I have had this book for a number of years and consider it a very informative volume for ships during the post TOS and current TMP era. It is well written, illustrated, and very technical in it's descriptions of various systems. There are also descriptions of the political and procurement situations of the time that make for very interesting and believable reading.
Why is this volume not considered canon for the era for which it is written? There seems to be little information on ships, or the fleet in general for this era.
Does anyone else have this book? Any comments on the book?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Uh, if that's the book I'm thinking of, then maybe it's not canon because it was written by a bunch of fans without official recognition from Paramount? Posted by Starship Salvage Ops (Member # 1212) on :
So if it's not blessed by Paramount it can't possibly have ever happened.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
That's the definition of canon.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That explains why all my fanfic bible stories are generally met with disdain by the Roman Catholic Church.
That, and Jesus finally gets some tail.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starship Salvage Ops: So if it's not blessed by Paramount it can't possibly have ever happened.
quote:Originally posted by Topher: That's the definition of canon.
No it's not.
Canon is if it has appeared on TV or at the Movies and is live-action. Except for "Yesteryear" of TAS - as it has a lot of Spock back-story.
Supposedly GR said V and parts of VI weren't canon - but that's silly.
**Most of the wierdness of V can be explained away as a dream sequence starting just after the 'big three' go to bed - and returning to "real life" when we see them at the end.**
That means the novels *excluding Jeri Taylor's Mosaic and Pathways (both good books), what ever of Franz Josef's that hasn't appeared on TV/Film, all the computer games, all the role-playing and card games etc. aren't canon.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...excluding Jeri Taylor's Mosaic and Pathways..."
Or so says Jeri Taylor. Who doesn't really count.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I read that it was in numerous sources. Plus Jeri Taylor is/was an exec producer/creator of VOY.
The thing is those books wouldn't have needed to have been written if they had actually delved into the characters and fleshed them out.
Posted by Phoenix (Member # 966) on :
quote:How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe?
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, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.
There are a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)
Of course, this is all conditional on whether you consider this a definitive statement or not.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Crimony! Are we having the canon discussion again!?!
There seriously needs to be a "newbie pack" or link that includes instructions on how to use the search, where to post what, what is spam, a link to all 150 discussions on what is and is not canon, and, of course 50 complimentary gaming tokens! Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Simon was working on that once. Then he began to take the world by storm, and coldly abandoned it. Curses.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, we wouldn't want to make a "newbie pack" available anyway -- then we'd lose Flare's trademark warm welcome for new members! Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ooh, my ears are burning. . .
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I am thrilled and scared that Tim is on my side here, but...
The Taylor books had a certain degree of "canonicity" when she wrote them, simply because she was in charge of the show. When she left, the writers had no reason to follow what she had written in the books. And apparently some of them didn't. I don't know, because I never read them.
But the reason why the Okuda and Sternbach tech stuff is (hnng) semi-canon isn't because of some divine power that they have. It's simply because the writers went to them for tech problems, and they took the stuff from what they had already written. The same thing would have happened (presumably) with Voyager, with Taylor corrected and adding bits of Janeway's past to stories. Until she left. Then it stopped. Hooray!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Ooh, my ears are burning. . .
I told you that lighting Q-Tips was a bad idea...
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
I worked on the book along with Todd Guenther, who those cognescenti among you will know did the "official" 1701-D blueprints with Rick Sternbach.
I'm glad a few fans can still see beyond the stilted, retarded concept of "canon" that has paralyzed fan creativity. And it's good to know that "Ships of the Star Fleet" is still, even after seventeen years, pulling in new fans. I think Todd and I would consider doing another volume if we thought enough people could get out from under that "canon" mindset for long enough to enjoy something that has not been infected with the Paramount curse. We'll have to see.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Woah now, I never said anything was wrong with fan creativity. I just said that there's no chance this stuff could be canon. Because it's never going to be recognized by Paramount. And if we're ever going to discuss Trek with other fans, we've got to have some kind of common frame of reference, too.
