Should we get books that are accepted as part of canon?

[Christopher]

Heck, even if the 2.0 universe references a pre-2233 event which flies in the face of our assumptions about the history of the 1.0 universe, one could always rationalize that, just as Nero's ship and Spock's ship were sent back to different years, a piece of not-previously-mentioned debris could have been sent back even earlier in time, when it wreaked all sorts of temporal havoc.

Or we could simply admit that our assumptions were wrong, as assumptions so frequently are. Even in real life, a lot of the assumptions we make about the past are dead wrong. So long as a new revelation doesn't contradict explicit onscreen canon, then it's not a problem.

And even if it does contradict some detail of onscreen canon, it would not be the first such contradiction by a very, very long shot. If Lt. Leslie can die onscreen one week and be alive and well the next, if Data can suddenly be defined as never using contractions even though he previously used them all the time, if Spot can go from a male cat of an exotic breed to a female of a more ordinary breed, if Deanna can claim she never kissed Riker with a beard when there's photographic evidence of her doing it repeatedly, that doesn't mean the timeline is constantly being altered. It just means this is a work of make-believe and its creators occasionally reinterpret or forget things.

 

[Jayson]

I know they have said "Countdown" isn't canon and that is kind of wierd to say because there isn't anything in it that interfere's with the movie.

Actually there are at least two points that seem to conflict with the movie. One is that in the movie, Spock implies that he never met Nero before their battle at the supernova, conflicting with the Countdown story in which they were friends beforehand. Another, at least according to a commentator on TrekMovie.com, is that the Narada's weapons seemed more powerful in Countdown than in the movie, tearing through 24th-century Klingon ships effortlessly while in the film it took more time for them to inflict cumulative damage on 23rd-century Starfleet ships. Neither is a blatant contradiction, but they represent differences in interpretation, at least. Countdown was written after the film was completed and was not scripted by the filmmakers themselves.

And that's why it's not canon. You're making the perennial mistake of assuming that canon equals continuity. That's not correct. The canon is the core body of work, from the original creators or in the original medium. Anything else is outside the canon, regardless of its consistency with the canon. Countdown is from different creators and in a different medium, so it's extracanonical.

To be fair I have never been sure what the difference between canon and continuity are. Well beyond the fact that continuity is something important in filming. For example if they film a scene with two phasers in both hands. If they return to film that scene a few days later to film more they got someone who keeps track of what the actor is wearing and the type of phasers he is holding and whether or not his hair matches up to whatever was already filmed.


In a trek universe that is interconnected I figure canon and contiuity do blend together. TOS linked to TNG and TNG linked to Ds9 and so forth.


I do think canon though is more important than people give it credit for. Would Section 31 or the MAquis be as effective dramtic devices if we hadn't established in TNG that the Federation was supose to be this perfect place. Hell I would argue that Ds9 as a whole was all about twisting people expectations they had built up after seeing TNG.

While you ovious can do stories that aren't part of a exsiting mythos I do think if your going to do stories in a exsiting mythos then you should use those elements to enhance the drama. Like I mentioned in another thread I feel canon is a strength of Star Trek. It gives you all these established aliens and situations they you can play around with and if your not a coward like Berman something you can use to your advantage to shock and surprise people,hence the destruction of Vulcan.

As for the books. I think what I like most about the idea fo doing a few canon books is basically to do something different. Why not have books for the first time are part of canon. They will be respected as such as long as Abrams is in charge. I understand there might be balancing act in terms of doing something that won't ruin the movie or something that want interfere with his creativity in coming up with new idea's but why not take a chance. That are he can simply use the books to build up new characters backstories he wants to incorporate into the new movie. I hear Robert April might be in the new movie. Do a book about this version of Robert April.

 

[Christopher]

To be fair I have never been sure what the difference between canon and continuity are. Well beyond the fact that continuity is something important in filming. For example if they film a scene with two phasers in both hands. If they return to film that scene a few days later to film more they got someone who keeps track of what the actor is wearing and the type of phasers he is holding and whether or not his hair matches up to whatever was already filmed.


