Why Did the DS9 Technical Manual Sell So Poorly?

[Unicron]

Wow, lots of stuff posted while I was at work. Therin, thanks for clarifying some stuff for me.

Because they're not on the same level. Tie-ins are a supplement, a side branch. They're written by freelancers, outsiders hired to do a job, not by insiders. They're read by a tiny fraction of the audience, and contribute a tiny fraction of the franchise's profits. And making a TV show or a movie is a full-time job; TV producers simply do not have time to keep abreast of tie-ins. Nor can tie-ins be produced fast enough for it to be practical. It is simply a logistical impossibility for a TV series to follow the lead of an ongoing book series, because the pace of the publishing business is glacial in comparison to that of the TV business. It has to be the other way around.

Not all of them are freelancers, though many of them are. Rick Sternbach for example included a third torpedo launcher on the Galaxy in the TNG TM. The status of this illustrated launcher, being mentioned in a book, seems to be non-canon simply cause it wasn't used onscreen. Same with the ship classes Mike Okuda created for BOBW. He's been consistent in the names and classes he invented for those models, and yet when he wrote the Encyclopedia they had to be listed as conjectural designs. Why? Because the classes were never identified onscreen, as it wasn't relevant to the story. Thus, not official.

Besides, why should the tail wag the dog? Why should the creators of the original work be obligated to conform to the ideas in supplemental literature rather than having the freedom to come up with their own ideas? Tie-ins are supposed to support the original creation, to supplement it, not to pre-empt it.

I'm not saying they're obligated to do anything. I'm saying they should show respect to the authors/creators by not writing it off, or by purposely changing things to ignore an influential source. Okuda did this with some of his ship registries, because he did not want to use the consistent 1700 series list that FJ invented for his TM. This is why you get some Constitutions which "canonically" have 1600 registries, and also why you get Excelsiors and Mirandas that have ridiculously high registries. To this day, the USS Excelsior is the only ship in her class whose registry is consistent (i.e. a 2000 number). The only other Excelsiors with such numbers are in non-canon works. By doing that, Okuda showed (perhaps unintentionally) a significant amount of disrespect towards FJ, and he made the already muddled registry system far worse.

And you will find no franchise in all of fiction where tie-in material is treated on the same level as the core canon. Sure, Lucasfilm claims that all Star Wars material is canonical, but Lucas doesn't hestitate to contradict it when he wants to do something else in a movie.

True, but Lucas has also said in interviews that he considers many of the EU stories to be perfectly fine interpretations. They are not his own choice if he were given an option to write stories at those points in the saga, but they are not less valid because of that.

Functionally, the relationship of canon to tie-ins is no different in Star Wars than it is in Star Trek; the only difference is in the relation of tie-ins to each other (SW tie-ins are required to remain consistent with each other, but for ST tie-ins that's optional).

Fair enough. I do think, however, that Trek should have such a consistency rule. One argument I always hear is that someone's toes are bound to get stepped on, and that's been true in large part only because no such rule exists.

I don't think that's true at all. You're falsely generalizing what someone said about one book, the DS9 Tech Manual, as it relates to one other book, the TNG Tech Manual. Looking over the "non-novel Trek books" on my shelf, I see an eclectic assortment of them, and those that fall into the "fictional nonfiction" category, such as the tech manuals, Star Charts, and the like, are not mere rehashes of each other at all. Besides, most of those books that have been published in the past couple of decades have been by TV-Trek production staffers such as the Okudas and Geoff Mandel. So it wouldn't make sense to list them as outside ideas that the production staffers are ignoring.

You're right, I didn't phrase myself very well. I didn't mean to generalize all Trek books that are not novels, but ones like the DS9 TM are in some respects rehashes of existing stuff. I mean, the DS9 TM is okay but I find it harder to read than the TNG TM cause a lot of it's technobabble. The truly talented and original stuff, like Jackill's tech stuff, should in my view be counted on the same level as works like FJ's TM and the TNG TM. Even in my own forum, I have to use the term "canon" lightly (if at all) because the bulk of the tech stuff has been done by fans.

