The destruction of Romulus in the novelverse

[Greg Cox]

"Canon" doesn't enter into the equation. The Pocket license doesn't say "adhere to canon." It says "you can do This, but you can't do That, and when you do This, you follow the guidelines we set.".

I have never in all my years of writing and editing tie-in books seen the word "canon" in any contract, licensing agreement, deal memo, or other legal document.

"Canon" is a fannish obsession. It has nothing to do with how licensing and merchandising deals actually work in the real world. Ditto for issues of narrative logic like "well, shouldn't there be a Prime Universe version of such-and-such?"

Mind you, I've never actually laid eyes on the STAR TREK/Pocket Books contract, but I've negotiated similar deals in my time. Trust me, "canon" never comes up.

 

[Dayton Ward]

The only time it's ever come up is when we introduce something and someone from licensing may raise a question or objection as to whether we're being consistent with what's been established, or if the new thing is a logical outgrowth from something seen on screen, etc.

In truth, there are very few hard, inviolable guidelines when it comes to this stuff, but it all operates within the larger understanding that what the IP owner says goes.

 

[Idran]

Working under restrictions is just part of being a tie-in writer. Regardless of what the restrictions are or whether they seem reasonable to an outsider, our job is to respect them and follow them, because that's what we're hired to do. That's why the old application process for unsolicited new writers (I don't know if it's still around) had such severe restrictions on what characters and concepts you could use and what you could do with them -- because it was a test of applicants' ability to follow instructions and guidelines. If you want complete freedom to tell any stories you wish, then you write original fiction. Being a tie-in writer means being a paid contractor and working within other people's guidelines. You only have as much leeway as they're willing to give you. This has always been the case, whether it was Marvel not being able to do TOS sequels or Richard Arnold forbidding continuing characters and storylines or Surak's Soul having to be rewritten to be consistent with "The Seventh" or any number of other examples. This latest limitation is just more of the same.

I think he knows what being a tie-in writer means, Christopher, considering that he's done it before.

 

[Christopher]

I think he knows what being a tie-in writer means, Christopher, considering that he's done it before.

It's not about him. This is a public forum, and my comments are directed at any reader who might be interested in the ideas being discussed.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I think he knows what being a tie-in writer means, Christopher, considering that he's done it before.

I know Christopher replied with good intentions -- there are people reading this thread who don't know what the tie-in process entails. I know that's the spirit in which he gave his comments, though there is a part of me that doesn't feel that way at all. But, in the spirit of comity, I'm going to take them good-naturedly and again reiterate I don't have a horse in this race, I don't have an opinion on the matter, and he and I can disagree about whether or not something is a valid argument.

 

[Idran]

Sorry, shouldn't post in a mood like my current one, didn't mean to butt in.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Sorry, shouldn't post in a mood like my current one, didn't mean to butt in.

Nothing to apologize for. I didn't take you for butting in.

 

[Voth commando1]

I suppose they could, eventually, but I'm not sure why we need to be rushing toward it.

Are you an author?

 

[Greg Cox]

Are you an author?

Dayton is a long-time STAR TREK novelist and (recently) STAR TREK comic-book writer.

 

[DimesDan]

My favorite part of this whole thing is that, since books can be commissioned years in advance, and that the details of CBS/S&S licensing agreements and renewals aren't exactly headline-making entertainment news, this will have been resolved for a long time before we actually find out about it with the announcement of Countdown to Prose or whatever.

I was just giving this some thought while having a bath and you know what, it wouldn't surprise me if the discussion on how the TrekVerse will address "the 2387 dilemma" is completely null and void and purely academic as it's been decided how it will be handled and it's under an embargo until everything has been ironed out.

Are you an author?

He is a Word Pusher and a rather good one at that.

