One is just beatified by the owners of the property but the work isn't canonized like the actual script writers and producers of the show. The beatified works are just fanfic glorified by the Holy Church of the IP owners.
Why does this show seem determined not to acknowledge "Voyager?"
- Thread starter WarpTenLizard
- Start date
He's still not an authoritative voice on canon and has the same knowledge and access to canon materials as every other fan.
And why do you keep tagging him? He obviously doesn't care nearly as much about this as you or he would have responded by now.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Who knows. The books are just various writers ways of seeing the show, an opinion no more valid than any other fan's opinion, just one the owners agreed to print and make some money from. Nothing the owners have to be concerned with making their shows or that fans have to worry about, either so far as forming opinions on the show are concerned.
The writers are authorities only on their books. Their opinions on anything else Trek are just fanwanking like the rest of us.
People argue that the Earth is flat; they'll argue about anything. The Borg Queen's relationship with the Collective, and her identity as an individual, is clear.
Occam's razor. The Queen is imposing her will upon the Collective and differentiating her own subjective experience of disembodiment from the rest of her drones. It is OBVIOUS what is going on here. Fans that disapprove are entitled to their opinions, but their attempts at labyrinthine rationalizations are anything but grounded. When the most recent piece of media to feature the Borg further validates the Queen's role, it gets harder and harder to argue against what she is.
They have to deliver a book on time, within the guidelines their paymasters dictate. It's a service provided for money just like TV or film writing. Fanfic writers literally do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like for nothing. No oversight, no guidelines. No money.
And while we're talking about the novels, I assume someone has mentioned that PIC co-creator Kersten Beyer wrote a ton of Voyager novels which took Seven in a totally different direction to the TV series. And I hope someone else pointed out concepts like Control, the Brikar and many others used in TV Trek originated in the books.
Oh, and prolific Trek novelist David Mack was a consultant on Disco and Prodigy
That's immaterial to their opinions being in any way authoritative, Mack included.They have to deliver a book on time, within the guidelines their paymasters dictate. It's a service provided for money just like TV or film writing. Fanfic writers literally do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like for nothing. No oversight, no guidelines. No money.
And while we're talking about the novels, I assume someone has mentioned that PIC co-creator Kersten Beyer wrote a ton of Voyager novels which took Seven in a totally different direction to the TV series. And I hope someone else pointed out concepts like Control, the Brikar and many others used in TV Trek originated in the books.
Oh, and prolific Trek novelist David Mack was a consultant on Disco and Prodigy
Besides, little difference to their work being fanfic, too. They're just playing in someone else's sandbox with someone else's toys just like any other fanfic writer.
Last edited:
Let's move along.........shall we?
Speaking as an as-yet-unpublished author, a writer with no paid contract is writing fanfic. A writer who intends to submit a work for paid publication is just that. Calling ST novels "fanfic" because they aren't canon is contrary to that term's definition:
Fan fiction: stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet [which has largely destroyed the market for hardcopy--trekkist]
— also called also fanfic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan fiction
Calling ST novels "paid fanfic" is harshly semi-accurate given the Franchise does not accept them as canon...but then, the Franchise plays fast and loose with (aired) canon all the time, as it must to maintain the financial viability of its "product" (a term nearly as loathsome as that applied to many who write for online publication: "content providers"). As has been said on this thread, a series (or even a film) pitched to established fandom(s) alone is a niche market item at best--that is, one unlikely to be greenlit for big budget production.
In order to sell more "product," the Franchise "authorizes" ST novels, while at the same not allowing any of them to constrain future (film/TV) productions. Can you imagine the alternative? I don't know how ST novelists' "oversight" or "approval" works, but imagine a future screenwriter being told, "OK, you need to NOT violate canon...that is, all aired data from all series and films and this list of novels. Get to work!"