There's no such thing as "the fans." People are always expressing their own personal interpretation of things and asserting that "the fans" all feel the same way, but that's crap. There is no opinion that all Trek fans have in common.

We disagree on many things, and there's no common consensus. That's true. But there are plenty of opinions we share too.

And I reject the notion that there's any correlation between fans' attitudes toward canon and their interest in reading books. Sure, as KRAD mentions, there are a number of people out there who scoff at anything non-canonical as beneath their notice; but I believe that if they were genuinely interested in reading at all, they wouldn't let that attitude stop them. More likely, it's just symptomatic of a broader devaluation of reading as opposed to TV/movie viewing or playing video games. So some kind of official declaration of pseudo-canonical status for the books, even if such a thing could ever be practical or meaningful, wouldn't really have any effect on reading rates.

You could be right. I still think there might be some correlation in regards to Trek, because during the time Gene's policy was effective stuff like the FASA RPG suddenly became taboo in terms of being considered official.

Trek literature first came into its own in the 1970s, a time when Paramount had already chosen to no longer produce episodes and movies. That lack of new "canonical" material (although nobody would've used that term back then) enhanced the success of Trek literature, because it was the only game in town, the only way to feed the fans' desire for new Trek. So if you think Trek lit is dependent on onscreen Trek for its success, you need to study your history more.

That wasn't what I meant, that I thought Trek lit relied on onscreen Trek to be successful. What I was saying is that once new eps came out, and it ceased to be the only game in town, then it took a back burner to a degree. Should that situation arise again, it's entirely possible that the lit will become the only show in town; I'm not really sure. What I'm questioning is how successful that might be, in light of the recent failures of ENT, NEM and so forth.

I kind of see a different thing when I look at Wars, because it seems more like the two facets go hand in hand. And for what it's worth, I think that's how a system should work if feasible.

With ST, you're talking three seasons of TOS, two of TAS, seven each of TNG, DS9, VOY, four of ENT, plus eleven movies. You expect CBS and Paramount to insist on ST's writers to obey anything written into a ST novel or comic (or an action figure card biography) just so Pocket, IDW and Diamond Direct can sell books, comics and action figures that "count"?

No, I simply prefer to follow the motto that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. If a novel or a comic contains something which fits into the continuity, and which might also take place within a given frame (DC's Revisitations is an example of this, as the comic seems to take place shortly before TUC and hints at some things that led to the conspiracy against Gorkon), then it should be included. At the very least, it should be acknowledged better as Christopher said. The same way that George Lucas would give, say, Timothy Zahn credit for what he created in his Thrawn trilogy, and by extension the body of fans who enjoy that trilogy of books.

 

[KRAD]

2) Gene Roddenberry was even more upset that some of the liscensed Trek tie ins were becoming as popular and accepted by fans as the on screen Trek. Especially John Fords Klingons and Diane Duanes Romulans.

Except they weren't, really. The actual number of Star Trek fans who were even aware of The Final Reflection and My Enemy, My Ally were a tiny fraction of Trek's overall viewership, and most of those didn't give a horse's hindquarters one way or the other. But the people who did care passionately about it were the ones who went to conventions and asked stupid questions.

It's always a mistake to confuse the hardcore over-dedicated fans with the overall viewership, as the one is only a tiny fraction of the other. And overreactions to that cause things like that dumbshit memo....

 

[Christopher]

I think it's apropos to quote Emerson here:

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Of course, this begs the question: when is the consistency foolish?

As the Emerson passage explained, when rigid consistency is chosen at the expense of flexibility or innovation. When it keeps the mind from adapting to new situations, new possibilities.

Frankly I think that quote is the best response I've ever come across to fans who get uptight about absolute consistency within canon or between canon and tie-ins.

