posted
Erm... To go back to something... Why are we looking for another word along the lines of "personal canon"? There's no need. There's "canon", and there's "not canon". Yes, some reference books are called "semi-canon", but they're still "not canon". We only call them "semi-canon" because we know it's likely the writers will try to adhere to them, not because they're required (or "semi-required") to.
Basically, "canon" is the live-action series and movies. That's it. Everything, I repeat: everything, else is "not canon". From the TNGTM to the worst fanfic Website. I don't see any reason to call something "personal canon", or anything of the sort. If you want to include something in your own mental image of the Trek universe, fine. But there doesn't need to be special terminology for it. All it is is "non-canon stuff that you like".
posted
And also, let me add to what I said before that if Star Trek were a looser structure than a novel that can't be revised, then what's the point of all of us rationalizing away? We could end every discussion simply by saying, "well, you don't need to explain the apparent inconsistency, it's a loose and diverse structure, a series of novels (=series) taking place in variations on the same universe. Even the individuals chapters/episodes take place in slightly different universa."
Since we don't, it's clear all of us think that Star Trek *should* be a tight structure, kind of like a novel where every chapter should be consistent with what came before, which for unfortunate reasons it isn't. It's our job to make it tighter.
The question is, does it make sense to make it so tight to include TAS and everything else, because the writers aren't taking these into account most of the time? I think the agreement is that it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the issue of "personal canon" is kind of irrelevant on these forums.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: If you want to include something in your own mental image of the Trek universe, fine. But there doesn't need to be special terminology for it. All it is is "non-canon stuff that you like".
Yes exactly, but surely there's a way to say that without using six words.
posted
You don't have to use those exact words. If you like TAS, say "I like TAS". Don't say "I include TAS in my personal canon".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Ok, Big_Meweo1, I don't think we should include that episode. It's just so, I don't know, not Star Trek. I always excluded it because of its notion of darkness and lack of lightness that pervades Star Trek. So I believe Star Trek V to be real Star Trek, and hence, my conclusion is that Enterprise-A has white torpedoes."
"No, no, no, Small_Iron_Monkey, I really don't like Star Trek V. It's so, I don't know, not Star Trek. But "Threshold" is! It fits the spirit of Voyager, the notion of perfection regardless of difficulty, namely that it's a ship that can fix every problem without starbases in the area, and so it's canon. Hence, I do believe that transwarp drive wasn't on the Enterprise-A, because Starfleet didn't know about it at the time of 'Threshold' ".
"No, no, no, Targ is right to say that the TNG Klingons are an inferior depiction of the TOS Klingons, one driven towards a desire for coolness rather than consistency. Such fan-oriented modifications were never in the spirit of Star Trek, which is supposed to be original, so I really think we should ignore the ridges on the new Klingons."
Phelps: We more or less already have those conversations. Most of us start off with what Paramount calls "canon" as the basis for our "personal canon." Some people tweak it a bit ("Oh, Kirk really said 300 years to Khan in 'Space Seed.'"). I think that Ryan means by this (and I'm more than certain he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that he's talking about what fans include in their personal views of canon that are in addition to what Paramount thinks is canon. For instance, Ezekiel's personal view of canon includes "The Animated Series" and all novels by Peter David. But he also holds the live action episodes and movies as canon.
You know, this is already getting a bit confusing. Can't we just use the word "quizzlebuk" and leave it at that?
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
Question: why did we start discussing personal canon in the first place? How is it relevant to know that some person includes this but not that in his personal canon?
I think it's relevant in terms of suggesting that if a number of fans have a problem with an episode, or seriously like a number of non-canon sources, writers are likely to share the view. It means, maybe, that we don't have to bother rationalizing "Threshold", because the writers probably won't refer to it. Or that we should be taking a closer look at TAS because the writers could like it. It could be a matter of refining the general definition of canon = episodes and movies.
posted
I think that I may have inadvertantly started this hijack about two pages ago. Needless to say, I think we've got the issue of the Klingon ship from "Unexpected" out of our systems. I also think we've got the general Enterprise debates our systems again. Who wants to start taking bets as to when this will flame up again?
And, Ryan, I beg to defer. The "personal canon" issue is extremely relevent and prevalent on Flare. It's just we've never had any sort of conversation on the matter of canonicity and why some people give a lot of faith to materials, references, series, et cetra that Paramount hasn't deemed worthy of dubbing "canon." At the very least, it gave me an epiphany. If you were anywhere near me, I'd buy you a cup of coffee or something.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
In a effort to completely derail this thread...
I've been to Denton a couple times. The band went there for our football game against UNT, and I went to a conference at Texas Women's. Nice area, but it is one heck of a drive.
Cypress is on the northwest side of the city out in the suburbs. It's the Highway 290/FM 1960 area (near Champions, Cypress Creek, Jersey Village, Addicks, Langham Creek, etc). Most of the time, I'm at UH which is off of Interstate 45 southeast of downtown.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: I've been to Denton a couple times. The band went there for our football game against UNT, and I went to a conference at Texas Women's. Nice area, but it is one heck of a drive.
I hate it here. I go to Dallas whenever I can.
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: Cypress is on the northwest side of the city out in the suburbs. It's the Highway 290/FM 1960 area (near Champions, Cypress Creek, Jersey Village, Addicks, Langham Creek, etc). Most of the time, I'm at UH which is off of Interstate 45 southeast of downtown.
Oh, I'm actually from Houston, and that's my old stomping grounds. I lived the first 18 years of my life off 1960 between Veteran's Memorial and I-45. Went to Westfield High School until 1998. Small world, eh?
Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program...
Printer-friendly view of this topic
