Which is where I think a lot of folks get stumbled up. They'll declare what they think is canon for Trek, but in reality they are defining their own version of it, which is "Fanon".
I've heard that term quite a bit over time regarding Trek.
What is star trek canon and where is the authorative reference?
- Thread starter erebus
- Start date
Which is where I think a lot of folks get stumbled up. They'll declare what they think is canon for Trek, but in reality they are defining their own version of it, which is "Fanon".
I've heard that term quite a bit over time regarding Trek.
Fanon killed Enterprise.
Yes, this is where i sort of stood, i mean its a kind of unsubstantiated interpreted dogma sometimes and thats why i didn't really understand why some people were so catagorically sure about canon infringments when using phrases like 'this film is not star trek, it breaks canon; you have betrayed your trekkiedom' as if they had the authority to make that judgement.
I thought fanon were facts that get repeated over and over in fanfic, licensed novels etc, to the point that people start assuming they're canon. Like Sulu's and Uhura's first names. But from what you wrote, fanon is any individual fan's interpretation of the canon?
Some definitions of canon as it pertains to literature:
A standard or criterion, a group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field, the works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.
With that in mind, what the Paramount writers and producers put on screen is canon, regardless of inconsistency.
A standard or criterion, a group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field, the works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.
With that in mind, what the Paramount writers and producers put on screen is canon, regardless of inconsistency.
Yes that seems to wrap it up quite nicely except wikipaedia makes the point that what appears on screen varies with different versions/syndicated edits/extended versions/dvd releases/theatre versions/deleted scenes etc.
Unless 'on screen' refers to original airings and theatre showings?
Works for me, so there is no argument about canon. All arguments reside in the area of fanon!
I always thought it was both; or at least wrapped together.
It would be whatever each fan thought of as what comprised the universe to them.
It's the same as with religion: There are always those who see every written word as "canon", even though it might be contradictory, unlogical or simply non-sensical. But most still review everything on a case-by-case basis, as they believe it's the basics that matter, not the details. And they believe half off the stuff in any religious text is nonsense anyhow; only those details that matter to you personally are important.
I don't think the Star Trek "canon" is all that different to some; only what matters to you is important. I don't think you can really find any authority on the matter, since any authority is necessary self-proclaimed and filters everything through his own perception anyhow.
*disclaimer: I'm not following any religious text.
I don't think the Star Trek "canon" is all that different to some; only what matters to you is important. I don't think you can really find any authority on the matter, since any authority is necessary self-proclaimed and filters everything through his own perception anyhow.
*disclaimer: I'm not following any religious text.
Last edited:
Understand, it's all psychology.
Hardcore "trekkies" are people who obsess over the smallest detail concerning the version of the Trek universe they insist on perceiving as "canon". The more accurately and detailed this universe is defined, the more real it becomes (for them, and in product). The more stable, stagnant, and unchanging this universe remains....the more permanent the foundation of episodes, rules, and character traits become....the more consistent this reality becomes, and thus, more easily escaped into by said "trekkie". Within a constuct of their own acceptance and design, they have power over that universe. And, thus, power over their life.
Once you remove the stability of that universe....once you change any detail to any drastic degree, or threaten to rewrite their "permanent foundation"....that is when the conflict occurs for them. You are removing their power. Their control and percieved "ownership" of said universe.
That's why you have these few that lament and wail over the new movie. They are trapped. They cannot accept it into their controlled universe, because of its alien elements (sexuality, emotional flaws, pop culture, etc.), elements that remind them of the real world. For many who require a Trek universe to escape into, these elements could actually be the things they are escaping from. It is not an insult to say that sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll do not mix with Trekkies. The sex part, especially. This is not within their control, thus they shun it.
On the flipside, it is onscreen, stars Leonard Nimoy's Spock, and is from all possible angles, Star Trek.
So, the immediate weapon of "Cannonical Debate" is drawn, and the tantrums begin. Beware these supposed "fans". They do not support Star Trek. They support their personal corporate fantasy world. They support "more of the same" because they require the comfort, the reassurance, the control that this little bubble of fandom has given them their entire life. They do not care for new fans. They care for converting new fans to their perceptions of these fantasy worlds. They long for like-minded company, because there is security within the pack. They long for the pack mentality, because within an emotional furvor, whoever screams the loudest gets the most accolades, and....this is the key here.....the most validation.
If being a hardcore "trekkie" is their life, then maintaining a rigid stance on what they perceive to be Star Trek is the validation of their life.
The, I like what you wrote. Most of it summed it up nicely.
Canon is a small man who lives inside your brain and tells you to burn things.