I happen to be a big fan of the Starfleet Museum, for example. But not everyone's heard of it, so there's no way that could be considered canon.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
You know what is so interesting about these "canon" discussions? The way fans have taken this idea that is of very little applicability outside the studio and gone crazy with it. Not you, necessarily. But one only need survey a few of the Trek BBSs and know full well what I mean.
Fact is, what's to say that only the Trek made by Roddenberry isn't "canon"? "It isn't Star Trek until I say it's Star Trek" is what Gene Roddenberry is quoted as saying in "The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry". Sure, Paramount owns it and can do what they want with it. Including change it from what the people that created it laid down.
We have a perfectly good understanding of what Roddenberry intended Trek to be from TOS, TAS, TMP the first two seasons of TNG and the TMP novelization. Also the two "Making of" books he co-wrote. A lot of the disparaged "fan" stuff builds upon that Trek. That is certainly what SotSF did.
So please understand my sadness in reading yet another pointless debate about canon. There is Roddenberry canon, and Non-Roddenberry canon. And there is fan material that exponds on each. It all has its place if it is any good. That's the standard that we should debate. Whether it is on screen or made on some guy's computer is it any good? Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
And yet how can I discuss something with you if I've never seen it? I've heard vague mentions of this "Ships of the Fleet" you mentioned, and I might be able to name a few of the ships created for it. But I've never seen it at all, and I'm not likely to because I don't go out and buy that kind of stuff.
So what's the point in having something if no one can agree about what constitutes the story? That's the whole point about canon -- to make a clearly definable set of works that are reasonably easy for everyone to access, understand, and discuss. I'm not going to go out and buy Star Trek Comic #447 just because someone says it's good. And so I'm not going to say that something that happened in an episode is wrong based on some lousy comic book.
We need a baseline to start from. Yes, there are plenty of quality fan creations out there. I myself have been a part of a fan fiction series for the past THREE YEARS STRAIGHT. Don't tell me that crap about what standard we should debate -- we do that over in the Creativity Forum all the time.
And what about some of the other official Paramount-licensed creations? I haven't picked up a Trek novel in close to eight years now -- they just don't interest me as much any more. And I don't have the money to keep buying books every month like that. So how can I discuss those works if I don't read them?
The five live-action television shows and ten feature films are canon because that's what the owners of the show have made, and the works that reach the widest possible audience, and the works that have borne the title "Star Trek" over the years. Roddenberry gave up the reins of the show; he knew they were planning on making the show that became DS9 when he died, and he'd given his approval. Do you really think he would've said, "Don't make any more Trek when I'm dead!"?
I enjoy fan creativity as much as most people on the Web -- maybe even more than some. But I really hate this sanctimonious, self-serving "we should do away with canon" argument. It makes me sick.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I think the idea behind canon is to keep some semblence of order in a universe that spans nearly 700 hours (That's a month of Trek). It also keeps out the absolute SHIT that is out there in the novels etc. About 0.5% of the novels are good.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
MinutiaeMan wrote:
quote:"But I really hate this sanctimonious, self-serving "we should do away with canon" argument. It makes me sick.
Well, I don't want to be contributing to a decline in your health, mental or otherwise. But I won't be the target of your canonade, either. You say
quote:"Don't tell me that crap about what standard we should debate"
I'll tell you what I want to tell you, but it's up to you whether you agree or care to listen. If you want to misapply the term "canon", that's up to you. "Canon" is for the studio to maintain continuity. That's it. If they have sold you their BS about how only what they produce has any merit, that's fine too. When they didn't produce anything, fans kept Star Trek alive. And when they turn their back on it again, fans will do the same thing all over again. Fans who are bound by the "canon" straightjacket will then be without anything to argue about.
MinutiaeMan wrote:
quote:"So what's the point in having something if no one can agree about what constitutes the story?"