In the Good Old Days, ST novels were bought and published and sold (making all parties to those deals $ happy), but with few if any oversight or constraints on novelists beyond "don't kill or make major changes to the lives of established primary characters." IIRC, this state of affairs continued well into the Pocket Books era. Had it ceased to be in the 1980s to early '90s, we might never have Diane Duane's Rihanssu novels, John Ford's The Final Reflection (itself based on an earlier authorized-though-noncanonical "nonfiction" work, ST Spaceflight Chronology), or the refit saucer's taking off from the Earth's surface in Brad Ferguson's A Flag Full of Stars (1991).
If Franchise oversight had been the case in 1977, we'd never have seen the novel Shatner said should have been TMP's script: Marshak & Culbreath's The Price of the Phoenix (which had it been filmed, could have starred this man as "Black Omne" (and yes, I know there's no literal textual evidence as to the first word:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/533676624578493760/
Fan fiction: stories involving popular fictional characters that are written by fans and often posted on the Internet [which has largely destroyed the market for hardcopy--trekkist]
— also called also fanfic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fan fiction
Calling ST novels "paid fanfic" is harshly semi-accurate given the Franchise does not accept them as canon...but then, the Franchise plays fast and loose with (aired) canon all the time, as it must to maintain the financial viability of its "product" (a term nearly as loathsome as that applied to many who write for online publication: "content providers"). As has been said on this thread, a series (or even a film) pitched to established fandom(s) alone is a niche market item at best--that is, one unlikely to be greenlit for big budget production.
In order to sell more "product," the Franchise "authorizes" ST novels, while at the same not allowing any of them to constrain future (film/TV) productions. Can you imagine the alternative? I don't know how ST novelists' "oversight" or "approval" works, but imagine a future screenwriter being told, "OK, you need to NOT violate canon...that is, all aired data from all series and films and this list of novels. Get to work!"
In the Good Old Days, ST novels were bought and published and sold (making all parties to those deals $ happy), but with few if any oversight or constraints on novelists beyond "don't kill or make major changes to the lives of established primary characters." IIRC, this state of affairs continued well into the Pocket Books era. Had it ceased to be in the 1980s to early '90s, we might never have Diane Duane's Rihanssu novels, John Ford's The Final Reflection (itself based on an earlier authorized-though-noncanonical "nonfiction" work, ST Spaceflight Chronology), or the refit saucer's taking off from the Earth's surface in Brad Ferguson's A Flag Full of Stars (1991).
If Franchise oversight had been the case in 1977, we'd never have seen the novel Shatner said should have been TMP's script: Marshak & Culbreath's The Price of the Phoenix (which had it been filmed, could have starred this man as "Black Omne" (and yes, I know there's no literal textual evidence as to the first word:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/533676624578493760/
What has this got to do with the thread topic or current line of dicussion?
Shields up, red alert!!
trekkist said: ↑
(fan subset rationalization): " 'I don't have a son' is literal, in that 'he"' has since become 'she' " (I am NOT dissing LGBTQI, BTW; just inventing a justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written).
In re: LGBTQI, however, here's something interesting. Years ago, when my university employer recognized the addition of I (intersex), I got a bit curious. "Inclusivity of all is essential (again, no sarcasm intended: it is and should be), but how many I's can there be?" (FYI: ETC
>What has this got to do with the thread topic or current line of dicussion?
I was responding to an earlier post (which I'm not going to search for) which mentioned Seven's having met Q's son, and what damage could be done to canon were she to mention that to Q, to Q's response "I don't have a son." As I said (and as you quoted of me) I was (in my post's opening):
>just inventing a justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written).
The rest of my post was free-associating from my having made damn sure after my "justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written" that I didn't come across as LBGTQI-phobic citing a fact I suspect most people don't know, regarding a group of people whose general acceptance by society is about as far from reality today as was a Negro (sic; time-of-broadcast term) on the bridge in 1966.
Does that answer your question?
>When Trek fans argue about canon, I often feel the urge to fire one
Is that an incitement? (ducks)
Shields up, red alert!!
