Make the books canon

[CaptPicard]

I think it is about time to make the books canon. The current books set after the shows' finales, I am talking about. There is no reason for them not to be. There are no longer any contradictions for them to make. There even using elements of books in the new movie. Its time.

 

[elaithin]

And not a decision relevant to anyone on this board, or anyone here can possibly make, or even relevant TO anyone except for the people producing filmed Trek.

 

[DimesDan]

I think it is about time to make the books canon. The current books set after the shows' finales, I am talking about. There is no reason for them not to be. There are no longer any contradictions for them to make. There even using elements of books in the new movie. Its time.

I class events like the Borg invasion and subsequent removal to name one event in my own personal continuity. As for it being Canon, I have one simple word. NO

 

[Christopher]

The only people who determine what is canon are the current creators of the core body of work itself. J. Michael Straczynski considers the Del Rey Babylon 5 novels canonical because he outlined and approved them personally. Joss Whedon considers Buffy Season 8 canonical because he's the head writer and "showrunner" for the comics series. Jeri Taylor considered Mosaic and Pathways canonical while she was Voyager's showrunner, but her successors ignored them.

At present, the creators of the core body of work are J.J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Bryan Burk, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzmann. The only way a Trek novel or comic could be canonical is if they had a direct hand in its creation. However, two of them did have a direct hand in the Countdown comic currently being published (Kurtzmann & Orci plotted it), and yet they do not consider it canonical. Perhaps because the others did not have a direct hand in its creation. And Gene Roddenberry didn't consider his own TMP novelization canonical, because when TNG came along he found it more useful to ignore aspects of it than to be bound by them. In fact, he didn't even consider all of TOS itself canonical.

Anyway, what difference would it make if certain books were called canonical? As the Taylor novels make clear, even something considered canonical at one point can be disregarded later. And some canonical materials make reference to ideas from works that aren't canonical, for instance, Sulu's first name Hikaru from Vonda McIntyre's novels being used in ST VI and "Flashback."

So it would be a meaningless designation. Contrary to the mystical significance that fans ascribe to the label "canon," it isn't some kind of seal of approval or mark of truth or something. It's just a description of one category as opposed to another.

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. This isn't a philosophical issue, it's a practical one. No sensible multi-million dollar movie or tv franchise is ever going to worry about what happened in some dinky little tie-in novel that only one percent of their audience ever heard of. Nor should they.

The film versions can and will contradict the books if they feel like it. And if the filmed versions aren't being produced anymore, what does it matter? Stamping "NOW 100% CANON!" on the covers isn't going to make the books read better. If anything, it might make the Licensing Department impose a lot of more restrictions on the books' content.

"I'm sorry, the books are canon now, so you're not allowed to change anything important. Cookie-cutter standalone stories only, please."

 

[Lynx]

I've stated for many years that the books should be regarded as "canon" but some certain events have made me re-evalue that opinion.

Otherwise the books are very good and could be easily adapted to the ongoing events in different series despite some small contradictions.

I had no problem to find space for the seasons 1-3 Voyager books in a timeline I've made at: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Park/1964/timeline.html

To Greg Cox: I consider "The Black Shore" canon. The best of the Voyager books.

 

[CaptPicard]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

 

[William Leisner]

In my opinion, The Beatles' Abbey Road should be Catholic.

Hey, it makes just as much sense as making Trek novels canon...

 

[DimesDan]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

But does it matter? Really? Truthfully?

As I already said. Should it be canon? Then no, I couldn't care less if someone says it's official or not. I have my own personal continuity and if some event or personal experience occurs with in a novel that I like, it will be included, if not (and off the top of my head there is nothing I can think of) then it won't be. Very simple really.

 

[CaptPicard]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

But does it matter? Really? Truthfully?

As I already said. Should it be canon? Then no, I couldn't care less if someone says it's official or not. I have my own personal continuity and if some event or personal experience occurs with in a novel that I like, it will be included, if not (and off the top of my head there is nothing I can think of) then it won't be. Very simple really.

YYa know what, as a matter of fact it does matter. This whole friggin fanbase is full of assholes that complain and whine about shit being canon all the time. The new movie has everybody bitching about the smallest details and how this is canon and that is not canon. So obviously their opinions on the subject does matter to them. You may think your high and mighty by saying it doesn't matter, but to them it matters just like to me my opinion matters. You may disagree but it does not make your opinion matter anymore then mine.

 

[Greg Cox]

To Greg Cox: I consider "The Black Shore" canon. The best of the Voyager books.