So, no one should make anything at all unless everyone is going to see it? Hell, I haven't seen half of the Voyager episodes. I guess they shouldn't have been made. (Somehow I don't think that came out right...) Really, now-- If something is available to anyone with an Internet connection, how does that differ from something that is available to anyone with a cable TV connection? Fan works are available to anyone that wants them. And the better ones become well known because of their quality and general entertainment value. That is, unless they are prejudicially dismissed beforehand because they aren't canonnnnn. Quality is the standard that counts. Life is too short to be wasting time on crap. That means no "Voyager". Or "Spock's Brain". Or any of a multitude of other "canon" creations. At least not for me. But Paramount can't think that way. They need to sell that complete DVD set. And they need to build upon fan loyalty from one series when creating the next one (so much for "Enterprise"). So canon has to count for them. Unless you're selling DVDs or making new series, I don't see why it should matter a bit to you. But to each his own. Or her own, as the case may be.
quote:"And yet how can I discuss something with you if I've never seen it?"
In the interest of trying to help out before I slide back into the relative obscurity of lurking, the second volume of "Ships of the Star Fleet" is available in bookstores all over the world. And can be ordered online from Amazon. Now you can go get a copy so we can discuss it. The first volume has been out of print for several years, having sold upwards of thirty thousand copies over several print runs. It is reviewed here but you won't find it available anywhere. Not on any used book site. Not on eBay. Once people get it they just don't let go of it (I can afford to be boastful because it is Guenther's baby -- I just contributed to it). So in that case you have a point. If folks can't get it, then it can't really be a part of the discussion.
Time for a reprint.
quote:"But I've never seen it at all, and I'm not likely to because I don't go out and buy that kind of stuff."
Oh. My bad. Forget what I just wrote.
quote:"Roddenberry gave up the reins of the show; he knew they were planning on making the show that became DS9 when he died, and he'd given his approval. Do you really think he would've said, "Don't make any more Trek when I'm dead!"?
Ummm, maybe you can direct me to where this "quote" is directly attributed to him. Otherwise it is just fan speculation. Strictly non-canon.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
My, my. You boys have been busy...
This is all very very ridiculous. As MunitiaeMan said, a work created by fans of a TV show who did not have authorization or permission of the persons or entities owning or holding legal rights to creation and distribution of said TV show could never in any conceivable way be considered a valid part of the universe described by said TV show.
End. Of. Discussion.
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
After reading over the above post, I believe I should amend my statement.
There is, in fact, a conceivable way in which portions (if not the entirety) of a work such as Ships of the Star Fleet might become canonical. Someone "on the inside" might sneak material from book into an episode or film.
-MMoM Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Like the occasional FASA designs cropping in in TNG's season one or some FJ names in comm traffic in TMP?
That makes some sense.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm glad a few fans can still see beyond the stilted, retarded concept of 'canon' that has paralyzed fan creativity."
"Paralyzed fan creativity"? Are you saying that, if no-one had ever applied the term "canon" to Star Trek, fans would be completely free to, say, write stories in which Captain Kirk is a gay woman, Spock is twelve feet tall with orange tentacles and eats Scotty sometime during the series, etc., and this would be a good thing?
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Compared with, say, 'Spock's Brain', 'Shades of Grey'? Or 'Threshold'? Hmm, close call.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Identity Crisis: Compared with, say, 'Spock's Brain', 'Shades of Grey'? Or 'Threshold'? Hmm, close call.
Just thought about something (again)
The worst episodes of each series are universally known as:
TOS: Spock's Brain TNG: Shades of Grey VOY: Threshold
What about DS9? The joke used to be on "Move Along Home" - but that's not THAT bad of an episode - for a season 1 bottle episode.
Personally I'm not too fond of "Muse" - mainly the Jake/Alien woman subplot.
Rivals isn't too good. Really, though there is no stand out awful DS9 episode.
Even B5 has "TKO".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Probably the only DS9 episode I skip over is "Paradise". That was more boring than anything else.
"Muse" bothers me only because the Nebula has no captain, Al Gore is the commanding officer and has almost no lines and the bridge is the size of a shoebox: they could have at least redressed the Enterprise set. Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Really, though there is no stand out awful DS9 episode."