In a trek universe that is interconnected I figure canon and contiuity do blend together. TOS linked to TNG and TNG linked to Ds9 and so forth.

Yes, a canon is something that is presumed to have continuity within itself -- although often that continuity is a pretense achieved by turning a blind eye to the discontinuities that inevitably arise. The mistake people make is treating the two concepts as identical and interchangeable. So on the one hand, they get up in arms about every tiny inevitable inconsistency in a canon as some kind of "canon violation," and on the other hand, as in your case, they assume that if tie-in materials have continuity with the canon, that somehow makes it valid or useful to apply the label "canon" to them. That's not true. The canon is the core body of work. It's really that simple. It's possible, indeed required, for works that are outside the canon to be consistent with the canon. And it's possible for works that are within the canon to be at least partly consistent with extracanonical works, as for instance when Jeri Taylor used material from Mosaic for Janeway's backstory in "Coda," or when the makers of the new movie used Vonda McIntyre's names for Kirk's parents. But the extracanonical works are still extracanonical despite their consistency with the canon. Canon doesn't mean "right" or "consistent" or "real." It simply describes a particular category of stories.

I do think canon though is more important than people give it credit for. Would Section 31 or the MAquis be as effective dramtic devices if we hadn't established in TNG that the Federation was supose to be this perfect place. Hell I would argue that Ds9 as a whole was all about twisting people expectations they had built up after seeing TNG.

Again, that's continuity, not canon. There is overlap between them, but you're treating them as identical, which is wrong. It's like using the word "orange" to mean "sugar." An orange contains sugar, but it is not synonymous with sugar. A canon contains continuity, to a greater or lesser extent, but the two terms are not identical. You're misusing and misunderstanding the label.

While you ovious can do stories that aren't part of a exsiting mythos I do think if your going to do stories in a exsiting mythos then you should use those elements to enhance the drama.

And that is exactly what we do in the books. That's the whole frelling point of tie-in literature. But you're still talking about continuity. You are not talking about canon. You can argue all you want that continuity is a good thing, but that still has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with canon. That word does not mean what you think it means.

As for the books. I think what I like most about the idea fo doing a few canon books is basically to do something different. Why not have books for the first time are part of canon. They will be respected as such as long as Abrams is in charge.

I could swear I already mentioned that Mosaic and Pathways were considered canonical by Jeri Taylor while she was on VGR's staff, so it would not be for the first time. And it was meaningless because the books were contradicted as soon as she left the show, and because even non-canonical books have had elements referenced onscreen. The makers of onscreen material are free to use or ignore anything they want from any book they want, regardless of whether the book is labeled "canon" or not. It is a totally meaningless label. It can have no conceivable effect on the relationship between the book and the onscreen material.

I understand there might be balancing act in terms of doing something that won't ruin the movie or something that want interfere with his creativity in coming up with new idea's but why not take a chance. That are he can simply use the books to build up new characters backstories he wants to incorporate into the new movie.

There you go. Kurtzman & Orci have already incorporated elements from the novels, such as the names of Kirk's parents and Uhura's first name. Their portrayal of young Kirk was influenced by Best Destiny. You see, a book doesn't need to be labeled "canon" for them to use it. What you're asking for is completely and profoundly unnecessary. And even if they did develop a "canon" book, they could change their minds and choose to contradict in the next movie six months later. So what you're asking for is completely and profoundly ineffectual. It would make no difference in any conceivable way.

 

[Sci]

To get really simple about it, a canon is simply a body of stories, usually upon which other stories may be based. For instance, Shakespeare has a canon of plays that he is known to have written. Some of those plays share a common continuity with each other (Henry VI, Parts I-III). Others do not. But they are all a part of the canon because they were all plays that he created.

Similarly, Star Trek has a canon insofar as there is a body of films and episodes produced by the owners of Star Trek -- first Desilu, then Paramount, now CBS and Paramount. Other stories are based on this canon.

However, not every episode in the Trek canon is part of the Trek continuity, just like not every play Shakespeare wrote is part of the Henry continuity. "Year of Hell," for instance, was literally written out of Trek history at the end of it; it is part of the canon, but not part of the continuity.

