Um... you do know that Starbreaker was kidding, right? That's why there was a little winky face next to the post.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Star Trek Novels and Canon
- Thread starter JPW
- Start date
Um... you do know that Starbreaker was kidding, right? That's why there was a little winky face next to the post.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
It's canon, not "cannon".
How would ST screenwriters reading some ST novels make them any better than they are?
Jeri Taylor wrote "Voyager: Mosaic" using her own backstory about Janeway, as created for the show but not yet used. While she was with the series, they did end up putting little details from "Mosaic" into episodes to fill in Janeway's backstory.
Then she did the same for all the other characters with "Pathways". She told the writers they were free to make similar use of that novel, too, but Taylor had already left the show and the screenwriters were developing the characters in ways that did not necessarily agree with "Pathways". But so what? "Mosaic" was better conceived than "Pathways" anyway, but why stymie the screenwriters by forcing them to use "Pathways" in all future episodes about the characters' past lives?
Gene Roddenberry praised "Enterprise: The First Adventure" on its back cover, but it's my least favourite Vonda McIntyre ST novel, and I much preferred DC Comics' annual, "All Those Years Ago...", as to how Kirk's first mission unfolded. Both stories celebrated 20 years of TOS, and neither of them will necessarily match up with JJ Abrams' upcoming film. But so what?
The novels are read by about 1% of ST's audience.
Plus, we've already had several TV series writers writing books, including David Gerrold, DC Fontana, David Mack, the Reeves-Stevens (although they started in books before moving to TV), David Weddle, Mike Sussman and maybe some more I'm not aware of. Some of them did only do the story for one or the other, but they were still involved in both forms of Trek.
Please excuse me, I am a terrible speller.
I'm not saying it would make the stories better, I'm just saying that if the screenwriters read and approve some of the novels, then it would help clear up what is fanon, stuff some author made up that may be disproved in the tv show, and actual canon, what the screenwriters and creators of Star Trek say happens.
It's a very common misspelling, and so people get called on it a lot around here.
Ah, but, you see, they've already done that. If it's on the TV show, then it's what the screenwriters and creators of Star Trek say happens. If it isn't, then some author made it up.
Come to think of it, "some author made it up" either way. Huh.
And who is "Paramount" anyway? Writers change, producers change, studio regimes change. Look at the whole Jeri Taylor situation. Even if a current tv writer declares a new book "canon," that's not going to stop the future versions of Rick Berman or J. J. Abrams from doing what they think is best for the franchise, even if that means ignoring a "canonized" book or two.
It's a matter of practicality, not philosophy. Suppose every TREK novel from now on was published with an embossed golden seal declaring it officially canon. What happens when, six years from now, the new heads of the STAR TREK franchise have a brilliant idea for a new movie or tv show that just happens to contradict a paperback novel that a tiny fraction of their audience read a few years back. Do you really think they're going to change their plans just because somebody at Paramount once declared it canon?
Of course not. And it's not because they're evil or callous or don't care about the books; it's just that the movies and tv shows take priority. They always have.
And one more practical issue: nobody currently involved in the production of the movies or tv shows is going to have time to read and approve umpteen TREK books a year. That's not their job . . . and no sane tv person is going volunteer for it.
"Er, sorry, boss, I know the script for that big sweeps week episode is overdue, but I have all these proposals from Pocket Books to wade through . . . ."
It's a matter of practicality, not philosophy. Suppose every TREK novel from now on was published with an embossed golden seal declaring it officially canon. What happens when, six years from now, the new heads of the STAR TREK franchise have a brilliant idea for a new movie or tv show that just happens to contradict a paperback novel that a tiny fraction of their audience read a few years back. Do you really think they're going to change their plans just because somebody at Paramount once declared it canon?
Of course not. And it's not because they're evil or callous or don't care about the books; it's just that the movies and tv shows take priority. They always have.
And one more practical issue: nobody currently involved in the production of the movies or tv shows is going to have time to read and approve umpteen TREK books a year. That's not their job . . . and no sane tv person is going volunteer for it.
"Er, sorry, boss, I know the script for that big sweeps week episode is overdue, but I have all these proposals from Pocket Books to wade through . . . ."
But what if they picked "The Prometheus Design", "Triangle", "The Fearful Summons", "Into the Nebula", "The Laertian Gamble" and "The Rebels" trilogy, and chucked everything else?
Sarcasm, just another free service I offer.
I really do kid in just about every post. It's just my nature. I apologize.
I really do kid in just about every post. It's just my nature. I apologize.
I know what you mean. Virtually everything I say is sarcasm, because there's very little that I take seriously. I enjoy playing devil's advocate, too.
Building on what Greg said: Gene Roddenbery is dead. He created and envisaged the universe and it's impossible to say what he would have done for it. Once he died, others took over and created new stories in the established universe become the curators of the franchise. As they left yet more people took over taking it in different directions. Trek isn't owned by anyone any more in the way George Lucas has the final say on Star Wars.
To proceed from that argument, the only people still telling stories in this universe (or at least in the TNG era) are the book and comic writers. They make an effort to stay consistant with one another. From that perspective one could view the Pocket authors as heir to the universe in much the same way as Berman was to Roddenbury. You may as well consider the books as canon if you want and if makes you feel better, because no-one owns the franchise and no-one is working with those characters and that universe in a medium that can over-rule the books.
Of course, it's all pretty silly. The only times I've really cared about 'canon' was with the likes of the later Babylon 5 books, where Stractzynski provided outlines to the writers and the tales fleshed out the backstories and fates of characters that he had planned out in his head from the start, as opposed to stories pitched by writers.
That doesn't really happen with Trek books, again, partly because there's no-one living that really has over-riding control of the universe, so the distinction is pointless.
To proceed from that argument, the only people still telling stories in this universe (or at least in the TNG era) are the book and comic writers. They make an effort to stay consistant with one another. From that perspective one could view the Pocket authors as heir to the universe in much the same way as Berman was to Roddenbury. You may as well consider the books as canon if you want and if makes you feel better, because no-one owns the franchise and no-one is working with those characters and that universe in a medium that can over-rule the books.
Of course, it's all pretty silly. The only times I've really cared about 'canon' was with the likes of the later Babylon 5 books, where Stractzynski provided outlines to the writers and the tales fleshed out the backstories and fates of characters that he had planned out in his head from the start, as opposed to stories pitched by writers.
That doesn't really happen with Trek books, again, partly because there's no-one living that really has over-riding control of the universe, so the distinction is pointless.
surely it first happened in 1968/9 when Gene was replaced by Freddie Freiberger for Season 3?
And GR sometimes had a say in who took over; people he had spent time grooming, and was satisfied that they knew his vision. He appointed DC Fontana to look after TAS and she did much more than her official job description of "Story Editor". Susan Sackett vetted manuscripts for the Bantam novels and early Pocket Books. Richard Arnold then did so in the late 80s. While GR might not have chosen Rick Berman for TNG, he certainly made a point of grooming Berman on the Roddenberry way when he realized Rick would be there for the long haul.
Of course, when GR had his quite public falling out with Fontana and David Gerrold, their significant contributions to TAS and TNG were suddenly marginalized.
So how much did he actually have to do with the movies then? I'm sorry if this is common knowledge, I'm just starting to learn all of this stuff hanging out here.
Similar threads
