Who prefers Archer/T'Pol?

[Agenda]

I like to think that after Trip's death, Archer and T'Pol got together. It is logical.

If you view the books as the official continuation of the story (as I do), it didn't happen.

Well, there's really no reason for arguing here... I mean, the T/T-ers have the official books, A/T-ers have their fan fiction, so you see, there's something for everyone.

You mean, their officially non-canon books. And quite frankly, I've seen loads of fan fiction that's better than the stuff licensed by CBS (though there is not as much Archer/T'Pol fic out there I grant you).

 

[JiNX-01]

I like to think that after Trip's death, Archer and T'Pol got together. It is logical.

Archer was Trip's friend (not to mention he was still alive because of Trip). I can't imagine him feeling right about making a move for T'Pol under those circumstances.

 

[Agenda]

I like to think that after Trip's death, Archer and T'Pol got together. It is logical.

Archer was Trip's friend (not to mention he was still alive because of Trip). I can't imagine him feeling right about making a move for T'Pol under those circumstances.

Maybe not immediately, but after a number of years, perhaps.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

^^ I figured that's what you meant, BA.

The way I saw it, Archer and T'Pol became close, trusted friends over the course of the series. Sometimes friendship can evolve into love. (See "Twilight.") Sometimes it happens after years of friendship.

A relative of mine was friends with a neighbor boy when she was young. Their parents were all great friends. Then the girl's father died, and the boy's mother died, and the surviving widow and widower -- longtime friends -- eventually fell in love and married each other. And the boy and girl became sister and brother.

As Spock said, "There are always possibilities."

 

[Mach5]

You mean, their officially non-canon books.

I almost started fearing that no one would cry canon this time around.

Ah well, don't worry, I'm perfectly aware that all those hours spent enjoying Trek Lit were for nothing...

 

[Middleman]

I almost started fearing that no one would cry canon this time around.

Ah well, don't worry, I'm perfectly aware that all those hours spent enjoying Trek Lit were for nothing...

Every time someone says "non-canon books" my first reaction is "Says Who"?

The authors themselves call their work "soft canon" and they will tell you that they have been contracted by the owners of the franchise to continue the storyline. What's non canon about it?

Notice how you will never hear "non-canon books" when someone likes what's in the book.

 

[Agenda]

You mean, their officially non-canon books.

And I ask this question ever time someone says "non-canon books": "Says Who"?

The authors themselves call their work "soft canon" and they will tell you that they have been contracted by the owners of the franchise to continue the storyline. What's non canon about it?

I just had this conversation with somebody. What does "soft canon" mean? It sort of happened?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. If you're going to make the books canon, then why not the comics? Why not the computer games? And which books are canon, the originals by Bantam or the ones by Pocket Books? They all contradict each other.

But really, if you want to treat the novels as occuring in the same continuity, that's great. To each their own.

How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? What is considered Star Trek "canon"?

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html

 

[DevilEyes]

You mean, their officially non-canon books.

And I ask this question ever time someone says "non-canon books": "Says Who"?

The authors themselves call their work "soft canon" and they will tell you that they have been contracted by the owners of the franchise to continue the storyline. What's non canon about it?

I just had this conversation with somebody. What does "soft canon" mean? It sort of happened?

What does "canon" mean? It happened? Erm, no, it didn't. It's all make-believe.

Canon is just something people have to keep in mind when writing for the franchise (either for a TV show, film, novel/novella/short story, comic or game). It determines what they are or aren't allowed to do in the story.

Canon means that every show, film, book, comic, game... in the franchise will have to treat it as something that 'happened' (even if it creatively reinterprets it, when circumstances allow it, as The Good That Men Do did with TATV).

Soft canon or secondary canon, would, I presume, mean that every official Trek book from now on (with a few exceptions like the books related to the Star Trek Online game, which has it own continuity) will have to treat it as something that 'happened'. Any future shows and films could, however, ignore it... but since there are extremely unlikely to be in more films or episodes continuing the stories of ENT (or TNG, DS9 and VOY), this is a moot point. This is different from the earlier standalone Trek novels from before 1999, which had no bearing on any later literature and could be contradicted any time (and since they were released during the shows, were often soon contradicted by the shows themselves).