As such, there can be extra-canonical works that are completely consistent with the canonical continuity but are still not canon. This does not mean that they did not happen; it just means that future canonical works can ignore it if they want.

 

[Jayson]

Then should I be making the argument that these books should be connected to continuity of the movies? Whatever term we go with I think the issue is I would like the books to feel like there a lvel importance to them beyond just being a good read. Oviously there are books I like that don't fit into canon,continuity such as "Federation" to name one.

I do think some novels though are enhanced such as the Ds9 relauch novel sby the fact they they have in essence become offical canon/part of continuity due to the fact that we all know it is unlikely we will ever see another movie or show set in the Prime 24th century. I would like some Abramsverse novels that are at least sort of part of the offical canon. I know things can change but it would be nice if the movie writers,since they would be connected to the works, would be somewhat more faithful to them than maybe other books thus it would would give those books a level intrest to me beyond the simple fact of whether or not the story is good or not.

In otherwords I guess I want books that feel like there not just another "Star Trek" book. Something that sperate them from the pact such as Ds9 relauch novels have been able to or the 'New Frontieer" novels. I've really been getting into Trek books more in recent years than I use to in part because I now see books as the offical canon-holder of the Prime universe. Writers can now take more chances aren't held back by the shows.

Jason

 

[Smiley]

The only reason that the Trek books can take the liberties they do is because no series or movie is currently going to contradict them. Abrams & Co. simply cannot make a book that is that important without shortchanging the next movie, and the movie will be seen by vastly more people than any tie-in book.

The closest thing to what RobertScorpio desires that we might get is a Trek 0.5 or 1.5 that takes place before the latest movie but is written a couple of years later. We won't get anything like the Terminator: Salvation prequel novel with the type of secrecy Abrams keeps on his set (not that that novel was particularly important, but it did come out a couple of months before the movie).

 

[Dayton Ward]

Responding to Jayson, since Smiley snuck around me

To be honest, I still don't understand what you're asking for, at least so far as it compares to what's being done now.

Federation, to use your example, was consisteng with on-screen continuity at the time it was written. *All* of the books are required to be consistent with what's on-screen, at least so far as is humanly possible, while they're in development and going through the approvals process(es). Only after Star Trek: First Contact came along was Federation rendered inconsistent, because the movie's producers did their own thing.

Why did they do that? Because Federation, while consistent with on-screen continuity, wasn't "canon." See the difference?

Any books written in "Abramsverse Trek" will be held to the same standard, but Abrams and company, or whoever follows after them, won't be constrained by anything offered in their pages. In other words, it'll be the same as it's always been.

 

[Sci]

Then should I be making the argument that these books should be connected to continuity of the movies?

They are connected to the continuity of the movies. All novels have to be consistent with the continuity presented in the canon. (And, now that the Trek canon has two continuities, any novel set in the new continuity has to be consistent with what the canonical installments set in that continuity establish about that continuity.)

What you are actually asking for is for there to be a rule that new films or episodes cannot contradict novels set in the same continuity as those new films or episodes. The problem with this, of course, is that it is impractical -- the producers/writers will not likely have had the time to keep up with all new novels set in the given continuity, and only a fraction of the audience reads the novels.

The other problem with this is that the idea of canonical installments not contradicting previous canonical installments is illusionary. New canonical installments contradict old ones all the time -- they just come up with special ways to explain it. I.E., Klingons having bumpy foreheads eventually being explained in ENT. So, really, just like new canonical installments can contradict novels at will, so can new canonical installments contradict old canonical installments at will. The only real difference is that new novels cannot contradict old canonical installments, but new canonical installments can.

Whatever term we go with I think the issue is I would like the books to feel like there a lvel importance to them beyond just being a good read.

In other words, you want to be able to pretend that all of Trek is one completely consistent universe, in order to create the mental illusion that it is all "real." This is impossible and always has been -- indeed, as I noted above, it is not true even if you only accept the canonical installments and reject everything else.

