Personal continuity..... Anyone?

[Sharr Khan]

See, the thing about personal continuity is just that: it's personal. The only time personal continuity should come into conflict with established canon is if it goes beyond personal.

Then ah, why bother? Why not simply move on and never again watch the parts that bother you? Don't like "Who Watches the Watchers" (I don't) never watch it agian - but no matter what you personally do the fact remains that the episode tells us something about the Trekverse and Picard as a character so even if I never watch it again in my life it has informed me a bit about both. That can't be casually wiped away by proclaiming I have my own personal canon or continuity.

The implication of having either a personal canon (which is impossible unless you're the creator) or continuity is you're setting out a timeline and or background for the show which isn't our job as fans.

A waste of time unless you are planning on using this to back up some argument or creative venture since it has no bearing on what's considered official. Otherwise you're just using fancy expressions like "canon" and "Continuity" to mean - "I ignore all the stuff I personally dislike" and to lend weight to your thoughts regarding those things you hate.

There are plenty of things in a number of shows I ignore and move on without needing to construct some personal canon or continuity in order for me to continue to enjoy it. See something I don't like, I groan and move on. Something not fully explained - I speculate come to conclusions but don't assume anything I've concluded is the truth of the matter as terms like "Personal canon" or "Personal Continuity" imply.

Sharr

 

[exodus]

For all those who have a prob with the Personal Continuity concept...

Why bother yourselves with the concept, or threads that discuss it? Why come just to dictate your own sanctimonious speech about how its wrong?

I made this thread with direct intent on asking their own Personal Continuity. I would not like you to ruin the potential fun of such thread.

Why did you post a subject if you weren't open to the idea that others have opinions other than your own?

 

[JM1776]

Then ah, why bother? Why not simply move on and never again watch the parts that bother you?

Perhaps for the same reason you bother tilting at this particular windmill: You wish to do so.

Don't like "Who Watches the Watchers" (I don't) never watch it again—but no matter what you personally do the fact remains that the episode tells us something about the Trekverse and Picard as a character so even if I never watch it again in my life it has informed me a bit about both. That can't be casually wiped away by proclaiming I have my own personal canon or continuity.

Evidently it can be, by some—like it or not, admit it or not.

You seem to be assuming that all who detail a personal continuity are interested in eliminating aspects of the Trek universe for which they have a simple dislike or distaste, rather than because it damages or disrupts their willing suspension of disbelief. That's not necessarily so (though it would, indeed, be justification enough). There's a great deal of Voyager I revile, for example—poor characterizations, uninspired occurrences, etc. ... but it's nevertheless a part of my personal continuity. Elements of "Threshold," however (to use one of the most infamous examples) are so patently absurd that I cannot bring myself to acknowledge they actually transpired, or even that they could in an otherwise orderly Trekverse. Thus, I set them aside.

The implication of having either a personal canon (which is impossible unless you're the creator) ...

So therefore you accept Roddenberry's declaration that aspects of Star Trek V are non-canonical/apocryphal as ... ahem ... gospel? It's his right, according to your statement above: He is, after all, the creator.

Hoist on your own Picard, it would seem.

...or continuity is you're setting out a timeline and or background for the show which isn't our job as fans.

A fan may do whatever he or she likes as relates to his enjoyment of the product—not as a job, but as a hobby or diversion. Nor does he or she require your permission, approval or even understanding.

A waste of time...

And you have never wasted time doing something essentially profitless that you nevertheless enjoyed?

I didn't think so.

...unless you are planning on using this to back up some argument or creative venture since it has no bearing on what's considered official.

That last has never been in dispute.

So, then, someone who's, say, written numerous pieces of fanfic would have, according to you, substantive justification for delineating his or her personal continuity—a variant of the canonical Trekverse?

Otherwise you're just using fancy expressions like "canon" and "Continuity" to mean - "I ignore all the stuff I personally dislike" and to lend weight to your thoughts regarding those things you hate.

As opposed to using terms like "childish" and "silly" to deride those whose motivations are none of your business and whose stances affect you not in the least, except to trigger your unjustified ire and nastiness?

Pot, kettle ... bang.

And those who make such an effort are not ignoring "all the stuff" they "dislike." They're evaluating it, finding it unacceptable for whatever reasons are valid to them, and setting them aside.

You don't feel the need to bother. They do. Never the twain shall meet.

There are plenty of things in a number of shows I ignore and move on without needing to construct some personal canon or continuity in order for me to continue to enjoy it.

Note that I have not, at any time, demanded that you construct a personal continuity for Trek or any other show, nor have I laughed at or commented on your appalling lack of attention to detail for failing to do so.

See, I assume you're responsible for your own take on Trek—an allowance you're unwilling to make in kind, it would seem.

See something I don't like, I groan and move on. Something not fully explained - I speculate come to conclusions but don't assume anything I've concluded is the truth of the matter as terms like "Personal canon" or "Personal Continuity" imply.

We've already settled the matter of "personal canon." Let the dead horse alone; you're getting blood and guts everywhere.

I only assume my personal continuity has significance to me or those to whom I've conveyed it, and who subsequently say, "Yeah, I agree."

Other than that, you're quite right: It don't mean jack ...

... except to me and mine—which makes it enormously important to a select group ... and such is all that matters.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Perhaps for the same reason you bother tilting at this particular windmill: You wish to do so.

The only windmill tilting here are those constructing the false idea of personal canon or continuity...

I didn't start the thread, I responded with my thoughts on the subject and to those who got bent out of shape that anyone might dare disagree with the notion.