Thanks! Glad you liked it! I'm proud of that one, too.

(Even though the very word "canon" makes most of us writer/editor types roll our eyes. Mainly because it's kind of like arguing about how many Vulcans can dance on the head of a pin. It's an abstract issue that has no real-world meaning.)

 

[Christopher]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

Being consistent and being canonical are two entirely unrelated concepts. Canon means either a) the core body of work as distinct from adaptations and tie-ins or b) the current producers' working assumption about the history and continuity of the franchise. Neither of those has any applicability to the books published by Pocket or the decisions of the editors making them. The editors can certainly choose to make the books mutually consistent, and they usually do. But that has nothing to do with canon.

Say J.J. Abrams did decide to declare certain books canonical. What effect would that have? It wouldn't change their contents. It wouldn't make them more enjoyable works of literature. And whoever takes over the running of the franchise from Abrams could declare that those books are apocryphal. Or Abrams himself could disregard them if he had a movie idea that required doing so. One of the many, many things that canon does not mean is "binding on every subsequent creator forevermore." Creators ignore their own or their predecessors' definitions of canon all the time. Dallas decanonized an entire season of itself.

For a perfect illustration of what a useless bit of nonsense "book canon" is, look at the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Lucasfilm's licensing department claims that all SW books and comics are canonical, despite the fact that many of them contradicted the hell out of each other well before that decision was made, and that many of them have been contradicted by subsequent movies. So they've had to fudge it by making up some convoluted stuff about "levels of canon," so that some stories are more "real" than others. And then Lucas comes along and makes the Clone Wars TV shows and blithely ignores what the allegedly canonical books have declared about the Clone Wars. Not to mention that the current The Clone Wars 3D-animated series arguably decanonizes its 2D, article-less predecessor.

So declaring the SW books and comics "canon" had exactly zero effect on their relevance to the filmic SW universe. It's just a meaningless sound. Declaring them "zygrex" would be just as useful. 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.

 

[CaptPicard]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

Being consistent and being canonical are two entirely unrelated concepts. Canon means either a) the core body of work as distinct from adaptations and tie-ins or b) the current producers' working assumption about the history and continuity of the franchise. Neither of those has any applicability to the books published by Pocket or the decisions of the editors making them. The editors can certainly choose to make the books mutually consistent, and they usually do. But that has nothing to do with canon.

Say J.J. Abrams did decide to declare certain books canonical. What effect would that have? It wouldn't change their contents. It wouldn't make them more enjoyable works of literature. And whoever takes over the running of the franchise from Abrams could declare that those books are apocryphal. Or Abrams himself could disregard them if he had a movie idea that required doing so. One of the many, many things that canon does not mean is "binding on every subsequent creator forevermore." Creators ignore their own or their predecessors' definitions of canon all the time. Dallas decanonized an entire season of itself.

For a perfect illustration of what a useless bit of nonsense "book canon" is, look at the Star Wars Expanded Universe. Lucasfilm's licensing department claims that all SW books and comics are canonical, despite the fact that many of them contradicted the hell out of each other well before that decision was made, and that many of them have been contradicted by subsequent movies. So they've had to fudge it by making up some convoluted stuff about "levels of canon," so that some stories are more "real" than others. And then Lucas comes along and makes the Clone Wars TV shows and blithely ignores what the allegedly canonical books have declared about the Clone Wars. Not to mention that the current The Clone Wars 3D-animated series arguably decanonizes its 2D, article-less predecessor.

So declaring the SW books and comics "canon" had exactly zero effect on their relevance to the filmic SW universe. It's just a meaningless sound. Declaring them "zygrex" would be just as useful. 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.

By the way, I really enjoyed Greater Than The Sum Chris. Although i gotta be honest with you, I read Dues Ex Machina a few years ago and that one character you came up with who sang all her dialogue drove me up a freakin wall. She was horrible. But Greater Than The Sum = good, and thank God they told you to get rid of that annoying Vulcan counselor. Her scenes were tough to read. Good Riddance to her.

 

[Ward Fowler]

For the life of me, I have never understood why this issue is so important to some people. Does the fact that Star Trek novels aren't considered canon somehow affect these people's enjoyment of them? Does it make the novels any less entertaining? If something in a novel is later contradicted on screen, are they going to regret the time they spent reading an enjoyable story? I hate to break it to these people, but it's all made up. None of it is real. It's all fiction created to entertain us. So, all that matters to me is that its successful in its goal.

 

[Turbo]

CaptPicard, I believe you should read Every Fan's Canon Primer by our own Steve Roby.