In other words, you need to make that choice yourself, to say, "I interpret these books as having actually happened in the Star Trek Universe" if you really want to create the mental illusion of it all having "actually happened."

I do think some novels though are enhanced such as the Ds9 relauch novel sby the fact they they have in essence become offical canon/part of continuity

But the DS9 Relaunch has not become in essence official canon, any more than, say, a sequel to Romeo and Juliet can become part of the Shakespearean canon. The canon of Shakespeare is what it is, and only Shakespeare could add to it. Sure, a sequel to R&J won't contradict the canon, and it may well be a perfectly brilliant play that's well worth watching and enjoying, and making it a part of your interpretation of the original R&J. Similarly, with Trek, the canon is what it is, and only the owners of Trek can add to it -- nobody else can.

due to the fact that we all know it is unlikely we will ever see another movie or show set in the Prime 24th century.

Exactly. So just make the choice to make the DS9 Relaunch part of your interpretation of the original Trek continuity, and ignore anyone who tells you that they don't matter just because they could be contradicted. Well, as this new film demonstrates, the canon can choose to ignore old canon, too -- it's ALL equally in danger of being overwritten or contradicted by new canon, so who cares?

I would like some Abramsverse novels that are at least sort of part of the offical canon. I know things can change but it would be nice if the movie writers,since they would be connected to the works, would be somewhat more faithful to them than maybe other books thus it would would give those books a level intrest to me beyond the simple fact of whether or not the story is good or not.

Dude, they're telling stories, not writing history books. If something has to not be contradicted by other installments for you to be interested in it, I feel sorry for you. Does the fact that The Dark Knight is not a part of the Batman canon mean that you can't enjoy it as much as a Batman comic that is?

 

[Jayson]

I can enjoy books that are contradicted by the tv show. I just feel some books seem to feel more connected than others d. That is partly why I enjoy the Relauch Novels of Ds9 more than I do some of the more ordinary Ds9 books that came before it when the show was still on. There is the one exception. The book were Odo goes to the future and everyone is dead.

There has been tons of Trek novels. I feel like "New Frontieer" and the "Ds9 Relauch" novels have basically raised the bar on what we except from the Trek books. "New Frontieer" was the first book series to go with new characters and "Ds9 Relauch" was the first Trek book series that basically shook up the status quo of one the exsiting shows and basically continued on as if it were Season 8 of "Ds9."

I would like a few Abramsverse novels that has something about them that makes them stand out from the pack such as those books. I would really like to see them be able to use the books to establish something about the Abramsverse that sticks in the movies. Not to the point were it will confuse the audience or you feel like you need to read the book but so those who do read the books will have even more insight on what is going during the movie than the casual fans will.

Jason

 

[Dayton Ward]

I would really like to see them be able to use the books to establish something about the Abramsverse that sticks in the movies. Not to the point were it will confuse the audience or you feel like you need to read the book but so those who do read the books will have even more insight on what is going during the movie than the casual fans will.

As has been said, such decisions won't be made by anyone affiliated with Pocket Books. That's for the people who make the movies to decide. All that the editors and writers of the tie-in works can do is strive to remain consistent with what's on the screen, and hope not to be outright contradicted (at least, not until the book's been on shelves for a bit). That's all any tie-in work can hope for, really, beyond simply telling an entertaining story using characters and settings the reader wants to revisit.

 

[Christopher]

I would like a few Abramsverse novels that has something about them that makes them stand out from the pack such as those books. I would really like to see them be able to use the books to establish something about the Abramsverse that sticks in the movies. Not to the point were it will confuse the audience or you feel like you need to read the book but so those who do read the books will have even more insight on what is going during the movie than the casual fans will.

That desire is understandable, but surely we've made it clear by now that it's impossible to guarantee that anything will "stick" in future movies. As Sci argued very well, even material in the onscreen canon is not guaranteed to "stick"; it can and does get contradicted. The Klingons changed appearance. Data originally used contractions and had emotions, both of which were deleted from his character. "The Alternative Factor" said that a matter-antimatter reaction would destroy the universe, but the rest of Trek has said that such reactions power starships. The fifth movie showed it taking less than half an hour to travel to the center of the galaxy, but VGR made it a journey of decades.