*cough*
Fascination Let He Who Is Without Sin Ferengi Love Songs Profit and Lace The Emperor's New Cloak
*cough*
Hallucinogenics if I ever saw them.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Ummm, maybe you can direct me to where this "quote" is directly attributed to him. Otherwise it is just fan speculation. Strictly non-canon.
Okay, fair enough....
Clearly Roddenberry, then sixty-nine, saw the success his creation was enjoying and understood that Star Trek would endure without him. By this time, with The Next Generation going into its fourth season more popular than ever, and with Rick Berman's name joining Roddenberry's in the closing credits as the series' executive producer, it was quite evident to insidersto whom Roddenberry wished the torch to be passed. Equally clear from the warmth and graciousness of Roddenberry's remarks that day was the confidence he felt in Rick Berman as the one to take over his creation and guide it through its continuing growth.
The meeting in which Berman wasasked to come upwith a third Star Trek series took place shortly before Gene Roddenberry's death, and Bermandid have a chance to sound out Roddenberry on how he felt about the idea of a third Star Trek series. Roddenberry,Berman reports, thought that it would be great, and that they should talk about it soon.
Unfortunately, that talk never took place. But no one connected with Star Trek doubts that Gene Roddenberry would have had anything but confidence and enthusiasm for the way in which Rick Berman has kept his creation alive, relevant, and vital, including the creation of Deep Space Nine.
� Reeves-Stevens, Judith & Garfield. The Making of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. (pp. 49-50) New York: Pocket Books, 1994. ISBN 0-671-87430-6.
Does that satisfy you? Or are you going to argue that Berman was lying to protect his new creation for various and sundry reasons relating to slowly killing the Star Trek franchise? (Perhaps you should read The Adventures of Berman and Braga (unfortunately my site's down at the moment, though).)
quote:
quote:"So what's the point in having something if no one can agree about what constitutes the story?"
So, no one should make anything at all unless everyone is going to see it?
No, that's NOT what I said. I'm talking about the main source story, the Star Trek series themselves. That has nothing to do with what kind of creations the fans make for themselves.
Take this SotF that this thread is ostensibly about. Say that Cartman and I are discussing the performance of the Miranda-class starships in the Dominion War. You pipe up and ask about what the Bullshit-class starships would have been doing in the war, because after all they're about the same age and capability, so why shouldn't they have been doing something? I stare at you blankly (so to speak) because I've never seen SotF and very likely never will.
Yes, canon is mostly for the writers of the show to keep track of their own facts (when they choose to observe it). But it's also for the fans to have a common point of reference to START FROM when they're creating their own original works related to the Trek universe. Which I believe I said a number of posts ago.
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Minutiaeman wrote:
quote:"Take this SotF that this thread is ostensibly about. Say that Cartman and I are discussing the performance of the Miranda-class starships in the Dominion War. You pipe up and ask about what the Bullshit-class starships would have been doing in the war, because after all they're about the same age and capability, so why shouldn't they have been doing something? I stare at you blankly (so to speak) because I've never seen SotF and very likely never will.
How is this in any way different than if I mention the USS Dipshit that was featured in DS9 episode number 84, and you never saw episode 84? Go out and buy the DVD, I'll say. If you want to see any of the ships in SotSF go to Gilso's Starship Schematic site. They're all there, and identified as coming from those books. And you don't even have to buy the DVD.
Its all available to anyone that wants to see it. And that cares to expand their horizons beyond what Paramount feeds them.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
So we should assume everyone should know about my USS Dominator NX-999990 Heavy Galactic Deterrence Attack Multi-Vector Dreadnought (Uprated) Mk XII-z?
Seriously, if we'd accept all material to be 'real', discussions would become incredibly useless, since there is zero frame of reference. Sure, some fandom sounds likely and some fan ships are very cool indeed, but they are all still *not* canon.
And anyway, canon doesn't mean good, and vice versa. Canon is just a convenient common frame of reference. I think.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The important thing is to always give sources. Not everyone can memorise every bit of every episode. Not everyone has read every novel. Not everyone has the money to waste on the TNG Tech Manual. Give a source for everything you say. Then it doesn't matter at all whether the sources are "canon" or not.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
There's canon, and then there's not. Mad props to Aridas for taking part in the creation of that book, but unless Paramount blesses you in some way you aren't canon and never will be.
