Flare Sci-Fi Forums: My use of canon

This is topic My use of canon in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/650.html

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :

I apply the studio's definition of canon-episodes and films-for I don't have the will nor the financial resources to get non-canon materials. To say this another way, I know canonical and I don't know non-canonical.

And I don't use canon as an offensive weapon against those who believe in the other interpretations of Star Trek.

I believe that what is happening with Star Wars is much healtheir and can be seen as a possible standard. In that franchise, the franchise's trustees are willing to include non-film material to be considered as relevant as the film material. If the film material contradicts the non-film material, the former is given precedence.

This creates a franchise where people from the hard liners to the soft liners can have a relatively peaceful camp for debates and divisions of interpretations.

In Star Trek, there is a nasty row on canonicity and beliefs.

My use of canonicity is not a statement of my position in this row. The hope that I have is that the reader accepts what I am saying and understands what I am saying.

[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

Star Trek is what you personally want it to be.

For example, *I* take TAS as canon, and I therefore also 'believe' in Captain April, 23rd century 'holographic recreation rooms', Edoans, Caitians.

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :

Target: I agree with you on canon in that canon materials should for the most part be free and accessible to anyone with a TV set. That's why I generally don't feel bound in my own writing by officially licensed novels, technical manuals, gaming manuals or fan-produced material. Some of the stuff that published-material as canon hardliners want to elevate to the same level as broadcast material include 35-year old stuff that only a small percentage of fans have ever seen first hand. In contrast, fans around the world can see the televised episodes and the movies for themselves (eventually). So that's my criterion; I'm not making a value judgement about the quality of the material.

On the other hand, I'm not so sure of using the Star Wars experience as a model for Trek Fandom. I would think the same problems with accessibility remain.

Posted by Light from a Cake (Member # 36) on :

Also, the non-film Star Wars material is pretty poor in most cases (specifically, the recent stuff).

Posted by Jeff Kardde (Member # 411) on :

Look, Frank, pick a name and keep it.

Posted by Killboy Powerhead (Member # 36) on :

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

Star Wars is a bit different that Trek: only four movies that are (by Trek standards) canon, so I guess any side-info is eagerly accepted by the Star Wars equivalent of Trekkies (what do you call them, anyway?)

Posted by Nimrod (Member # 205) on :

Audience.

I love Star Wars, it started so early for me, you took movies very seriously at the age of 6, you know?

And the dioramas with X-Wings and AT-ATs in the sandbox, jesus.
My friends left their toys at my place at the end of the day, and we'd take them out and continue the next day (easier on the logistics for them), during the summer break especially. Now that was bliss, not a care in the world...

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Just reguarding TAS's canonicity, I mentioned it in another thread. Gene Roddenberry said he didn't like TAS to be 'canon' because there was just some too 'way out' there ideas... like shrinking ships and people who age backwards... Well, now we have DS9's "
One Little Ship" and Voyager's "Innocence" which do both of these things. So what is the harm now in making TAS canon... maybe all of it except that Larry Niven crossover?

And yes, I agree with the whole thing about Star Wars canonicity with them not having much 'canon' stuff to go on. Star Wars has 8 hours of canon 'material' Star Trek has 79 + 178 + 176 + 174 = ...carry the one... 607 + 16 = 624 hours of 'material' + or - TAS which would bump it up to 635 hours of material. Which is nearly a week of Trek, non-stop. Imagine THAT marathon! Maybe Berman is trying to get Trek to the 1000 hour mark? Basically what I'm saying is - there is enough Trek 'canon' to worry about without having to fit in Comics, books and novels. The only books I'd probably consider as canon would be the Encyclopaedias and the TNG Tech Manual.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

That's more than a week, Bubba. FAR more. Three weeks, five days, and eleven hours to be exact.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Anyone know anyone who's done it?

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

*whistles innocently*

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

But bear in mind that this was beack when all there was was TOS, TAS, the first six movies, and most of TNG...

--Jonah

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :

targetemployee opined:

"I apply the studio's definition of canon-episodes and films-for I don't have the will nor the financial resources to get non-canon materials. To say this another way, I know canonical and I don't know non-canonical."

I got that. No problem there, even if it is rather unfortunate... You wouldn't happen to live in Southen California, would you?

"And I don't use canon as an offensive weapon against those who believe in the other interpretations of Star Trek."

Thank you...

"In Star Trek, there is a nasty row on canonicity and beliefs.

My use of canonicity is not a statement of my position in this row. The hope that I have is that the reader accepts what I am saying and understands what I am saying."

Again, no problem. I'm just sick of mentioning something and having someone yell at me that it isn't "canon". Frikkin' DUH! I know it isn't "canon". I also don't let the relative "canonicity" of something determine it's validity. So to all you "canon-nazis" out there, quit whacking me over the head with the "canon" stick before you have to have it removed by a good proctologist.