What you need to remember is that this is fiction. And that means that its creators have the option to revise it if that lets them tell a better story. That's the advantage of fiction over reality: you can rewrite it. Not on a whim, hopefully, but when there's good reason, it's a necessary option to have. No fictional canon has absolute internal consistency -- it just pretends to.

What you're asking for is something that feels like it has a real tie to the Abrams film continuity. And you're right that having the involvement of the filmmakers would make it feel more connected, more "inside," more reflective of their concepts and view of the Trek universe. And that's fine, that's a valid thing to want to see. The one thing you need to understand, though, is that that still has nothing to do with canon. No matter how closely tied a novel may be to the canon, it still is not part of the canon -- any more than Hawai'i's membership in the United States makes it a part of the North American continent. Regardless of the connection, they're still separate things. Canon is one thing, tie-ins are another. Heck, Kurtzman & Orci co-plotted Countdown, so it's exactly the thing you're asking for, and Orci himself has said that it isn't part of the canon.

 

[Greg Cox]

As I've written before, this isn't a philosophical issue, it's a practical one. Here's why nothing in a novel can ever "stick."

"Hey, boss! How about that new script for Star Trek XV? The studio loves it! Leonardo DeCaprio wants to play the Cardassian ambassador! We've already been greenlit with a budget of $150 million. Everyone thinks it's going to be a big hit and make us all fabulously wealthy!"

"Bad news, gang. The new script contradicts a $6.99 paperback novel by Greg Cox that we said was canon."

"Cannon?"

"Canon. Means it's supposed to 'stick' or something."

"Damn, that sucks. Guess we have to rewrite our major motion picture. Back to the drawing board . . . . "

Never going to happen.

 

[William Leisner]

Too bad... if only because then we'll never have the Variety headline: COX NIX PIX.

 

[TheAlmanac]

^Okay, now you're just depressing me.

What, just because of the knowledge that fans who haven't even been born yet will be having these exact same arguments twenty-five years from now?

 

[Therin of Andor]

"Bad news, gang. The new script contradicts a $6.99 paperback novel by Greg Cox that we said was canon."

Worse:

"Bad news, gang. The new script contradicts a $6.99 paperback novel, read by only 1% of our audience, and that has been out of print for 15 years, that we said was canon."

 

[SicOne]

Heck, I remember the original bible for Voyager. That was full of stuff that never made it onto screen. Tuvok as an elderly Vulcan who was sort of a mentor/father-figure to B'Elanna? Doc Zimmerman?

Stuff gets invented (and revised) as needed. Why hamstring future writers by codifying it all in advance?

^And the TNG bible. Data built by unknown aliens, "Bill" Riker prejudiced against Data, Geordi being liaison to the ship's children, Worf not even existing.

Begging your pardon if we've already discussed this previously in another thread, gentlemen, but were the series' bibles ever made accessible to fans? Do you have links where us unpublished great unwashed can view the bibles, just to get a feel for what the original individual series' intentions were before they evolved into what they became?

 

[Dayton Ward]

Roddenberry.com used to sell all that stuff. Not sure if the 1st season TNG writer's guide is still available through them, though.

 

[seigezunt]

I think canon is a terribly restrictive concept. While I like to hold the shows, books, and movies I like in a "personal continuity," I think it's better to think of our beloved shows, books, and whatnot as myth, not canon. Myth has basic archetypes, with varying story lines, but all holding an essential "truth." The basic elements of the characters and stories are relatively constant, but the details may be different. F canon.

 

[Christopher]

^Canon is only restrictive when misinterpreted as something that's binding on fans. In fact, it's merely a descriptive category -- the core work as distinct from works derived from it. It only becomes a problem when people wrongheadedly ascribe value judgments to it or mistake it for some kind of imposition on the audience.

 

[Starbreaker]

I'm so glad I can sleep at night without worrying what street Jim Kirk's great-uncle's hairdresser was born on in issue #42 as compared to an RPG from 25 years ago.