Same with the ship classes Mike Okuda created for BOBW. He's been consistent in the names and classes he invented for those models, and yet when he wrote the Encyclopedia they had to be listed as conjectural designs. Why? Because the classes were never identified onscreen, as it wasn't relevant to the story. Thus, not official.

But that has nothing to do with the status of tie-ins. The makers of the show are free to disregard anything that isn't explicitly stated onscreen, even when it comes from within the production itself. Even when it comes from the show's own bible. It would be stupid for them to restrict their creativity that way. They may come up with a better, more interesting idea, and they should have the freedom to go with it, rather than have it scuttled by something that most people in the audience have never heard of.

Heck, as I mentioned, producers don't always even stay consistent with explicit onscreen canon. See Emerson's quote. It's not a bad thing for a show to be flexible on its details.

I'm not saying they're obligated to do anything. I'm saying they should show respect to the authors/creators by not writing it off, or by purposely changing things to ignore an influential source.

They're not "writing off" or "ignoring" anything. As I've explained, it's just not practical most of the time for the makers of an ongoing show to keep abreast of what their tie-ins are doing. Besides, it's their creation, their universe. They have every right to make their own choices about what to use and not to use. That's not disrespect. If they choose to acknowledge or use our work, that's a bonus and a privilege. It's not something we're entitled to.

Okuda did this with some of his ship registries, because he did not want to use the consistent 1700 series list that FJ invented for his TM.

And what's wrong with that? It's good if different creators are free to use their own imaginations and find their own answers. Besides, it's a bunch of bloomin' numbers. Who cares what numbers they are? Star Trek is about characters and ideas, not numbers.

By doing that, Okuda showed (perhaps unintentionally) a significant amount of disrespect towards FJ, and he made the already muddled registry system far worse.

Bull. Taking your own creative direction is not an act of disrespect toward other creators. There's no "right" answer here, because it's fiction.

True, but Lucas has also said in interviews that he considers many of the EU stories to be perfectly fine interpretations. They are not his own choice if he were given an option to write stories at those points in the saga, but they are not less valid because of that.

Aside from Roddenberry and Arnold, I've never heard a Trek producer say anything negative about the tie-in fiction. And some of them have given tacit acknowledgment to it. Ron Moore worked a couple of allusions to The Final Reflection into one or two of his DS9 Klingon episodes, even though he's the one most responsible for taking TV Klingons in a different direction from TFR's. Again, you're making the assumption that the failure to adhere slavishly to someone else's ideas is somehow a rejection or insult of that person's creation. That's simply not true.

Fair enough. I do think, however, that Trek should have such a consistency rule. One argument I always hear is that someone's toes are bound to get stepped on, and that's been true in large part only because no such rule exists.

I would hate it if Trek fiction were bound by a Lucas-style consistency rule, demanding that every tie-in work acknowledge every other tie-in as absolutely real. It would forbid us from doing variations on the theme, series like Crucible and the Shatnerverse that take their own directions. It would impose too many restrictions on the creative possibilities. Internovel consistency is great to have as an option, but it would be odious as a requirement. All the books have to be consistent with the show, but that's enough.

Besides, it could never work. SW was just two movie trilogies. ST is a creation that's constantly being added to, so by this point there are countless books that can never be reconciled with canon or with each other. It would be ludicrous to demand they all be treated as equally "real." And it would be impossible to define a fair, objective standard for which ones should be adhered to and which ones are apocryphal. It's much better to leave the readers free to make that choice for themselves, according to their own preferences.

The truly talented and original stuff, like Jackill's tech stuff, should in my view be counted on the same level as works like FJ's TM and the TNG TM.

See, that's exactly my point. Nobody's stopping you from considering those works to be on an equal level. If you like them equally, if you want them to be part of your personal interpretation of the Trek universe, then go ahead! It's a free society, you can do whatever you want. Canon rules are only binding on those of us who create licensed tie-ins. The rest of you folks are free to accept or disregard anything you want. You're not on CBS/Paramount's payroll, so you don't have to wait for official approval from them.