Hey, I didn't mean *I* was going to fire a canon...which action I have engaged in elsewhere on this board of late (Deep Canon
® to be precise, an example of which I don't have handy in re: this thread's question.
Wait a minute! I just did that, via an allusion to TOS's then-radical "inclusivity," as vs. that of current ("New Generation," to coin a phrase) Trek(s)...which latter seems to have upset a whole lot of people (elsewhere online; I've yet to observe that on the bbs).
(fan subset rationalization): " 'I don't have a son' is literal, in that 'he"' has since become 'she' " (I am NOT dissing LGBTQI, BTW; just inventing a justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written).
In re: LGBTQI, however, here's something interesting. Years ago, when my university employer recognized the addition of I (intersex), I got a bit curious. "Inclusivity of all is essential (again, no sarcasm intended: it is and should be), but how many I's can there be?" (FYI: ETC
>What has this got to do with the thread topic or current line of dicussion?
I was responding to an earlier post (which I'm not going to search for) which mentioned Seven's having met Q's son, and what damage could be done to canon were she to mention that to Q, to Q's response "I don't have a son." As I said (and as you quoted of me) I was (in my post's opening):
>just inventing a justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written).
The rest of my post was free-associating from my having made damn sure after my "justification for a line of dialogue neither delivered or written" that I didn't come across as LBGTQI-phobic citing a fact I suspect most people don't know, regarding a group of people whose general acceptance by society is about as far from reality today as was a Negro (sic; time-of-broadcast term) on the bridge in 1966.
Does that answer your question?
>When Trek fans argue about canon, I often feel the urge to fire one
Is that an incitement? (ducks)
Shields up, red alert!!
Hey, I didn't mean *I* was going to fire a canon...which action I have engaged in elsewhere on this board of late (Deep Canon
® to be precise, an example of which I don't have handy in re: this thread's question.
Wait a minute! I just did that, via an allusion to TOS's then-radical "inclusivity," as vs. that of current ("New Generation," to coin a phrase) Trek(s)...which latter seems to have upset a whole lot of people (elsewhere online; I've yet to observe that on the bbs).
Which reminds me: does everyone here know about Lora [ex- Shane] Johnson's
Lora's Heart and Neck Fund
$8,315 raised of $27,000 goal • 119 donors
My name is Lora Johnson. I was born with multiple rare birth defects that without proper treatment will prove fatal.
My heart isn't structured like most people's and as a result I'm now dealing with congestive heart failure that has come on with age. I've begun treatments and medications that I must have if I am to live. The daily fatigue is debilitating and I'm very limited physically. My heart failure also makes any other surgeries I need, such as on my neck, far more dangerous. The inside of my neck did not form properly, causing chronic mass infections, loss of healthy tissue and difficulty swallowing. My treatment was badly mishandled by a surgeon when I was a child...
(I gave on hearing of hers; more at:
[Link removed by moderator]
Lora's Heart and Neck Fund
$8,315 raised of $27,000 goal • 119 donors
My name is Lora Johnson. I was born with multiple rare birth defects that without proper treatment will prove fatal.
My heart isn't structured like most people's and as a result I'm now dealing with congestive heart failure that has come on with age. I've begun treatments and medications that I must have if I am to live. The daily fatigue is debilitating and I'm very limited physically. My heart failure also makes any other surgeries I need, such as on my neck, far more dangerous. The inside of my neck did not form properly, causing chronic mass infections, loss of healthy tissue and difficulty swallowing. My treatment was badly mishandled by a surgeon when I was a child...
(I gave on hearing of hers; more at:
[Link removed by moderator]
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps you should use the actual quote function so that people know what you're responding to. Even you can't bother going back to search for the post.
Sorry to say, I find your messages very difficult to follow. Also, using the quote function let's people know you replied.
>Sorry to say, I find your messages very difficult to follow.