In other words, whatever happened in the TV show ENT is binding for the writers of any ENT book, comic or game. But whatever happened in the official ENT books is binding for writers of any future official Trek literature. If, say, new writers were to take over from Martin and Mangels and decide to take the story in a different direction, they would still have to acknowledge everything that happened in the previous books and incorporate it in their own stories, and continue their stories from what happened in 'The Good That Men Do', "Kobayashi Maru' and 'Beneath the Raptor's Wing'.

Now, fanfiction has its own rules and doesn't have to abide by any official continuity. Obviously, a fanfic writer doesn't have to include the books in his/hers own personal 'canon' - but some fanfic authors also often decide to ignore some elements of the official canon of shows and films. Others choose to creatively reinterpret some things that they don't like in canon.

Which is OK - we all know that there is lots of nonsense in films & shows just as there is in books... Official "canon", after all, includes Spock's Brain, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, Code of Honor, Angel One, Up the Long Ladder, Fascination, Profit and Lace, Threshold, These Are the Voyages...

 

[Aquarius]

While my personal feeling is that TnT are destiny, I always felt Archer was a perfect third point in a triangle between them,and I wish they'd made more of that in the show. I think it would've made for good dramatic tension, especially if it was obvious that his feelings were unrequited to some extent.

In terms of the initial question, though, what is or isn't canon really has no bearing. The question is who prefers this 'shp, not if the 'ship "officially happened" in any capacity.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

In Voyages of Imagination: The Star Trek Fiction Companion., "canon" is defined by Paula Block, Director of Licensed Publishing for CBS Consumer Products:

What you see on the big and small screens is canon.

She goes into it further, as does Marco Palmieri, who used to edit for Pocket Books. You'll find more quotes from the book here.

The Relaunch books for series that have ended their TV runs have been referred to as "official" because they are the CBS-sanctioned continuations of the storylines for those series. But "canon," by definition, is not used for TrekLit, only for onscreen Trek.

I've seen the phrase "soft canon" refer to novels, comics, games...and I don't know if TPTB at CBS refer to it thusly. But I did find this interesting discussion that ties it to onscreen imagery, specifically imagery that was never intended to be "real" (this was before VCR and DVD freeze-framing and screencapping made them all too legible). Examples are the dedication plaques of each Enterprise, or Archer's bio in IaMD2, or background in-jokes. This stuff is "soft canon" because it's onscreen, but it was never meant to be taken at face value.

In terms of the initial question, though, what is or isn't canon really has no bearing. The question is who prefers this 'ship, not if the 'ship "officially happened" in any capacity.

Bingo. So anyway, who prefers Archer/T'Pol?

 

[Mach5]

I just had this conversation with somebody. What does "soft canon" mean? It sort of happened?

None of it happened. Star Trek is only a bunch of actors saying their lines.

 

[Middleman]

While my personal feeling is that TnT are destiny, I always felt Archer was a perfect third point in a triangle between them,and I wish they'd made more of that in the show. I think it would've made for good dramatic tension, especially if it was obvious that his feelings were unrequited to some extent.

Damn, just imagine the "shipper wars" there would have been if TPTB did that! It's bad enough now with one romance that did happen and one that didn't!

 

[Aquarius]

While my personal feeling is that TnT are destiny, I always felt Archer was a perfect third point in a triangle between them,and I wish they'd made more of that in the show. I think it would've made for good dramatic tension, especially if it was obvious that his feelings were unrequited to some extent.

Damn, just imagine the "shipper wars" there would have been if TPTB did that! It's bad enough now with one romance that did happen and one that didn't!

Those kinds of shipper wars can tend to tear a fandom apart. It isn't worth it; that's why I've never gotten bent out of shape if someone doesn't like my 'ship or if theirs doesn't work for me.

In terms of the triangle...in real life, sometimes love can be complicated, and sometimes it can be un-pretty. I think both men having feelings for T'Pol could've added some good dramatic tension and complexity. Much to the chagrin of some TnTers, I'll be exploring that in my current project.

 

[Middleman]

I just had this conversation with somebody. What does "soft canon" mean? It sort of happened?