Canon, as it relates to what makes up a Star Trek TV show or movie, does not have a deep philosophical meaning, nor is it to be interpreted. When the Paramount approved creators of Star Trek put something on the little or big screen for us to watch it's Star Trek, it's canon (in this case Star Trek = canon). Sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they change things, that's Hollywood.
Understand, it's all psychology.
Hardcore "trekkies" are people who obsess over the smallest detail concerning the version of the Trek universe they insist on perceiving as "canon". The more accurately and detailed this universe is defined, the more real it becomes (for them, and in product). The more stable, stagnant, and unchanging this universe remains....the more permanent the foundation of episodes, rules, and character traits become....the more consistent this reality becomes, and thus, more easily escaped into by said "trekkie". Within a constuct of their own acceptance and design, they have power over that universe. And, thus, power over their life.
Once you remove the stability of that universe....once you change any detail to any drastic degree, or threaten to rewrite their "permanent foundation"....that is when the conflict occurs for them. You are removing their power. Their control and percieved "ownership" of said universe.
That's why you have these few that lament and wail over the new movie. They are trapped. They cannot accept it into their controlled universe, because of its alien elements (sexuality, emotional flaws, pop culture, etc.), elements that remind them of the real world. For many who require a Trek universe to escape into, these elements could actually be the things they are escaping from. It is not an insult to say that sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll do not mix with Trekkies. The sex part, especially. This is not within their control, thus they shun it.
On the flipside, it is onscreen, stars Leonard Nimoy's Spock, and is from all possible angles, Star Trek.
So, the immediate weapon of "Cannonical Debate" is drawn, and the tantrums begin. Beware these supposed "fans". They do not support Star Trek. They support their personal corporate fantasy world. They support "more of the same" because they require the comfort, the reassurance, the control that this little bubble of fandom has given them their entire life. They do not care for new fans. They care for converting new fans to their perceptions of these fantasy worlds. They long for like-minded company, because there is security within the pack. They long for the pack mentality, because within an emotional furvor, whoever screams the loudest gets the most accolades, and....this is the key here.....the most validation.
If being a hardcore "trekkie" is their life, then maintaining a rigid stance on what they perceive to be Star Trek is the validation of their life.
Can you write some Star Trek novels? I would read them.
Understand, it's all psychology.
Hardcore "trekkies" are people who obsess over the smallest detail concerning the version of the Trek universe they insist on perceiving as "canon". The more accurately and detailed this universe is defined, the more real it becomes (for them, and in product). The more stable, stagnant, and unchanging this universe remains....the more permanent the foundation of episodes, rules, and character traits become....the more consistent this reality becomes, and thus, more easily escaped into by said "trekkie". Within a constuct of their own acceptance and design, they have power over that universe. And, thus, power over their life.
Once you remove the stability of that universe....once you change any detail to any drastic degree, or threaten to rewrite their "permanent foundation"....that is when the conflict occurs for them. You are removing their power. Their control and percieved "ownership" of said universe.
That's why you have these few that lament and wail over the new movie. They are trapped. They cannot accept it into their controlled universe, because of its alien elements (sexuality, emotional flaws, pop culture, etc.), elements that remind them of the real world. For many who require a Trek universe to escape into, these elements could actually be the things they are escaping from. It is not an insult to say that sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll do not mix with Trekkies. The sex part, especially. This is not within their control, thus they shun it.
On the flipside, it is onscreen, stars Leonard Nimoy's Spock, and is from all possible angles, Star Trek.
So, the immediate weapon of "Cannonical Debate" is drawn, and the tantrums begin. Beware these supposed "fans". They do not support Star Trek. They support their personal corporate fantasy world. They support "more of the same" because they require the comfort, the reassurance, the control that this little bubble of fandom has given them their entire life. They do not care for new fans. They care for converting new fans to their perceptions of these fantasy worlds. They long for like-minded company, because there is security within the pack. They long for the pack mentality, because within an emotional furvor, whoever screams the loudest gets the most accolades, and....this is the key here.....the most validation.
If being a hardcore "trekkie" is their life, then maintaining a rigid stance on what they perceive to be Star Trek is the validation of their life.
Perceptive to a degree, but you fail to see that you fall into the same trap. You too have deemed what is and what isn't valid to keep control, and fail to see that to most in the real world posting on a Star Trek messageboard makes you a "hardcore" Trekkie too.
The and gilmour1899 : intresting what you have written, you're getting a bit too subtle for me but i'm enjoying trying to keep up. I wouldn't go so far as to say posting to a ST messageboard is hardcore however because if i was hardcore i wouldn't be confused about what canon is.
Similar threads