Yeah, I've heard that before. No apology needed. At 63, it's tough to change one's writing style.
>Also, using the quote function let's people know you replied.
I did not know that. Sorry. Will do.
Yeah, I've heard that before. No apology needed. At 63, it's tough to change one's writing style.
>Also, using the quote function let's people know you replied.
I did not know that. Sorry. Will do.
BTW...and I wish I could "broadcast" this to everyone on bbs (do folks here read the "new member intro"--hell, where is that? I know I saw it...)
ANYWAY...I was about to say this: if I come across as arrogant, that's not because I am arrogant. Well, not exactly; I have "opinions" I'm certain are right (the world's NOT flat...I could add more, but won't), some I'm not certain of (but believe strongly in...there are other sapient species out there)...and tend to express both rather strongly. More strongly that a lot of folks do.
(how's my style here so far? serious question; I certainly don't mean to fail at communicating!)
I am however aware both that I come across as arrogant...and that I know I know more than a lot of people about a lot of things, and therefore have many "opinions" about many subjects, a broader range of subjects than I've most people familiar with (as I'm pretty sure applies to most if not all posters here). Mind you, I only consider myself "expert" in a few...but above-average in more than a few.
expert:
TOS lines & aired data retention
airships
spaceflight history
first & second wave feminism
nuclear weaponry strategy and history
SDI (missile interception) technology and R&D history of same
rules and regs of hard SF
the works of E.E. Doc Smith, Olaf Stapledon, Robert Heinlein, Larry Niven and a few others
pretty damn close to expert:
how fascism arises and operates
US military aerospace R & D and procurement (NOT aircraft strategy or flight operations)
how women "work" (read into this what you will; I am not bragging, nor cutting notches on bedposts...my "number" is average...nor talking only of sex)
fair to good working knowledge:
Leftwing American history of 1920s-1970s
LGBTQI issues (NOT political history; And the Band Played On is the only nonfiction work I've managed to read only once due to its horrific content; I reread the first volume of Solzhenizyn's (probably spelled wrong; screw it, I'm tired) Gulag Archipeligo every year or so
good enough working knowledge to enter and pass a graduate level entry course:
Nazi & Soviet history
(maybe) LGBTQI literature by American authors
enough info to fake it:
(I can't make this list..."fake it" with who? most folks outside an academic environment, per my experience. I've always thought I'd be seen through if I attended an "elite intellectual" party in everything below pretty damn close to
My dad was quite arrogant. A trait which infuriated my mom and I was that he'd ask "Do you know about X?" and if told "Yes" would then tell you about "X" as if you knew nothing. I don't mean to do that; if I'm longwinded it means I'm "speaking" with the knowledge that to leave out any part of an argument might puzzle someone who didn't know that particular part (Say I'm discussing spaceflight history and tech; I can't be sure all users here know as much as I do about that).
I try to counter coming off like my dad (who did, I think, look down on folks who knew less than him) by remembering that anything I know is an accident of my having been raised to be curious, i.e., self-"educating"
I also sometimes repeat to myself in the most over-acted style the following, so to damp down the temptation to ever say either of them out of anger when misunderstood (which does not mean, "disagree with," as I love to argue):
SPOCK: I see no reason for answers to be couched in riddles.
GUARDIAN: I answer as simply as your level of understanding makes possible.
DAYSTROM: Seminars and lectures to rows of fools who couldn't begin to understand my systems. Colleagues. Colleagues laughing behind my back at the boy wonder and becoming famous building on my work. Building on my work.
I'm also fully aware (I think) of many if not most (probably not most) of the ways I'm fucked up. The following, which I found here, really spoke to me:
I’ve always been bad at parties because the topics I bring up are too depressing, such as everything that’s wrong with my life, and everything that’s wrong with the world, and the futility of doing anything about either.
