Before I start, yes, i know what canon is, and yes, i know that the Star Trek novels aren't considered canon.
What perplexes me more is why this is still the case. In fact, why it was ever the case. I simply don't understand the reasoning behind the decision to draw a great big line between Star Trek TV and Star Trek literature.
Because "canon" does not mean "real" or "right" or "superior." It isn't a value judgment. It simply means the original body of work, as distinct from derivative works based upon it.
Period. Trek literature is not part of the Trek canon for the same reason that Greenland is not part of the continent of North America -- because it just plain isn't, by definition. Making Greenland part of continental North America would require redefining the word "continent" into something much broader and vaguer than its technical meaning, and the exact same goes for the word "canon."
Surely what the novelists come up with would be of great benefit to the canon? For example, the recent Terok Nor trilogy adds great insight into what becomes DS9. So why not make it canon?
Canonical works are not forbidden from using concepts from licensed works. They can borrow from whatever they want, and have done so. The sixth movie borrowed Sulu's first name Hikaru from the novels of Vonda McIntyre, and the upcoming movie is apparently using the first names that McIntyre gave to Jim Kirk's mother and father. A late DS9 episode or two borrowed a couple of Klingon exclamations and oaths ("Kai," "Kahless's hand") from John M. Ford's
The Final Reflection. Jeri Taylor incorporated elements of Janeway's backstory from her novel
Mosaic into "Coda" and other episodes. ENT borrowed its specifics of Andorian culture and environment from a role-playing game supplement.
But it needs to be the canon creators' choice whether to use tie-in material or disregard it, because it's their universe, their property. We tie-in authors are just borrowing their toys, following their lead. If they believe that our works can enhance their creation, then absolutely nothing is stopping them (aside from the gross impracticality of keeping current with all the tie-ins when they're very busy making new filmed Trek of their own). But they have the right to disregard what's in a tie-in if that's what serves their creative needs better.
This topic has had a greater voice for me after several of the series (in fact, is it all now?) have had a literature 'relaunch'. Surely this carrying on of canon opens the door for the novels to be regarded in the same way?
It isn't a carrying on of canon, because the canon is the original body of work, the shows and movies. It's a carrying on of
continuity beyond that canon.
(In some cases, a canon can incorporate works in more than one medium
if those works are under the control of the same creator, such as the Straczynski-plotted
Babylon 5 novels and comics or the Whedon-written and -supervised
Buffy Season 8 comics. But since ST has come from multiple creators, the canon is defined more in terms of medium -- and is subject to redefinition by subsequent creators. Jeri Taylor considered her VGR novels to be canonical, but her successors did not. Another myth about canon is that it's fixed and self-consistent.)
And again, it is totally untrue that there's anything preventing the creators of new canonical Trek from using material from the novels. They have every right to do so if that's what they choose to do. Nothing is stopping them. But they have the right to come up with their own ideas, and they don't have the time to read every Trek novel and comic ever written.
Surely Star Trek is Star Trek?
Star Trek movies and TV series are seen by millions and millions of people.
Star Trek novels and comics are read by maybe 1-2 percent of that audience. Trek lit is a sidebar, a little something extra for those who care about it. It's a sidebar that's as good as we can make it, and it's flattering when our readers wish it could be more. But there's just no way it can ever be on an equal footing with filmed or televised ST.