 

[captcalhoun]

yes, they should make the TNG books set after NEM canon. ESPECIALLY Before Dishonour.

IN FACT! BD should be canon and NOTHING ELSE!

 

[Dayton Ward]

Wait. Who was it that once said something about this? Oh, yeah. Now I remember....

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

But does it matter? Really? Truthfully?

As I already said. Should it be canon? Then no, I couldn't care less if someone says it's official or not. I have my own personal continuity and if some event or personal experience occurs with in a novel that I like, it will be included, if not (and off the top of my head there is nothing I can think of) then it won't be. Very simple really.

YYa know what, as a matter of fact it does matter. This whole friggin fanbase is full of assholes that complain and whine about shit being canon all the time. The new movie has everybody bitching about the smallest details and how this is canon and that is not canon. So obviously their opinions on the subject does matter to them. You may think your high and mighty by saying it doesn't matter, but to them it matters just like to me my opinion matters. You may disagree but it does not make your opinion matter anymore then mine.

For the life of me, I have never understood why this issue is so important to some people. Does the fact that Star Trek novels aren't considered canon somehow affect these people's enjoyment of them? Does it make the novels any less entertaining? If something in a novel is later contradicted on screen, are they going to regret the time they spent reading an enjoyable story? I hate to break it to these people, but it's all made up. None of it is real. It's all fiction created to entertain us. So, all that matters to me is that its successful in its goal.

I thought these two posts went very well together.

 

[DimesDan]

Well, regardless of the other comments I think they should be made canon. I could care less about TOS, im speaking in terms of post show and in-between movie. The books are not being churned out factory-style like in the past and it would not be hard to keep them consistent. They have already started doing this with the books. But whatever. Its my opinion.

But does it matter? Really? Truthfully?

As I already said. Should it be canon? Then no, I couldn't care less if someone says it's official or not. I have my own personal continuity and if some event or personal experience occurs with in a novel that I like, it will be included, if not (and off the top of my head there is nothing I can think of) then it won't be. Very simple really.

YYa know what, as a matter of fact it does matter. This whole friggin fanbase is full of assholes that complain and whine about shit being canon all the time. The new movie has everybody bitching about the smallest details and how this is canon and that is not canon. So obviously their opinions on the subject does matter to them. You may think your high and mighty by saying it doesn't matter, but to them it matters just like to me my opinion matters. You may disagree but it does not make your opinion matter anymore then mine.

You know what. It dosn't. It really really really (and I could go on and on saying really before I even consider finishing) really dosn't. Now. The health of my niece and step father matter (they both have/had the big C) Whether I can afford to buy things and puts things on my plate to eat or afford to heat where I live matters. Whether I have enough insulin matters and a shed load of other things matters. But if the Star Trek novels are made canon does not matter to me in the slightest.

I just can not and never have been able to get my head round this. Maybe I'm stupid in not understanding it. But to me it is a non issue. As I have already said twice and I will repeat myself now. I personally have my own continuity, yes it includes all of Trek shown on Television and the vast vast majority of the books I have read as even though there are a few creative decisions I personally disagree with, but on the whole, that's is what I do.

Now for the fans who are so impassioned on this subject. Good for them, it's always nice to have a passion in life. But I also know some people who are like that, they laugh that I have my own personal continuity because according to them it's not canon as it wasn't on screen? Now I might be wrong here, but if everything which is seen on screen is canon, does that mean the Enterprise D has a great big hamster in the middle of it? Because if thats the case, that is really rather silly don't you think?

So, I ask again. In a World which is slowly going down the toilet due to a few things not exactly going well. Does the fact that a Star Trek story in a book is non-canon when a Star Trek story is shown on screen is matter really?

 

[Steve Roby]

CaptPicard, I believe you should read Every Fan's Canon Primer by our own Steve Roby.

I dunno, it's getting a bit out of date. The way I look at it now, with Berman et al. gone and no one other than CBS Licensing having any responsibility for TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise (in the sense of approving tie-ins and dictating what's allowable), canon is irrelevant. There's no one in a position to declare the books in those series canon. Abrams isn't likely to care.

There's nothing the books could do as canon that they can't do right now. The only thing canon status would change is the minds of the people who think it's vitally important for the books to have canon status. Nothing in the books will change, so what's the point?

Hell, you can say Janeway's death is canonical if you want to. You'll be wrong, but CBS and Paramount aren't about to make a movie or TV series that will contradict your claim. We're in a post-canon era for most of Star Trek.