I still hold out hope that a cream of that which is now "non-canon" will one day be distilled and reintegrated into Trek "canon"... But we'll see.

--Jonah

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

OK, so I stuffed up my maths a little

Anyway, what do any of you think of my reasoning for bringing TAS back into the canon fold?

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Some of us already have. In a sim I was in, there was an Aurelian & a Phylosian in the crew....hell, I played a Sadrao!

And TAS--like it or not--has been inadvertently canonized since day one. Ever take a good hard look at that Federation map from TNG s1? The one that was quite prominent in "Conspiracy?" It's got a shitload of TAS planets in there. Phylos, Lactra VII, Kzin, Arret, Pallas XIV...

Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :

I have never understood why TAS shouldn't be canon. IIRC whatever was onscreen is canon and TAS was onscreen.

[ June 02, 2001: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Well, TAS depicted Kirk as a fictional drawing. Kirk was a fictional person, to the best of my knowledge. Isn't this grounds enough to say it wasn't as "real" as the other series?

Besides, squeezing TAS into the timeline mucks things up a bit as the shows have been sticking to the Okuda arrangement of years for a decade now. And, to be blunt, the stories were still more ridiculous than even the most ridiculous the other shows had to offer.

In any case, canon isn't a personal thing or even the sort of thing that this forum could all back behind.

quote:

can�on1 (knn) n.
1.An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2.A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3. a.An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b.A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.

4.The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5. a.A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: �the durable canon of American short fiction� (William Styron).
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.

Canon is based on general consensus or dictat from the higher ups. "Personal canon" is an oxymoron. One, can however, "personally treat something as if it were canon."

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

quote:
And, to be blunt, the stories were still more ridiculous than even the most ridiculous the other shows had to offer.

Well, Voyager came very close (Treshold...). And so did The Final Frontier.

Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :

quote:
Well, Voyager came very close (Treshold...). And so did The Final Frontier.

Roddenberry said himself he thought most of Final Frontier didn't 'actually' happen, and he must've rolled over in his space urn when 'Threshold' aired...

Simply put, if any onscreen stuff weren't canon, it would be those two.

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

Canon is what I want it to be. Simply state your source ("I read in a novel once") and people can take it for what it is. Anyone who really goes off on you for being 'not canon' doesnt really have a life.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Yes. Er, you ever seen a thread here where everyone's debating something, and them someone wanders in, and gives a big long list of "canon" information. Which turns out to be FASA. Or the novels. Or something he's just made up.

Alternative versions of stuff is interesting, but rarely useful.

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

quote:
Canon is what I want it to be. Simply state your source ("I read in a novel once") and people can take it for what it is. Anyone who really goes off on you for being 'not canon' doesnt really have a life.

Well, I'l give you points for at least suggesting that the source be stated. But the rest of your statement is basically the justification the FASA nerds use to spout a whole line of bullshit at the drop of a hat. Better to say "Canon is what we (our immediate group discussing this stuff) want it to be" - most people here, for instance, discount FASA and stick to that viewpoint in usual discussions. There are other fora on the internet where FASA (and similar organisations, as IDC would be quick to point out) is wholeheartedly embraced.

And as for not having a life. . . you're saying that if I choose to contest someone's inclusion of FASA material in a discussion, said material which they have spent long hours memorising and know extensively, then I'm the one who doesn't have a life? 8)

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

quote:
And as for not having a life. . . you're saying that if I choose to contest someone's inclusion of FASA material in a discussion, said material which they have spent long hours memorising and know extensively, then I'm the one who doesn't have a life? 8)

Depends on the additude of the person your talking to, really. Oh man there are some people with sticks up thier asses, and thats fine, its the people with a stick up thier stick's ass that bothers me. If I mention something from a source that someone doesnt think is canon, he/she should keep it to themselves or at least talk in a less "I'm right no matter what" fasion. I've actually had people tell me my information was complete and total bullshit because it came from the TNG tech manual.

When information is not available anywhere else, the only sourse is the best.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

That was Beria who sid that, right? No, wait...it was Dzerzhinsky!

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Canon is what I want it to be."

Um... No. Redefining words of the English language is only possible in your own little world. It doesn't affect the rest of us...

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

Canon, the way we are using it most likely means:

a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture [trek] b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works

This is from the engilish dictionary. What we meant by 'what we want it to be' was what exactly is authentic, either on-screen only, paramount authorized, Okuda authorized.. and so on...

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

You look that up in a dictionary, but still manage to spell 'English' wrong?

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

yep. just to bother you. i thought it would be funey