Should that situation arise again, it's entirely possible that the lit will become the only show in town; I'm not really sure. What I'm questioning is how successful that might be, in light of the recent failures of ENT, NEM and so forth.

The books and comics have been the only show in town since ENT went off the air nearly three years ago. The books have remained successful (except for the eBook line), and the comics, which debuted only a year or so ago, are apparently doing extremely well. So I'd say your question has already been answered.

I kind of see a different thing when I look at Wars, because it seems more like the two facets go hand in hand. And for what it's worth, I think that's how a system should work if feasible.

Why should every system work the same way? ST is a very different entity from SW in a lot of ways. What works for one may not be good for the other.

No, I simply prefer to follow the motto that if it isn't broke, don't fix it. If a novel or a comic contains something which fits into the continuity, and which might also take place within a given frame (DC's Revisitations is an example of this, as the comic seems to take place shortly before TUC and hints at some things that led to the conspiracy against Gorkon), then it should be included. At the very least, it should be acknowledged better as Christopher said.

I didn't say it "should" be. I just said it might be nice.

And I think it's very dangerous to use the word "should" too heavily when it comes to creativity. The only "should" is that creators should be free to follow their own inspirations rather than being pressured to conform to some outside influence. Acknowledging others' work ought to be a choice, not a mandate, or it means nothing.

 

[ATimson]

As the Emerson passage explained, when rigid consistency is chosen at the expense of flexibility or innovation. When it keeps the mind from adapting to new situations, new possibilities.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with that interpretation of Emerson's words; indeed, he seems to be saying that any consistency should be a matter of accident, not intent. But, if you're working off of your interpretation instead, that makes more sense.

I still have to question how consistency stifles flexibility or innovation. With books like the Lost Era series springing from what amount to footnotes in the canon, they wouldn't exist without the consistency you're decrying.

It's not a bad thing for a show to be flexible on its details.

But I wouldn't say that it's automatically a good thing, either; you risk fracturing the suspension of disbelief. (For example, the pilot of TSCC seems rather strange after seeing the rest of the series, with Cameron not acting like the blank slate she suddenly becomes in episode 2.)

I would hate it if Trek fiction were bound by a Lucas-style consistency rule, demanding that every tie-in work acknowledge every other tie-in as absolutely real. It would forbid us from doing variations on the theme, series like Crucible and the Shatnerverse that take their own directions.

Personally, I think that Crucible would've been better were it kept consistent with the other books--though I'd like to think that that stems from my dislike of the nature of the various changes, and not that there were changes.

And it would be impossible to define a fair, objective standard for which ones should be adhered to and which ones are apocryphal.

If you went with "largest set of cohesive novels", I'm pretty sure that the Marcokradiverse, or a superset thereof, would win.

And I think it's very dangerous to use the word "should" too heavily when it comes to creativity. The only "should" is that creators should be free to follow their own inspirations rather than being pressured to conform to some outside influence. Acknowledging others' work ought to be a choice, not a mandate, or it means nothing.

So tie-ins shouldn't be bound by the shows' canon?

 

[Steve Roby]

Canon is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Canon is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Canon is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow

... eaten by a sentient mugato.

Canon is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad

... as used in religious ceremonies by Andorians - no, make that Theskians.

 

[Christopher]

I still have to question how consistency stifles flexibility or innovation. With books like the Lost Era series springing from what amount to footnotes in the canon, they wouldn't exist without the consistency you're decrying.

The point isn't that all consistency stifles flexibility or innovation. You asked "when is the consistency foolish?" and that's the question I was answering. It's foolish in those particular cases where it's blindly elevated above flexibility or innovation, where people refuse to let themselves be flexible or innovative because of a misguided insistence on absolute consistency. In terms of fictional series, yes, consistency is a nice thing to have, but it isn't a higher priority than creativity or adaptability. That's why any literary canon, while it tries to maintain consistency overall, still introduces deliberate inconsistencies when creativity demands it, or when a better idea comes along.

