The Way to Eden - Canon?

[seigezunt]

DonIago said:
I would argue that since Roddenberry was the Authority, if he decanonized TAS than it would stand.

I reject that GR was the Authority. Star Trek was produced and made great by a team of people, including the creator, but also important folks like Solow and Justman. Granted he got it started, but we later saw how The Bird was not as inspired as we would hope.

THAT said, Eden is WAY canon.

 

[Kenobi]

While I take anything onscreen as canon, I don't agree that canon isn't subjective. It's always subjective. Paramount says, "Our criteria for what is considered canon is X" but anyone is absolutely free to say, "I have a different criteria for canon, and reject the Paramount canon".

It's like, ask a catholic what biblical canon is, and they'll tell you, "These books are canon". But you ask a protestant and he'll say, "These books are canon". If you ask the protestant if the catholic canon is canon, he'll say no, and vice versa. So, Paramount is like the catholic church, and fans who accept Paramount's canon-criteria are like catholics. People who don't accept Paramount's criteria are like protestants.

A catholic will say that the catholic church is the final authority for determination of canon, a protestant will disagree. So a person who says, "I don't accept TATV as canon" is saying, "I don't accept Paramount as the final authority for determination of canon."

 

[Steven Of Nine]

This is a fantastic episode. I have avatars and userbars based on this sucker. To wit:

Don't dis my episode, man.

 

[Smiley]

From a fan's perspective, canon is absolutely not subjective. Canon is whatever the property holder (CBS) decides must not be contradicted by creators of new material. The fans have the choice of including other things into their personal continuities and excluding canonical sources from their personal continuities, but they are not allowed to say what is or is not in the canon.

Really, canon has no meaning for anyone who is not involved in an official Trek project. We can just say we like something and leave it at that.

Looking at it another way, canon is simply the common ground for discussions of Trek. For example, discussions about Romulans take for granted that the events of "Balance of Terror" are true, but they don't assume that the events of the book My Enemy, My Ally happened or are known to all.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Smiley said:...but they don't assume that the events of the book My Enemy, My Ally happened or are known to all.

Try telling that to the Book Fanatics on here. And I'd agree with 'em on many cases where what was written in the books is far better than what made the screens.

Excepting that Khan trilogy, with which I wipe up my dog's explosive diarrhoea.

 

[Smiley]

My point is not that My Enemy, My Ally is good or bad. That's up to individual taste. The point is that you can't assume that any individual fan has heard about it or read it. If you find out that they have, great! You have even more to talk about. However, TPTB can choose to ignore any new inventions and connections that the book makes.

 

[Steven Of Nine]

Smiley said:
The point is that you can't assume that any individual fan has heard about it or read it.

I haven't seen half the Enterprise series, about 1/3 of DS9, Nemesis or about 40-50 episodes of TNG. But I've read nearly all the TOS books...

 

[UnknownSample]

"The rules that are generally accepted are not created by the public, but by the organization. In this case that organization is Paramount, or CBS, or whoever. It most certainly is not you or I or anyone on this board who doesn't have authority within those organizations.

"Canon is not a fan invention. As stated it's a Paramount/CBS invention as applied to Star Trek. I'm pretty sure this is already discussed in a FAQ somewhere on this board."

In other words, because they say so. I'm not interested in honoring the authority of corporations that would suck the life and creativity and intelligence out of Star Trek if they could, and who in fact have done so to a large extent over the years.

A catholic will say that the catholic church is the final authority for determination of canon, a protestant will disagree. So a person who says, "I don't accept TATV as canon" is saying, "I don't accept Paramount as the final authority for determination of canon."

Yeah. I get to do that. Here's for the proles. ST Canon Protestant here.

Again, if official stories contradict each other, which they may someday if they don't already....then that in itself blows the absolutist "anything on-air" idea of canon.

Corporate canon, Roddenberry canon, fan canon... there's more than one kind, obviously, since we hear them all here. There's no law on it, and no police to enforce it. So canon's just an idea human beings kick around.

 

[RookieBatman]

Oh, for crying out loud! Can somebody please post EVERY FAN'S STAR TREK CANON PRIMER? I would, but apparently I didn't bookmark the webpage any of the last fifty-three times this came up.

 

[Therin of Andor]

RookieBatman said:
Oh, for crying out loud! Can somebody please post EVERY FAN'S STAR TREK CANON PRIMER? I would, but apparently I didn't bookmark the webpage any of the last fifty-three times this came up.

Primer

Andrew_Kearley said:
Right, that's fine then since I'm not likely to be a licensee any time soon. I do note however that a lot of fans seem to use the word "canon" to denote whether or not something should be counted in continuity. What's that all about?

Because it's impossible to educate every Star Trek fan (and future fan) that they are supposed to refer to their "personal continuity" and not their "personal canon".

 

[RookieBatman]

Thank you! :thumbsup:

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

UnknownSample said:In other words, because they say so. I'm not interested in honoring the authority of corporations that would suck the life and creativity and intelligence out of Star Trek if they could, and who in fact have done so to a large extent over the years.

There's no law on it, and no police to enforce it.

Sounds like an eminently sensible approach to me.

 

[DonIago]

Oy gevalt...it has nothing to do with whether you respect their authority or what they've done with the show. As people have tried to say, unless you're interested in writing licensed Star Trek material what canon means doesn't even _matter_ beyond our ability to say what is and isn't canon according to the Trek Authorities. Woo-hoo!

That being said, yes, there could be 'Fan Canon', 'Gene's Canon', 'CBS Canon' etc...provided each of these bodies had an Authority established to define what was canon within their organizations (because for canon to apply as a term there has to be an Authority defining it). Of course at that point any reference to canon would need to specify which body of canon it was referring to, which would make the term 'canon' all by itself meaningless, as I said earlier. But then, for the purposes of this board, it might almost be better if canon _was_ a meaningless term if it's going to engender these kinds of conversations...

 

[Neopeius]

Canon is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow.

Canon is a pretty flower that smells bad.

 

[ToddPence]

Canon of course used to be a term purely applied to the Bible. I think that the term began to be first used in popular culture when the Baker Street Irregulars started to refer to the original 56 stories and 4 novels featuring Sherlock Holmes written by Arthur Conan Doyle as "the canon" in mock-seriousness. Today, of course, it is common to speak of "the canon" or what is "canonical" in regards to any popular literary, TV, or comic book series featuring recurring characters.

 

[Jack Bauer]

All episodes are canon. Good, bad or mediocre it doesn't matter. It's all canon no matter how shitty it is and this episode is one giant stinking elephant turd.

 

[cooleddie74]

I've always considered "Eden" canon to the TREK universe. And so does Paramount.