• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek Novels and Canon

no one at Paramount cares enough to guide them the way that Lucasfilm guide the Star Wars books.

Actually, that's untrue that no one cares. Paula Block is head of CBS Consumer Products and she helps to guide the licensed ST tie-ins published by Pocket Books, TokyoPop and IDW Publishing. They're just not guided the way Lucasfilm oversees SW stuff - but then, SW tie-in fiction doesn't have as much parental source material as ST.

We are fortunate to have someone who's been a first-generation ST fan since her early years advising the editors of the licensed material and helping to keep them in line with aired, live-action ST (ie. what makes up canonical ST). Paula and her team care a lot, and so do the tie-in editors.

But if the licensed tie-ins "became canon", then every new ST movie or TV show would have to try to track all of these tie-ins, cataloguing their characters, events and tech and acknowledging them. Impossible. As it stands now, the writers of new canonical ST are (and always have been) free to cherrypick what works for them from the licensed fiction. Doing so is why Sulu was called Hikaru in ST VI, and why Kirk's parents are called George Sr and Winona in JJ Abrams' upcoming ST movie.
 
Again, it's a matter of practicality.

"Wait! Cut! We have to rewrite the script of our million-dollar tv episode because it contradicts p. 17 of some book by Greg Cox . . . . "

That's the main answer right there. Academic definitions aside, what is canon is what can be supported storywise, technically, and/or practically by live-action Trek, which started the franchise.

--Ted
 
You know...I might not be so hard for the screen/TV writers to be consistent with the books if there was a Star Trek Book Encyclopedia, or some such thing.

What? An encyclopedia of all canonical ST and licensed tie-ins, and updated every month to account for the two/three new ST novels and four or so comics published every month?

You mean something like Memory Alpha and Memory Beta wikis combined, to which every new ST episode, movie, comic, novel and short story must adhere?

Easy. Lovely. Get to work, Rush! :p
 
And, of course, remember: It's not just the TV episodes and movies that would have to adhere to all of the novels, comics, video games, etc.--but also all of the other novels, comics and video games too that would have to adhere to each other. I just can't imagine editing or writing a comic book in which every conversation between Kirk and Spock would require me to remember every other conversation between Kirk and Spock that's ever been written, drawn or depicted.
 
A point someone made earlier that's probably worth repeating.

If, god forbid, the tv and movie people were obliged to follow the books, they wouldn't let us get away with anything! :)
 
What? An encyclopedia of all canonical ST and licensed tie-ins, and updated every month to account for the two/three new ST novels and four or so comics published every month?

You mean something like Memory Alpha and Memory Beta wikis combined, to which every new ST episode, movie, comic, novel and short story must adhere?

Easy. Lovely. Get to work, Rush! :p
__________________

WHOA, WHOA, WHOOOOOOOOOOOOA!:eek: I-I-I...I didn't necessarily mean, uh...

Aw, nuts. Got me there, Therin.:brickwall:

Ah...maybe some of y'all might be interested in a...cooperative effort? Or something?

And, uh... it doesn't have to be EVERY MONTH. Just... with the kind of frequency the Regular ST Encyclopedia's been updated. You know... every few years...?

Darn, this is so embarrasing.... My bad. I'll stick with Beta...for now, at least.;)

Although... Beta SERIOUSLY needs to be updated. There are some GIANT, MILE-WIDE GAPS in the records. *Sigh*

I think he might be busy with the Janice Rand WikiProject. ;)

Ah, heh heh --no. I'm crazy 'bout Rand, but not THAT crazy.

Although... a ST:TOS Crew Wiki-Anthology might not be such a bad idea! Hmm....

(Burns up plans for ST Novel Encyclopedia, breaks out new paper, and begins to design....:p

A point someone made earlier that's probably worth repeating.

If, god forbid, the tv and movie people were obliged to follow the books, they wouldn't let us get away with anything! :)

(Sheepishly) Good point, Mr. Cox.

(Checks to see if fireplace has completely consumed old plans, and nods, satisfied.)

Wha-WAIT A MINUTE!:eek: The STUDIO desn't have to follow the books, just... a little reference guide for the fans, that's all! You know --important facts about the characters and galactic history, and all that!

AND I JUST BURNED THE PLANS!!!:scream:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!







(In case you're wondering if the above sob-story was true.... Yeah, RIGHT! I mean, I'm in FLORIDA. I don't even HAVE a fireplace. But to paraphrase Garak, it's ALL true. Especially all that hogwash about an encyclopedia....)
 
We already have resources to keep us consistent with other books. We have our editors, we have Paula, and we can just read the actual books, either from our own collections or sent to us by our editors or purchased from a handy bookstore or checked out of the library.
 
We already have resources to keep us consistent with other books. We have our editors, we have Paula, and we can just read the actual books, either from our own collections or sent to us by our editors or purchased from a handy bookstore or checked out of the library.

Good point.
 
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.

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? Another example is the gap fillers, such as the A Time to... series, which actually helps canon by explaining some characters absence! (e.g. Perim)

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?

Surely Star Trek is Star Trek?

Alas, if i'm talking rubbish, feel free to shoot me down.

JPW

Go ahead and consider the new ds9 books canon. Since it is unlikely that we'll ever see any new ds9 on tv or in theaters, what difference does it make?
 
^^The only people who can judge whether something is part of canon are the ones in charge of producing the shows or films. It's a non-issue to everyone else, or should be. The individual reader is perfectly free to consider a book as part of the Trek continuity or "reality" as they interpret it, but that's not canon. That's simply not what the word means.
 
Oh yeah, definitely. I'm all about the canon!

What about properties that can't really have a consistent canon, like Batman? You could argue that the idea of him not using guns or killing people is canon, yet he does it in the earlier comics. So what's canon and what's not?
 
There is a similar problem with Halo cannon. The books that are written by some of the game designers are considered cannon, but the rest are fan fic. Perhaps the writers for Trek could read some of the books and declare some cannon? It could work.
 
There is a similar problem with Halo cannon. The books that are written by some of the game designers are considered cannon, but the rest are fan fic. Perhaps the writers for Trek could read some of the books and declare some cannon? It could work.


This is the only cannon that concerns me!

acdc_-_for_those_about_to_rock_we_s.jpg


:devil::beer:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top