-- Olga Khazan
But I do know this, by heart (I can even sing it fairly well, I think:
There is no one, no one at all,
never has been and never will be a lover
male or female
who hasn't an eye on, in fact they rely on,
tricks they can try on their partner
They're hoping their lover will help or keep them
Support them, promote them
Don't blame them
You're the same!
ANYWAY...I was about to say this: if I come across as arrogant, that's not because I am arrogant. Well, not exactly; I have "opinions" I'm certain are right (the world's NOT flat...I could add more, but won't), some I'm not certain of (but believe strongly in...there are other sapient species out there)...and tend to express both rather strongly. More strongly that a lot of folks do.
(how's my style here so far? serious question; I certainly don't mean to fail at communicating!)
I am however aware both that I come across as arrogant...and that I know I know more than a lot of people about a lot of things, and therefore have many "opinions" about many subjects, a broader range of subjects than I've most people familiar with (as I'm pretty sure applies to most if not all posters here). Mind you, I only consider myself "expert" in a few...but above-average in more than a few.
expert:
TOS lines & aired data retention
airships
spaceflight history
first & second wave feminism
nuclear weaponry strategy and history
SDI (missile interception) technology and R&D history of same
rules and regs of hard SF
the works of E.E. Doc Smith, Olaf Stapledon, Robert Heinlein, Larry Niven and a few others
pretty damn close to expert:
how fascism arises and operates
US military aerospace R & D and procurement (NOT aircraft strategy or flight operations)
how women "work" (read into this what you will; I am not bragging, nor cutting notches on bedposts...my "number" is average...nor talking only of sex)
fair to good working knowledge:
Leftwing American history of 1920s-1970s
LGBTQI issues (NOT political history; And the Band Played On is the only nonfiction work I've managed to read only once due to its horrific content; I reread the first volume of Solzhenizyn's (probably spelled wrong; screw it, I'm tired) Gulag Archipeligo every year or so
good enough working knowledge to enter and pass a graduate level entry course:
Nazi & Soviet history
(maybe) LGBTQI literature by American authors
enough info to fake it:
(I can't make this list..."fake it" with who? most folks outside an academic environment, per my experience. I've always thought I'd be seen through if I attended an "elite intellectual" party in everything below pretty damn close to
My dad was quite arrogant. A trait which infuriated my mom and I was that he'd ask "Do you know about X?" and if told "Yes" would then tell you about "X" as if you knew nothing. I don't mean to do that; if I'm longwinded it means I'm "speaking" with the knowledge that to leave out any part of an argument might puzzle someone who didn't know that particular part (Say I'm discussing spaceflight history and tech; I can't be sure all users here know as much as I do about that).
I try to counter coming off like my dad (who did, I think, look down on folks who knew less than him) by remembering that anything I know is an accident of my having been raised to be curious, i.e., self-"educating"
I also sometimes repeat to myself in the most over-acted style the following, so to damp down the temptation to ever say either of them out of anger when misunderstood (which does not mean, "disagree with," as I love to argue):
SPOCK: I see no reason for answers to be couched in riddles.
GUARDIAN: I answer as simply as your level of understanding makes possible.
DAYSTROM: Seminars and lectures to rows of fools who couldn't begin to understand my systems. Colleagues. Colleagues laughing behind my back at the boy wonder and becoming famous building on my work. Building on my work.
I'm also fully aware (I think) of many if not most (probably not most) of the ways I'm fucked up. The following, which I found here, really spoke to me:
I’ve always been bad at parties because the topics I bring up are too depressing, such as everything that’s wrong with my life, and everything that’s wrong with the world, and the futility of doing anything about either.
-- Olga Khazan
But I do know this, by heart (I can even sing it fairly well, I think:
There is no one, no one at all,
never has been and never will be a lover
male or female
who hasn't an eye on, in fact they rely on,
tricks they can try on their partner
They're hoping their lover will help or keep them
Support them, promote them
Don't blame them
You're the same!
Similar threads