I got the term from Trek writer Michael Martin and he described it in an interview. I believe HR posted a link to it here not to long ago. In the context that the Trek writers use it, it means that the on-screen stuff (hard canon) is over with, never to return to the screen again. He and the other Trek writers are charged by the owners of the franchise to continue the story (or the "same continuity" as you called it). No one else can officially continue the stories but the Trek writers, hence he calls his work "soft canon". I personally think he used the term "soft canon" to appease the fans who would take exception to him calling it canon (just my opinion).

The re-launch novels are totally controlled, written, edited, published and even printed by CBS/Paramount (the owners of the franchise) or it's wholly owned subsidiaries or contractors. So we can call it "hard canon" or "soft canon" or "non-canon", but what ever is published in the re-launch books is what the owners of the franchise want to see in it. If you read it in the book, TPTB have spoken.

As far as the old Bantam book go, I can't speak to that. What I do know is that CBS/Paramount owns Pocket Books.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

What line? Who's line? It's fiction anyway created to make money. I wouldn't read anything into it more than that. Cash is the bottom line. Even the creativity doesn't matter.

But really, if you want to treat the novels as occuring in the same continuity, that's great. To each their own.

That's exactly what the owners of the franchise want and that's exactly what I am doing.

How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? What is considered Star Trek "canon"? ..... Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html

I've had this quoted to me several times in the past and all I can say is that statement is so "wishy washy" that it's totally useless. There is something in that statement for everyone and in the end it says "believe what you want to". Think about it, why would they just flat out say that books, games, and comics are meaningless to the continuity. That's not going to help increase revenue.

In the end, it's all about money. Recently I real this interesting take on the subject:

... This could mean that the Star Trek franchise has fractured into two halves: the new, sexed up continuity, which will appeal to the masses, and the old continuity, which will continue to be explored in books, games, comics and other ephemera.

If that's the case it's brilliant on Paramount's part. Nobody's going to pay to see Next Generation, Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise movies. But there is a large population who will pay to read books or play games set in that continuity, and there will likely be a steady stream of product for those people. Paramount's having its cake and eating it too - a hot new franchise brings in the big bucks while the stodgy old nerdy franchise is a reliable moneymaker on its own.
.
.
There's a lot of money to be made from geeks.

I think this opinion hits the nail right on the head! And to go back to my original statement of T/T in the books; if TPTB put it there, it's most likely because T/T sells books.

 

[Middleman]

In terms of the triangle...in real life, sometimes love can be complicated, and sometimes it can be un-pretty. I think both men having feelings for T'Pol could've added some good dramatic tension and complexity. Much to the chagrin of some TnTers, I'll be exploring that in my current project.

I know you won't take this personally when I say: That's one project of yours I will not be reading!

 

[Aquarius]

In terms of the triangle...in real life, sometimes love can be complicated, and sometimes it can be un-pretty. I think both men having feelings for T'Pol could've added some good dramatic tension and complexity. Much to the chagrin of some TnTers, I'll be exploring that in my current project.

I know you won't take this personally when I say: That's one project of yours I will not be reading!

You already are. Unless you don't like "Body and Katra"?

 

[DevilEyes]

While my personal feeling is that TnT are destiny, I always felt Archer was a perfect third point in a triangle between them,and I wish they'd made more of that in the show. I think it would've made for good dramatic tension, especially if it was obvious that his feelings were unrequited to some extent.

Ugh... No. I wouldn't have minded Trip/T'Pol or Archer/T'Pol - whatever they go with (I wish they made up their minds sooner, though, instead of setting up the latter for 2 seasons before going with the former...)... but NO LOVE TRIANGLES! I hate that kind of stuff... it's usually cliche and tedious and makes the characters annoying and turns me (and a lot of viewers) off the show. I used to be a member of the "anti-triangle ship" on Lost forum... Lost, BSG... Love triangles, quandrangles and all sort of stupid angles have spoiled so many of my favorite shows.

 

[Aquarius]

*shrugs* Depends on how it's done.

 

[Agenda]

stuff

The books aren't canon. Period. If you want them to be in your own little world, go for it.

 

[Middleman]

stuff

The books aren't canon. Period. If you want them to be in your own little world, go for it.

Well I guess that puts an end to it! YOU HAVE SPOKEN!