But in the realm of that which isn't canon, there's stuff that a lot of Trek fans are likely to have seen at some point. Included in this list are the Okuda tech manuals, the Johnson guides, and the older Franz Joseph manual for some. Canon or not, these certainly will affect one's thinking about the show and the tech, and thus form some of that "common frame of reference" thing.
Most of us recognize that there are therefore multiple frames of reference, with the spectrum loosely catalogued into three segments:
1. The Paramount Canon (a.k.a. the TV/Film Canon)
2. The "Common Fan's" Canon (This includes some Okuda stuff, possibly the animated series, maybe some backstage info, perhaps the magazines, and maybe a little Franz Joseph and Shane Johnson. In short, this is the first tier plus bit from the most popular and readily available non-canon.)
3. The Fandom Canon (includes TAS, Okuda, Joseph, Johnson, "Jackill", FASA, and others innumerable, with the headaches this must cause Tylenolled away. Fan creations and even novels and comics may serve as inspiration, but aren't generally thought to be genuine Trek.)
I'd say that around here, most people fall at least into the second category, with many in the third. I fall into the second when it comes to my own personal tastes, but for my website's purposes (and for parts of the non-canon which I feel to suck) I'm rigidly attached to the first.
(Similarly, you'll sometimes see guys who like the third in general, but seek refuge in the second where disagreement appears.)
Again, Aridas, my compliments to your work and efforts. However, your work is third-tier and always will be. Paramount/Roddenberry/Berman/Okuda may be a bunch of bastards for not giving you first- or second-tier status, and the fans may suck for not buying your stuff enough to get it to that second level, but that's just how it is. Bemoaning Paramount's logical choice on what to consider canon isn't going to change that, and I'm sorry.
And yes, quality counts. But what people will consider to be quality Trek will vary widely. There are some people who view Voyager as their favorite, for crying out loud. Thus, you can't expect to have a quality-based standard. And, if you'll forgive me for saying so, I just don't find there to be much quality in most of the stories and tech from FASA and similar materials, including Jackill-style guides. Oh, the art is nice, but most of the write-ups are and always have been foreign to me, and not reminiscent of Trek at all. (That, incidentally, is one of the strengths of Masao's Starfleet Museum, since even his forays into manufactured historical figures and events usually have an air of proper Trek about them.)
And so what do we do? Argue tooth and nails about my Trek versus your Trek? No, of course not. We acknowledge that there is One Trek, the one canon, and then we can branch off from there if we so desire.
That's what Flare is all about, and why we all have such a good time. Some of us obviously don't desire to branch off into your Trek, and that's just how it is. So don't ruin our good time by bitching about it.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Probably the only DS9 episode I skip over is "Paradise". That was more boring than anything else.
"Muse" bothers me only because the Nebula has no captain, Al Gore is the commanding officer and has almost no lines and the bridge is the size of a shoebox: they could have at least redressed the Enterprise set.
"The Muse" (4th season) was the one with Lwaxana Troi pregnant and ended up marrying Odo to get way from her jackass boyfriend. I believe you are confused with "Second Sight" (2nd season) and Seyetik, the Prometheus, the alien babe and the ignition of a dead star.
For crap shows I nominate "Hard Time", the O'Brien goes to prison in his mind for 20years show, and its "Ex Post Facto" aftertaste, but then again I probably haven't seen in since it first aired.
Addition Eh, okay, so I'm watching "Paradise" now - one big flaw I found in it as far as major inconsistancies, and one of the many flaws in the contradicton of canon. It would seem one error was how Sisko says that his dad "was a cook" - unless he became one again between season 2 and 4. The second thing how he made mention of "his brothers" which eventually changed to him having just a sister in Portland, or so it would seem.
[ February 01, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Futurama Guy ]
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
quote:Paramount/Roddenberry/Berman/Okuda may be a bunch of bastards for not giving you first- or second-tier status, and the fans may suck for not buying your stuff enough to get it to that second level, but that's just how it is. Bemoaning Paramount's logical choice on what to consider canon isn't going to change that, and I'm sorry.