It's not a bad thing for a show to be flexible on its details.

But I wouldn't say that it's automatically a good thing, either; you risk fracturing the suspension of disbelief. (For example, the pilot of TSCC seems rather strange after seeing the rest of the series, with Cameron not acting like the blank slate she suddenly becomes in episode 2.)

I disagree that such refinement of a concept is a bad thing. A TV pilot is a first draft, a work in progress. There are always going to be things in a pilot that don't work out quite right and need to be refined in later episodes. There are always some inconsistencies that arise as a result, but that's necessary for the sake of improving the creation. The author of a novel is able to refine a first draft before anyone sees it; the creators of a series don't always have that option, so their refinement has to be done out in the open. It would be a foolish consistency indeed to be so slavishly faithful to the concepts of a pilot episode that you perpetuate its flaws and limitations rather than being willing to refine your creation as you go. That's the point. Consistency is nice, but it's foolish to elevate it to a fanatical rigidity that makes it impossible to learn, grow, or adapt.

And I think it's very dangerous to use the word "should" too heavily when it comes to creativity. The only "should" is that creators should be free to follow their own inspirations rather than being pressured to conform to some outside influence. Acknowledging others' work ought to be a choice, not a mandate, or it means nothing.

So tie-ins shouldn't be bound by the shows' canon?

That's a straw-man interpretation. In the context of my broader point, it's obvious that's not what I'm saying. I don't understand why you're being so difficult and argumentative.

 

[ATimson]

That's a straw-man interpretation. In the context of my broader point, it's obvious that's not what I'm saying.

To me, it wasn't.

I don't understand why you're being so difficult and argumentative.

I'm being "argumentative" because I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.

 

[elaithin]

Essentially - and Christopher, forgive me for the paraphrasing - his point is that it's useless to require consistency when it's bad for the story. If being inconsistent makes more logical sense, and simply makes for a better story, then there's no point in saying "this HAS to be this way!"

 

[Christopher]

Exactly. It isn't always healthy to be too consistent with your past ideas, because hopefully you're smarter now than you were then, and can come up with better ideas and correct bad ideas you had earlier. Of course general consistency is good to have, but absolute consistency to the point of inflexibility isn't healthy. As Picard once said, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute." There must always be enough flexibility to allow for exceptions when such exceptions are a good idea.

And when it comes to different works of tie-in fiction, sometimes one person may have a really intriguing idea that requires going in a different direction than the rest of the fiction, and it's good to have that option rather than being forced into uniformity to the point of oppression.

 

[elaithin]

Right. I fully agree, by the way. I couldn't tell you how many stories I've gone back and rewritten in my own material.

Of course, I'm not published, either, so I still have that advantage...

 

[JD]

At this time I would just like to point out that not all fans feel the same way as Unicron. For me the DS9R is what happens after What You Leave Behind (hey, it even had 2 actors, and 2 writers from the show involved), Vanguard did happen concurrently with TOS, and the A Time to.../AOTF, Titan, and TNGR did happen around Nemesis, canon be damned.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

OK. I've got my own ideas on the answer, but I've got to ask the question anyway. Why do fans get hung up on canon even though it can stymie creativity?

 

[Dayton3]

OK. I've got my own ideas on the answer, but I've got to ask the question anyway. Why do fans get hung up on canon even though it can stymie creativity?

Because fans want the stuff they enjoy to MATTER.

When Gene Roddenberry says that John Fords Klingons are not canon.

When Gene Roddenberry says that Diane Duanes Klingons are not canon.

He is effectively saying "the stuff you like has no place with us".

It is the same as someone saying "what you like is stupid".

 

[Christopher]

OK. I've got my own ideas on the answer, but I've got to ask the question anyway. Why do fans get hung up on canon even though it can stymie creativity?

