Well, we can't even get the first issue of a comic book from the writers of the new movie to remain consistent with however many books have been published post-Nem, so I'm thinking the whole "Not Canon" thing is still a pretty good way to go.
Make the books canon
- Thread starter CaptPicard
- Start date
Forgot about that.
Do the people who want the books to be canon make a similar fuss about the comics? Or are comics fans more comfortable with alternate continuities?
Do the people who want the books to be canon make a similar fuss about the comics? Or are comics fans more comfortable with alternate continuities?
whoops, same here. It's really a non issue isn't it this whole canon thing?!
It is to me, for whatever that's worth.
As was pointed out, some people confuse "canon" with "continuity" or perhaps "consistency." The books strive for the latter two as much as is feasible, not only with the filmed material but also themselves (with infrequent exceptions such as Crucible, etc.). The former is totally out of the hands of anyone likely to visit this message board, and pretty much a non-issue with anyone who really would be in the position to render such a "ruling."
As was pointed out, some people confuse "canon" with "continuity" or perhaps "consistency." The books strive for the latter two as much as is feasible, not only with the filmed material but also themselves (with infrequent exceptions such as Crucible, etc.). The former is totally out of the hands of anyone likely to visit this message board, and pretty much a non-issue with anyone who really would be in the position to render such a "ruling."
You'd think that Star Trek fans would be more comfortable with alternate realities, with the Mirror Universe and all that.
Well everyones opinion to someone is worth something
As for confusing canon and continuity, I think that very well be the case.
To be fair, it's not just STAR TREK fans. Trust me, I get plenty of urgent fan letters desperately wanting to know if my 4400 or UNDERWORLD novels are canon or not.
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--which is undeniably the case. I mean, the jaded pro in me knows all these stories are equally fictional, and were probably hatched up over pizza and beer at a convention somewhere, but, judging from the earnest tone of some of the letters I get, it really does matter to a lot of people. Does it make the stories more "real" somehow?
I don't get it.
And to add to that, people also confuse all of those same things with "official."
That confusion has people thinking it is an 'opinion' that books should be or are canon. That's no more an opinion than saying "It is my opinion that squares are (or should be) circles." They simply aren't, it's not opinion, it's wrong. The word 'canon' has a definition and the novels do not fit that definition.
CaptPicard
Lieutenant Junior Grade
My worlds not going down the toilet. Maybe a glass of warm milk will cheer you up and make your day brighter. WHY SO SERIOUS?
Sure, it matters to those individual fans. The point is that those fans' opinions and beliefs about canon don't matter to how canon is actually defined or what functional significance such a designation would actually have (which is virtually nil). It's got nothing to do with being "high and mighty," because it's not a matter of opinion, it's simply an explanation of the facts. No matter how strongly people feel about the issue, that doesn't change the simple fact that applying the canon designation to the tie-ins would serve no actual purpose.
And I'm certain that if, by some improbable turn of events, CBS adopted a policy that all Trek prose fiction be regarded as "canon" (at least until new people take over and reverse that decision), there would be just as many fans complaining about that as there are fans complaining now about the books not being canonical. If, somehow, the makers of new ST shows and movies decided that from now on they'd be beholden to everything in the books, there'd be people screaming "Why do the shows/movies have to be straitjacketed by conforming to books hardly anybody reads? Why can't the producers be free to come up with their own ideas instead of recycling what those hacks who work for Pocket did?" Not to mention the screaming about the continuity errors. It's hard enough for the producers of new Trek to avoid continuity errors when they only have the shows and movies to stay consistent with. Forcing them to acknowledge the books and comics as well would complicate matters hugely and lead to far more continuity glitches and far more complaining.
Or, far more likely, it would happen the way it's happened with Star Wars: the studio might claim that the books represent canon, but then in actual practice the producers of new material would ignore them just as they would have anyway. And that would make fans unhappy too.
So declaring the books canonical wouldn't accomplish anything. It wouldn't serve any practical function, and it would just trade one set of fan complaints for another, or the same ones cast in slightly different terms. The only reason some fans think it would be better if the books were declared canonical is because it hasn't happened. People want what they don't have. Give them this, and like Stonn, they would find that "having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting."
The "Supreme Court" analogy now being used by the Abrams team actually causes the "levels of canon" used by Lucasfilm to make more sense, from my perspective, as they become analogous to the different levels of a real-life court system, e.g. District Courts and Courts of Appeals, to continue with the US Federal Court analogy.
Chaotic? Sure, but that doesn't stop the US Supreme Court from issuing rulings which make a mess of lower-court precedent.
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.
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.
Yes, I think fans of comic books in general accept the idea of multiple continuities for characters therein, especially since the major publishers make such alternates explicit in the stories themselves.
Star Trek has alternate timelines, too, but the overall story (what I would call the metanarrative) is portrayed as taking place in one consistent history.
The short answer to your question is "yes."
The best way I can think of to describe it at the moment is to consider Star Trek as a whole (or The 4400, or Underworld) as one very big book, with each individual story comprising a chapter of that book. Each story is its own thing, sure, but the larger metastory of that universe is also being told.
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).
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?"
It's the same sort of thing that makes people not like a Reset Button plot.
That's not everyone, but it's some people--and I don't think it's a perception that's universally applied, as people seem able and willing to approach different franchises differently, depending on how much of a metanarrative they perceive.
To use an individual character as an example, it's the difference between James Bond and Indiana Jones. I think people accept that there isn't an overall metanarrative to the James Bond movies, but they only see one Indy, so having Indy go after the same artifact twice is jarring in a way that having two versions of Bond interacting with one version of M is not.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
As recent threads have shown, there may be room for "Voyager: Mosaic II", an alternative epic saga telling what Janeway really did upon arriving home, a book which ignores the other tie-ins, similar to the "TOS: Crucible" trilogy. If the Relaunch books become "canon", though, Janeway is dead.
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.
Unfortunately, we cannot offer such an assurance. But that was a risk we knew when we took these gigs...
My worlds not going down the toilet. Maybe a glass of warm milk will cheer you up and make your day brighter. WHY SO SERIOUS?
My day yesterday was perfectly fine, as it has been today so far but it's only 10:30 in the morning.
So where are you from? As I'm sure that if you put on any news channel or go onto a news website (I suggest BBC News or Reuters) and yes, to put it ever so mildly, the world (or more acutely the developed/developing world) is going down the toilet. England is in it's worst financial situation for thirty years as is the Eurozone and the United States of America. Now unless you live in some absquae region of the planet, you my friend will be affected even if it's just the fact the price of food has gone up and your wages staying the same.
As for if Trek prose should be canon, I'm still not getting the reason why it should be or are you just saying it should be canon because it should be and no other reason what so ever.
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?
Now, me, I tend to prefer the Whedon-"produced" Buffy Season 8 comics to the previous comics, but because of quality more than continuity. A lot of the pre-Season 8 Dark Horse comics just aren't that good; the characters don't feel like themselves, the dialogue doesn't have that Whedon kick, the stories aren't very satisfying. But if I read a non-canonical Buffy comic or novel that captures the feel of the series and characters better, like, say, KRAD's Blackout, I can enjoy it just fine.
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.
The point is, a story doesn't have to be a "real," recognized part of the continuity in order to feel like an authentic part of the whole. As long as it gets the characters, the universe, and the flavor and style right, what difference does it make if it's officially recognized or not? And since this is recreation, how it feels to the reader should be the only factor that matters. 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?
Similar threads
- Poll