I commend you on your well thought out and expressed post, but ultimately am uncertain as to what you are commenting upon. Not anything I've written, to be sure. I have never bemoaned Paramount's choice on what to consider canon", and anyone that has taken the time to read what I've written here would know that. If someone from Paramount came up and offered "canon" status to what I have done I would reject it, not out of some hissy fit, but out of principle that it is irrelevant to anything other than internal continuity concerns. And that is what I wrote above.
quote:Some of us obviously don't desire to branch off into your Trek, and that's just how it is. So don't ruin our good time by bitching about it.
Well... It would be too damn bad if someone waltzed in here with an opposing point of view now, wouldn't it? And dare to "ruin your good time". Pfffft.
I'm not about limiting anyone's opportunities for a good time -- again as anyone that has read my posts will know. I'm about freeing minds from straightjackets needlessly imposed. I don't post on this forum. I limit my posts to the battleground that is the Trek BBS. That is because I have noticed an inordinate amount of narrow minded-ness on this canon business here. Sure, I read what is written. And certainly some that post here have managed to see the absurd limits that abiding by someone else's restrictions on what they can do can do to your own creativity.
But the subject came up, and after reading the inevitable slam at the book for being non-canon I thought I'd put my two credits worth in. It isn't geared to sell any books (because as I also noted the one being discussed is out of print). It isn't geared to be moving the material from "third tier" to second tier", or whatever the hell it was you wrote. Some of the "Ships of the Star Fleet" material was included in various Paramount produced and approved materials -- so what? Its author was picked by Rick Sternbach and hired by Pocket on the basis of SotSF to draw the 1701-D plans -- so what? These are things you don't know and don't care about, because they aren't in your limited range of what is important to pay attention to. They concern matters that aren't cannnnon.
Like I said, I'm all about informed, free choice. Consider this little "bitching" and "ruining your good time" as no more than an guidepost for those that haven't yet been afflicted by canon-blindness.
Posted by Starship Salvage Ops (Member # 1212) on :
quote:In the interest of trying to help out before I slide back into the relative obscurity of lurking, the second volume of "Ships of the Star Fleet" is available in bookstores all over the world. And can be ordered online from Amazon. Now you can go get a copy so we can discuss it. The first volume has been out of print for several years, having sold upwards of thirty thousand copies over several print runs. It is reviewed here but you won't find it available anywhere. Not on any used book site. Not on eBay. Once people get it they just don't let go of it (I can afford to be boastful because it is Guenther's baby -- I just contributed to it). So in that case you have a point. If folks can't get it, then it can't really be a part of the discussion.
Time for a reprint.
Here here. I have the first edition print and will not part with it. There is very little canon for TMP era and this volume and the second (of which I own a first edition too) fills a big gap is what is going on with ship procurment during this time.
I build a scale model of Reliant from this book along with "fan produced" (OMG there's that nasty un-canon word again) blueprints long before AMT ever thought about tooling up for this model.
Aridas, you should be commended for your work on "The Ships of the Fleet Volume One 2290-2291" It is a very thorough and detailed addition to TMP era.
I guess because there is so little "canon" about this era, there was just a big time void during this period in the Trek universe and nothing at all happened...except of course Enterprise was re-fitted.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Is that the mag with the schematics of the Belnap and the updated K'Tinga in it? Blue text on gloss white stock?
Posted by Starship Salvage Ops (Member # 1212) on :
No, it is a large volume 9"x12" printed on heavy glossy stock with a black cover, black text, and black line drawings.
The Belknap class Strike Cuiser is included in this volume, but does not include the K'Tinga.
There is extensive information on the Belknap including system's fold-outs near the end of the volume and is a chapter in itself.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: For crap shows I nominate "Hard Time",
You are not allowed to ever have an opinion again.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Really, though there is no stand out awful DS9 episode."