I'll be simple: Fans are free to ignore or imagine for themselves whatever they like regarding their preferred entertainment. Like I said there's alot of Trek that makes me groan but I don't try to pretend its not there. Its not in my purview to have a say about what is or isn't canon or is and isn't in-continuity. Spock has a half-brother and the Voyager crew one time turned into lizards and there was a guy by the name of Archer who commanded a ship known as Enterprise NX-01, and apparently Trip Tucker bought it in a silly way regardless my personal feelings on those matters some I enjoyed more then others.

Its not a matter of if you make other's subject to your beliefs about continuity or canon - my point is its arrogant on the fans part for staking a claim in that matter, not their's to say.

Sharr

 

[MattJC]

Nobody can't force me to accept "TATV" or JJ Abrams' bastard Trek movie, just like I can't force people to accept the other 97 episodes of Enterprise.

 

[Cyke101]

See, the thing about personal continuity is just that: it's personal. The only time personal continuity should come into conflict with established canon is if it goes beyond personal.

Then ah, why bother? Why not simply move on and never again watch the parts that bother you? Don't like "Who Watches the Watchers" (I don't) never watch it agian - but no matter what you personally do the fact remains that the episode tells us something about the Trekverse and Picard as a character so even if I never watch it again in my life it has informed me a bit about both. That can't be casually wiped away by proclaiming I have my own personal canon or continuity.

The implication of having either a personal canon (which is impossible unless you're the creator) or continuity is you're setting out a timeline and or background for the show which isn't our job as fans. And then, and even then, the potential for discussion is still there. This very board is chock-full of 'What If' threads. They're fun and productive. But alas, they also probably stem from personal continuities.

A waste of time unless you are planning on using this to back up some argument or creative venture since it has no bearing on what's considered official. Otherwise you're just using fancy expressions like "canon" and "Continuity" to mean - "I ignore all the stuff I personally dislike" and to lend weight to your thoughts regarding those things you hate.

There are plenty of things in a number of shows I ignore and move on without needing to construct some personal canon or continuity in order for me to continue to enjoy it. See something I don't like, I groan and move on. Something not fully explained - I speculate come to conclusions but don't assume anything I've concluded is the truth of the matter as terms like "Personal canon" or "Personal Continuity" imply.

Sharr

why bother? It promotes discussion. Debate is one thing, but discussion itself is great. This board has tons of 'What If' scenarios that probably DID arise from posters' own personal continuities (or wishes) and never realized it. And those threads tend to be fun and productive anyway. All those "What if Voyager arrived during the Dominion War" and "What if Saavik was the traitor and not Valeris" fantasy threads had to have come from somewhere.

Sure, if there's an episode you don't like, then don't watch it. No one's telling you to. But the instant that you get into a conversation and key events from that episode are important to that conversation, then all of a sudden it's not personal anymore, and then you can't adhere to your own personal likes.

The instant you *tell* someone that "Who Watches the Watchers" doesn't count or doesn't exist, you're imposing upon others. I think we can all agree that that's a big no-no. It's a personal truth, not a universal truth. Difference. Maintaining a timeline isn't the job of the fans, true, but then there's volunteerism as well. Sometimes it's just fun for them to do. Who's to say they're not allowed to do what they consider to be fun? The people who design and build CGI models of non-existant ships: it's not their job, but it's fun for them. Sometimes they believe that the Achilles-Class was in the Dominion War. That's their right. But the instant they insist upon others that the Achilles fought side by side with the Defiant at Chintoka? That's a problem. But was it a waste of time to come up with schematics and designs for a ship we'll never see ever? Probably not, as the ship's creator had a blast doing it and grew from the experience.

Again, I bring up the case of Doctor Who. Tons of books and non-televised material out there. There's no official ruling by the BBC on what counts and doesn't count. Every viewer has their own "truth of the matter,: simply because of the sheer amount of material out there. TV definitely counts, but in the Who fandom, it's pretty well understood that as long as the show itself isn't contradicted by non-TV media, everyone can believe what they want. And sometimes the writers take advantage of that very belief. And their notions of what they believe/don't believe goes towards discussion and hypotheticals, NOT debate and fact (another big difference).

Edit: it should also be noted that with Doctor Who, personal continuity is outright said, or at least understood. Most of them make the important distinction that there *is* a difference between what they prefer and what has truly happened on the show. There's that understanding that underlines everything.

I think it's a bit stifling and quite un-Trekkian to say nobody can use their imaginations and creativity unless it's dictated solely by what we see. Freedom of thought and concept.

 

[JM1776]

Sharr Khan: I note with interest that you stopped answering me point-by-point, at a particularly interesting juncture.

That said ...

... since we've obviously reached the ... heh ... point of diminishing returns and wasted effort, with neither of us swayed a nanometer from their original position, there's no purpose in continuing this. I'm sure you could reiterate your perspective yet again ... but why bother?

As with number6, your opinion is noted.

In short: I agree that "personal canon" is not a legitimate position, when using the theological definition of the word. Such is obvious.

"Personal continuity," on the other hand, exists—despite your perspective on it, which you have made clear in exhaustive (if not in the least persuasive) fashion.

 

[JM1776]

Sure, if there's an episode you don't like, then don't watch it. No one's telling you to. But the instant that you get into a conversation and key events from that episode are important to that conversation, then all of a sudden it's not personal anymore, and then you can't adhere to your own personal likes.

Quite correct ... thus the clear distinction between canon and personal continuity.