What Books Are "Canon"?

Hmm. When you put it that way, it makes me think, for a change, that maybe introducing the concept of canon to the fans was a good idea, because it sounds like they didn't understand the difference between the original material and its tie-ins. Of course, today there's still enormous misunderstanding about just how canon and tie-ins work and how they relate to each other, but at least it's now generally understood that there is a difference.

 

There's only one good answer for anyone who bugs an actor with that kind of stupidity: "You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!"

 

Thanks for the info. I was just curious if you were given any specific instructions one way or the other when you started on RotF. Canon is pretty straightforward with books and comics and such, but things get confusing for me when you have stuff like this that is onscreen but is just background stuff that is just kind of there to fill in space.

 

And would this hypothetical actor ask for his/her autograph fee before or after delivering this outburst?

I don't think any regular actor on a Trek series has ever done the show "as a lark." They're professionals; they did it for the paycheck, just as most of them do conventions now for the extra bit of income. As professionals, I can't imagine any of them answering even the most ridiculous of questions with THAT much contempt for the show's fanbase, however over-zealous or pedantic that fanbase may appear.

But, even the most patient and gracious of actors have their limits and I can completely sympathize with Doohan and Roddenberry both chafing under a barrage of inane questions, concerning subjects and projects that they were not involved with in the least.

 

There's simply too much Trek canon for us to be given specific advance instructions about every little bit of it. If the licensing people see a problem in an outline or manuscript, they'll bring it up to the editor, who will pass it along to the author.

Generally, though, I think the tendency with Trek tie-in authors is to err on the side of caution and not conflict with anything onscreen if we can help it. And generally we're encouraged to follow the lead of things that are peripherally from people involved in making the show, like the Chronology or the Tech Manual or the like. And generally we're happy to do so, because we're fans ourselves and we're as fascinated by such side concepts and background insights as any other fans. So nobody had to tell us we needed to use the IaMD bio screens; I refer to them because they're there and they're interesting and useful, and I would imagine Mike Martin did the same.

That said... I can't actually speak for the folks at CBS Consumer Products, but my speculation would be that for something like the bio screens, we might be permitted to contradict them if there were a good enough story that required it. Novelists have been allowed to bend and interpret certain things before, Trip Tucker's death being the biggest one. The problem with overthinking the canon status of the niggly details is that the details are not the priority; the stories are.

 

Fans get confused about canon because most incorrectly assume the word is a synonym for "continuity." It isn't. As Christopher has said, canon simply is. Is Spock's being Vulcanian part of Star Trek canon, or is his being Vulcan part of Star Trek canon? The answer is both. Canon isn't continuity. Shakespeare canon refers to all the plays written by William Shakespeare. Star Trek canon refers to aired Star Trek. A complete reboot with no connection to any other Trek series would also be part of Trek canon.

This widespread misunderstanding leads to posts in which people ask absurd questions such as, "Which version of TOS is canon, the episodes with old FX or the ones with the new FX?" The answer is that it's all canon.

 

Although canon and continuity aren't meant to be the same thing, the word "canon" has essentially undergone the fastest semantic drift in human history, at least with regard to popular entertainment. They even use "canon" when they should say "continuity" in the extras for the Abrams Trek movies.

 

You have no idea how tempted I am to pull a Trek Purist's "that's because Abrams and Orci and those other clowns are morons!!!!1111oneoneone" reaction right now.

 

The problem is that there is indeed an overlap between the concepts; generally, unless something is an outright anthology series, a canon puts forth the pretense of representing a cohesive continuity. On the whole, it assumes that its prior installments all happened, even if it occasionally changes its mind about some of the details of how they happened, or just tries to ignore the parts -- sometimes whole episodes like "The Alternative Factor" or "Threshold" -- that turned out badly. Or even if it constantly rewrites its own assumptions about the details of those past stories; for instance, it's still assumed that the events of Marvel's 1960s comics are a "real" part of the continuity, but now it's assumed they happened in the 1990s or early 2000s and many of the historical and cultural details are different.

