition, Chekov was retconned into the crew, the 15-year-old Enterprise paraphernalia they had was movie-era in design, Kirk suddenly had a son retconned into existence, Starfleet was suddenly a lot more military and less advanced in some ways, etc. Like Roddenberry in TNG, they adopted what they wanted to use and didn't hesitate to change things as it suited them.
So really it's not true that ST has always created and maintained a single, self-consistent continuity. The early revivals only approximately did so, pretending to be consistent but changing things as they went -- not unlike how Marvel comics pretend to be continuous but are constantly reworking their past chronology to keep the characters from aging, reinterpreting past events as it suits them, introducing changes that they then pretend never happened later on, etc. The tighter continuity ties to older Trek productions started to emerge later on, as staffers who were themselves devoted fans of TOS and the original movies (writers from Ron Moore to Manny Coto, and other staffers such as Sternbach, Okuda, and Drexler) became more prominent within the production staff and made a point of injecting more links to the past. And books like the Chronology helped reinforce the perception of ST (TAS excluded) as a single cohesive universe.
So if anything, the insistence on a uniform Trek continuity is something the fans (those who became staffers, at least) imposed on the franchise, not the other way around.
Relax. It's just an analogy.See, that's just weird. Why are you even talking about it terms of what has "weight" from some higher authority? This isn't something being imposed on people. This is entertainment. It's supposed to be about having fun. Why should you need someone's permission to find something enjoyable? Why treat a recreational activity as a matter of obedience to a higher authority?I think they'd probably view a bad (but canonical) episode the way one views a law that one disagrees with--annoying and frustrating, but somewhat unavoidable.Is a really bad episode of the show itself, an awful, wrong story that's technically in canon despite enormous logic and continuity flaws, really preferable to a superbly written novel that authentically captures the flavor of the characters and universe and is entirely consistent with existing canon but is never going to be acknowledged by the show? Would these people you're talking about really rather watch "The Alternative Factor" or "Threshold" than read Avatar or A Time to Heal?
Spock's World is In re Marriage Cases, and "Spock's Brain" is Proposition 8. You might prefer one and ignore the other, but the latter (frustrating though it may be) holds more sway, until a sympathetic Supreme Court comes along and chooses to give more weight to the former after all.
As I said upthread, this is actually one of the reasons the Supreme Court analogy works so well for me--because the Supreme Court can also do just that, issuing a single ruling that overturns decades of precedent.The funny thing is, the other big universe where everything is theoretically canonical, like Star Wars, COMPLETELY ignored a huge novel-written backstory of the Clone Wars, etc, when making the prequel trilogy.
So, despite being called canon, exactly that situation occurred, MNM.
Again: Star Trek has essentially the same policies, they just call it what it actually is, instead of pretending to be more important.
Exactly.I think most people can, intellectually at least, understand that it would never happen, and yes, posting on here and elsewhere, demanding it does happen is a waste of time.And no matter how much I can sympathize with the "It would be nice if..." attitude, that doesn't change the fact that it's never going to happen, and that making a post on a bulletin board asking for it to happen is going to have no effect at all.
But I was only really offering up a possible explanation to the poster who couldnt understand why people want it to happen.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.