"That book never happened!"

[Sci]

^ Hence my statement quoted below.*

(Of course, authority is all that matters when that authority has exclusive legal right to the texts in question.)

That said, I don't think that Paramount or CBS particularly cares to establish a canon for Star Trek (well, 2009's Star Trek is canon, but I doubt anything else is).

Actually, CBS and Paramount have been pretty clear that the Star Trek canon consists of Star Trek (1964; 1966-1969), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984), Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986), Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994), Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989), Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991), Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999), Star Trek: Generations (1994), Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005), Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), and Star Trek (2009).

This has never changed.

I suppose that you might say that the canon of Star Trek is composed of a series of well-known facts and impressions, not any particular works. It is accepted as genuine that Vulcans have green blood, Kirk fought Khan in the Mutara Nebula, etc. But the specifics of stories that made no vivid impression are of no consequence. In many ways, its a lot like mythology.

You are confusing "canon" with "continuity."

 

[Cicero]

You're right, I did confuse canon and continuity. But I'm not sure that it makes any difference to the central point. Paramount/CBS officially regards all live action productions as canonical, and nothing else. Absent continuity, does that make any difference?I don't see that what Paramount/CBS regards as genuine matters has any actual impact outside of release decisions and new production continuity (including licensed materials).

"Personal canon," while typically a refuge of the obnoxious, is a perfectly reasonable phrase when spoken by an individual who rejects community consensus (which I suspect would itself reject Threshold and a few other productions) and corporate edict. Aside from possible (probable) disappointment at new productions that draw from what the speaker sees as the detritus of inferior material (as you point out, a question of continuity more than canon), what difference do Paramount's or CBS's declarations make to them? The question is of acceptance, not authority.

 

[SuperXPS]

Don't writers try to co-ordinate to prevent glaring contradictions like that RoLaren having two reunions with Picard thing?
It seems kinda douchbaggy to just override what another writer said about something during a recent period when its easy to incorporate it?
I've seen little things referring to other peoples books all the time, the Borg incursion in Vendetta for example seems to be frequently referred to in other novels.

 

[Christopher]

Don't writers try to co-ordinate to prevent glaring contradictions like that RoLaren having two reunions with Picard thing?
It seems kinda douchbaggy to just override what another writer said about something during a recent period when its easy to incorporate it?

The Dominion War duology was written before there was a systematic novel continuity. At the time, books were expected to stand alone.

And it isn't always easy to incorporate something an earlier author did. Sometimes the story you want to tell works better if you make different assumptions than an earlier work made. There's nothing wrong with that when the stories aren't required to be mutually consistent in the first place. Internovel continuity is a choice, not a mandate. After all, it's all fiction anyway.

I've seen little things referring to other peoples books all the time, the Borg incursion in Vendetta for example seems to be frequently referred to in other novels.

I haven't noticed any such references outside of Peter David's work. Could you list some examples?

 

[xortex]

Not mutally consistant? Wow, so someone can come along and overwrite you. How would you feel about that?

 

[Greg Cox]

Not mutally consistant? Wow, so someone can come along and overwrite you. How would you feel about that?

Occupational hazard. Heck, I've occassionally overwritten myself!

This universe doesn't belong to any of us, so it doesn't pay to get too proprietary about it.

 

[Christopher]

^Indeed, for science fiction authors, there's always the risk of being overwritten by the universe itself, as science discovers new things that contradict our stories. It's just something we have to live with.

 

[Greg Cox]

^Indeed, for science fiction authors, there's always the risk of being overwritten by the universe itself, as science discovers new things that contradict our stories. It's just something we have to live with.

Wait! Do you mean we didn't really find a monolith floating out by Jupiter in 2001?

 

[JarodRussell]

Isn't it true that Kubrik seeked an insurance in case alien contact prior to the film's release damaged the film's revenue? I remember I read that bit of trivia somewhere, IMDB or Wikipedia perhaps.

 

[Christopher]

^Sounds familiar. I think the policy was taken out with Lloyd's of London.

 

[vegaslover62]

I'm talking about what you personally think is canon and not canon. That's what starts fights.

That's an oxymoronic question. Canon, by definition, comes from a central authority. It's the direct opposite of personal opinion.

I would dearly love it if people just tried to understand what it is I'm saying for once and not pick it apart. There is a central authority on Star Trek canon, and we are not it. So therefore, I wish people would stop posting what they think is canon in their own personal opinions. Now, I'm not wanting to start the flame war I mentioned previously, and I hope you're not as well.

 

[DonIago]

If you don't want it picked apart, I'd recommend using the phrase "personal continuity" rather than "personal canon", which, as pointed out, is an oxymoron.

As one of my favorite Babylon 5 quotes goes, "If you can't say what you mean, how can you be expected to mean what you say?"

 

[Christopher]

I'm talking about what you personally think is canon and not canon. That's what starts fights.

That's an oxymoronic question. Canon, by definition, comes from a central authority. It's the direct opposite of personal opinion.

I would dearly love it if people just tried to understand what it is I'm saying for once and not pick it apart. There is a central authority on Star Trek canon, and we are not it. So therefore, I wish people would stop posting what they think is canon in their own personal opinions. Now, I'm not wanting to start the flame war I mentioned previously, and I hope you're not as well.

Err, actually I think I was agreeing with you. I was saying that if people wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that "what you personally think is canon" had any meaning, then they wouldn't get into so many fights over "canon."

 

[xortex]

You could use personal canon fodder.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Wow, so someone can come along and overwrite you. How would you feel about that?

You expect every new editor at Pocket Books to read and memorize every ST novel ever written to ensure nothing gets overwritten?

 

[JarodRussell]

Wow, so someone can come along and overwrite you. How would you feel about that?

You expect every new editor at Pocket Books to read and memorize every ST novel ever written to ensure nothing gets overwritten?

Is it really too much to ask? I mean he gets paid for it, right?

 

[Charles Phipps]

I feel that way about Blind Man's Bluff to a certain extent.

 

[tmclough]

Everyone knows, the only things that truly happened are documented in Gold Key Comics.

Seriously though, historians can disagree on what "the truth" is in history; scientists can disagree on what "the truth" is in science. Why can't Star Trek writers disagree on what "the truth" is in Star Trek?

 

[Therin of Andor]

Is it really too much to ask? I mean he gets paid for it, right?

I assume the means you're simply stirring the pot, but if you're not: The editor gets paid to commission and edit new books, not to go back through the archives and read the entire Pocket backlist to satisfy the five or so ST fans who demand total continuity.

We've also had examples where books were written for different editors, and accidental overwriting of factoids have resulted, eg. the sex of Alyssa Ogawa's only offspring.

 

[Christopher]

It is part of the editors' job to try to maintain continuity among books that are supposed to share continuity. But Star Trek books are just one part of a Pocket editor's responsibilities, one of multiple tie-in franchises Pocket handles, and of course editors also have lives and families and such that they have to take care of. So sometimes things slip through the cracks. Which is no different from the screen canon itself, where sometimes inconsistencies slip through the cracks despite the best efforts of everyone involved to maintain continuity. There is a hell of a lot of Trek to keep track of, and even when everyone does their best, things get overlooked.