This is where the disconnect comes between the reality of canon and the fan perception of it, then, because fandom generally wants to apply it on a granular level -- is this specific episode, line of dialogue, viewscreen graphic, character name, etc. "canon" or not? They want it to be about continuity on a word-for-word basis, when in practice it's more about the broad strokes. A story can still be in continuity even after many of its details have been renounced or rewritten. Tony Stark still built his first Iron Man suit in a cave to rescue himself from enemy soldiers, but now it was in Afghanistan rather than Vietnam.

Stories evolve; it's their nature. Storytellers get new ideas or try to correct past mistakes. Times change, audiences change, and stories adapt with them. The mistake is not in seeing a connection between canon and continuity; the mistake is in approaching either one as an absolutely rigid and unchanging thing.

 

My point is only that asking technical questions about fictional spaceships to actors may, under certain circumstances, be worthy of mockery.

 

That would make me so happy.

 

The concept of autograph fees has really caught on in the last fifteen years. Some friends of mine went to the Wizard World Chicago show last weekend, which was hyped as being a big TNG reunion event featuring the seven main regulars of the Next Generation. Each charged a fairly high autograph fee.

In the last decade, I can't think of a single con where the celebrity guests didn't charge a signing/photograph fee. Even the guy that played the Soup Nazi charges for his autograph -- though I got him to wave his standard fee and sign a bar napkin after buying him a drink in the hotel lobby at Mid-Ohio Con.

The days of the convention with free signings (like the one you referred to) seem to be waning, at least for celebrity guests. Is this just a US trend or are cons in other countries becoming more like this too?

 

My personal approach was always that the novelizations of movies/shows were the only things I considerd to be "canon"... but now I also consider all of the Relaunches to be "canon" because there won't be anything to contradict them lol.

 

Speaking as someone who writes novelizations, I'd be dubious about them, too.

Chances are, the novelizer was working from an early version of the script, had never seen the finished version, and had to invent stuff to turn a script into a full-length novel!

 

...oh I realize that, but it works most of the time.

And what about the ST:TMP novelization since the Great Bird wrote that? [or did he lol?]

 

Novelizations are rarely acknowledged as being any more authoritative than any other book. There are some things from some Trek novelizations that have been drawn on in the original novels -- Vonda McIntyre's Saavik backstory being the most enduring example -- but there are plenty of others that have been ignored. For instance, McIntyre's explanation of the inane plot hole in TWOK about the Reliant not being able to count how many planets there were in the Ceti Alpha system differed from the explanation Greg gave in To Reign in Hell, and J.M. Dillard's explanation for Kirk's sudden racial hatred for the Klingons in TUC (that there'd been a recent Klingon raid that had almost killed Carol Marcus) differed from the one in Dayton Ward's In the Name of Honor.

So no, novelizations aren't canonical, since tie-ins aren't required to stay consistent with them.

Yes, he absolutely did write it. I wish that damn ghostwriter myth would die already. It was the Star Wars novelization that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote, not the TMP novelization, which reads nothing whatsoever like Foster's style and is clearly the work of a first-time novelist. If it had been ghostwritten, it would've been substantially better-written.

But no, even Roddenberry himself didn't consider his novelization binding, given that when he later created ST:TNG, he didn't include "New Humans" or sensceiver implants or any of the other bits of worldbuilding he put in the novel. Heck, the foreword of the TMP novelization explicitly described TOS as an "inaccurately larger-than-life" dramatization of the "real" adventures of the Enterprise, and described the novelization itself as yet another dramatization -- establishing that Roddenberry believed in the Literary Agent Hypothesis rather than the notion of a rigid, absolute canon. (Or maybe it's more Direct Line to the Author.)

 

I'd actually not heard a ghostwriter rumor, but knowing the way the world works I figured there was one.