 

[JD]

Dayton Ward's bibliography on Memory Beta, the list here is missing his two most recent Trek novels, Elusive Salvation and the final Legacies novel, Purgatory's Key. He's co-written a lot of his Trek stuff with Kevin Dilmore. Ward and Dilmore's first comic book story, the first of two stories in Waypoint #2 was released last month.
Along with his Trek writing he's written a 24 novel, 3 original novels, The Last World War, it's sequel, Counterstrike:TWWII, and The Genesis Protocol and a ton of original short stories.
He's also got two TNG novels coming out next year, Headlong Flight, and Hearts and Minds H&M will continue a storyline dealing with the 20th and 21st Century he started in a couple of his TOS books, From History's Shadow and Elusive Slavation.

 

[The Wormhole]

^ No, since the novelists can't even acknowledge the existence of the new timeline or anything derived from it.

Which raises an interesting point, though: People keep saying that the destruction of Romulus is canon and that it has to be taken into account, but that also is an event that only happened in a Kelvinverse movie. So if the writers can't reference anything else from the Kelvin films, why do they have to act as if this happened? What makes it so damn special?

It's just the party line that CBS is adhering to, and anyone who wants their Trek novel to be published needs CBS's approval, and to get that they must tow the party line. If CBS considers the destruction of Romulus a canon Prime universe event (which they do) then Pocket has to go along with that, regardless if they can mention it or not. Back when IDW's license only allowed them to do TOS and TNG, they couldn't go around pretending DS9, Voyager and Enterprise didn't exist. Same principle.

 

[Christopher]

It's just the party line that CBS is adhering to, and anyone who wants their Trek novel to be published needs CBS's approval, and to get that they must tow the party line.

I think "party line" is an oddly negative way of putting it, like it's some kind of ideological or political thing. It's much simpler than that -- it's just the content of the shows and movies. The job of tie-ins is to tell additional stories based on that content.

(Also, for future reference, it's "toe the line," not "tow." It comes from sports like racing or tennis or boxing, where you have to keep your feet from crossing over a boundary line before the action starts. Hence the expression means to stay within approved limits, to avoid crossing the line.)

 

[Dayton Ward]

Are you an author?

Note to self: Fire your publicist.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also, for future reference, it's "toe the line," not "tow." It comes from sports like racing or tennis or boxing, where you have to keep your feet from crossing over a boundary line before the action starts. Hence the expression means to stay within approved limits, to avoid crossing the line.)

Oh. I actually do see it spelt out "tow" quite frequently and have just assumed that was the correct version.

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh. I actually do see it spelt out "tow" quite frequently and have just assumed that was the correct version.

Probably one of those common confusions that proliferate on the internet these days. Don't get me started on "seizing the reigns."

 

[Christopher]

Probably one of those common confusions that proliferate on the internet these days. Don't get me started on "seizing the reigns."

I have more of a problem with "giving free reign," which should be easy enough to reason out the problem with. I mean, monarchs aren't given their reigns; they're either born to them or they seize them for themselves. But a horse needs to be given freedom of movement by the person holding the reins. It's just a matter of thinking it through.

But my "don't get me started" one is "sneak peak." Huh? Exactly how surreptitious can a mountain be? Is it hiding behind a taller mountain?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

But my "don't get me started" one is "sneak peak." Huh? Exactly how surreptitious can a mountain be? Is it hiding behind a taller mountain?

There was (still is?) a Twitter bot that doesn't take kindly to "sneak peak" -- StealthMountain. (Sounds like a Grant Morrison Doom Patrol character.) Here's an old Slate article on it. I said "was" because I deliberately tried to trigger it once and nothing happened.

 

[Greg Cox]

I confess I cringe whenever somebody confuses "role" with "roll," which happens way too often these days. (As in "She's all wrong for the roll of Poison Ivy.")

The problem, as The Wormhole notes, is that these common errors tend to perpetuate themselves. The more people see the incorrect version, the more they assume they're correct and use them themselves, and so the horror multiplies geometrically like a zombie pandemic. :

See also canon vs. cannon, discrete vs. discreet, grisly vs. grizzly, etc. They're not the same words, folks. They're not interchangeable.

It's like nails scratching on a chalkboard . . .

 

[Dayton Ward]

I could care less about the direction this thread has taken.