Because our culture and our schools stifle people's imagination and condition them to think that there's one set of right answers and that it's read out of a book or handed to them by an authority rather than discovered through their own explorations. In general, most people would rather follow a leader than make independent choices.

Also, because Roddenberry made a point of telling people that canon was defined by an authority (him) and excluded things that didn't meet a certain standard, and Roddenberry's words carry much weight in fandom. And once people buy into one way of looking at things, in this case Roddenberry's way, it can be difficult to change their minds even when it no longer applies (if it ever did).

Or maybe because ST is such a vivid universe that it feels very real to a lot of people, and some people take that reality too seriously and get defensive about it. Allowing for the flexibility of fiction makes it feel less real, and some people find that threatening.

 

[Unicron]

^ Indeed, and that is why I kind of agree with Dayton, and feel like Roddenberry's selfishness and close-mindedness lingers on even without the policy being enforced like a law. I realize I've been cynical in a lot of my posts, and that I've seemed to paint with a broader brush than I meant to. I apologize for that, but I do feel some of that cynicism is a little justified. It may be that the fans have rationalized non-canon status as an "inferior" one far more than the producers have done, but I've seen it happen in some of the most open-minded fans I know. And I don't follow the holy concept of canon much myself very much, preferring instead to include what I like, but there are times when I'm tempted to disregard something that doesn't seem to fit.

* shrugs * I dunno. I think you've made a lot of good points, Christopher, and sometimes I just feel like I'm stuck seeing both sides of the coin. Personally I'd like to think that the concept of incorporating tie-ins with the canon media was never impossible, it simply wasn't done because Gene was unwilling to let it happen. I think it's possible to set some rules of consistency without making them too odious or burdernsome on the contributors, and I believe this has been done in SW and some other series. And I don't think it's necessarily impossible to do stuff like the Shatnerverse within this framework, as a particular subsection. The closest counterpart I can think of at the moment would be the Star Wars Infinities comics, which are basically alternate takes on the OT.

 

[Anthony Sabre]

Or maybe because ST is such a vivid universe that it feels very real to a lot of people, and some people take that reality too seriously and get defensive about it. Allowing for the flexibility of fiction makes it feel less real, and some people find that threatening.

Bingo. This is what I've always believed about Trek. So great of a concept that some people really desire for it to be a reality.

The only reason I don't adhere to lit works as canon is because we haven't all read the same books. However we've all watched the same series and movies, for the most part. Just makes it easier that way.

 

[Unicron]

I will admit that one thing I do like about the SW setup is that some of the information is included in an easy available format, like a wiki or a chronology. I can thus find some of that info as it relates to the main universe, without having to read a whole lot of novels or comics to find it. I have some idea of how it fits even though I don't have nearly enough time to read stuff.

 

[EmperorKalan]

OK. I've got my own ideas on the answer, but I've got to ask the question anyway. Why do fans get hung up on canon even though it can stymie creativity?

Because our culture and our schools stifle people's imagination and condition them to think that there's one set of right answers and that it's read out of a book or handed to them by an authority rather than discovered through their own explorations. In general, most people would rather follow a leader than make independent choices.

While there's truth in that, I think it's a little too neat to lay it all at the feet of stifling authoritism. Perhaps "canon" isn't the best word to use considering its usage elsewhere, but here it refers to the common frame of reference, were something can be referred to without a substantial part of the audience disputing the basic facts of the reference. People are used to thinking in those terms because they live in a common frame of reference -- reality. Even a fictional setting has its internal CFoR, and the farther you get from it the more you're going to run into conflicts of basic terms.

 

[Christopher]

^^But there are so many franchises where audiences are accepting of multiple contradictory "realities." People accept that comic, film, and animated-series adaptations of Batman, Spider-Man, etc. are in different continuities. They may whine that the latest Batman series isn't a continuation of the Bruce Timm version, but they don't whine that the Timmverse contradicts the comics continuity. The existence of multiple incompatible versions of the same universe is accepted in many cases, so why is ST so different?