*cough*
Fascination
YES - that's a bad one. I'll say that before "Muse" - funny how they are both Lwaxana eps - I liked her TNG eps. And her season 1 appearence was very good (on DS9).
quote: Let He Who Is Without Sin Ferengi Love Songs Profit and Lace The Emperor's New Cloak
*cough*
Hallucinogenics if I ever saw them.
Well clearly you don't like the Ferengi episodes - cause these are all good episodes in their own right. The Ferengi episodes are great - you have to look beyond the ears. There is a great deal of pathos in them as well as a nice bit of comedy.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Addition Eh, okay, so I'm watching "Paradise" now - one big flaw I found in it as far as major inconsistancies, and one of the many flaws in the contradicton of canon. It would seem one error was how Sisko says that his dad "was a cook" - unless he became one again between season 2 and 4. The second thing how he made mention of "his brothers" which eventually changed to him having just a sister in Portland, or so it would seem.
Paradise wasn't my fave when I first saw it - but you watch it again and it is a SOLID character piece. Amazing stuff there. That woman is an absolute NUT BAG too - she robbed those people of 12 or so years of their life.
And give Sisko a break, he was in a box in the sun for hours.
What is to say he doesn't have any Brothers - yes we hear of Judith his sister but we never see her. Live we never saw O'Briens brothers or ANY of Jadzia's family (which severely sucked).
Oh and as for his father BEING a cook - it looks like in later seasons Joseph Sisko OWNED the Restraunt - and employed other chefs.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Man, I'm loving this debate. First off, everyone needs to go out and find a copy of the William Goldman essay on the three grades of thinking. It's so topical to this thread it almost scares me. To boil it down, grade three is dogma, prejudice, feeling one's way through life without stopping to think about anything one has been told. Grade two is destructive, where one starts to find the inconsistencies and contradictions and begins tearing down the prejudices -- but doesn't replace them with anything. Grade one is where one analyzes everything, deconstructs the stuff that doesn't make sense, and then creates something new to fill the gap that fits with what one has observed oneself.
I'll leave everyone to ponder what level they're on. *heh*
The problem of Paramount's canon is how it's been influenced over the years, and the ironic/stupid way some of the fandom stuff is more canon (by their definition, if they bothered to look around and think once in a while) than what they go by.
Let's look at the period from 1970 to 1987 (roughly). The evolution and eventual dissolution of GR's and FJ's working relationship is well-documented elsewhere, so I hope I needn't go into that. Suffice it to say that most fandom shipwrights of the late '70s used FJ's Technical Manual and Constitution-class deck plans as the basis for their own works. Elements even made it into the first three motion pictures, most dramatically in TMP, with no less than four specific starships from FJ's Manual referenced by name and registry number in dialogue, and three classes from that same book appearing on display screens.
About this time, though, GR was starting his campaign to invalidate FJ's works. One early but important effect was when a Chicago-based gaming company called FASA was researching source material to include in books for their Star Trek role-playing game. Many people lump FASA's stuff in with fandom, but they are quite different. FASA held the RPG liscense from 1982 to 1989, and were considered (by Paramount) as official as the novels.
But FASA had been told -- either by GR or a liscensing clerk with instructions from GR -- that FJ's works, and the fandom stuff based on it, was unofficial and therefore not to be used for their game. So, when they sought to create a listing of Constitution-class ships, the only one they could find that wasn't taken from FJ was from an article Greg Jein wrote for a fanzine called T-Negative. This list became the starting point for FASA ship list. Mike Okuda, in turn, used the FASA list for the current official take on the Constitution registries, and for the same reason.
FASA is also the source of the refit design still being Constitution-class, which Mike also parroted. But this is where things start getting really twisted around. The Enterprise-class designation used by all the fandom designers was a result of behind-the-scenes info from TMP that led also to part of the set dressing in TWOK (the infamous [on this board, at least] simulator sign). But as that was the term used by all the same fandom designers who followed FJ's lead, FASA and Mike seem to have thought they couldn't use it. Never mind that the fandom designers got the designation from Andy Probert and the set dressing of Star Trek II... You see how it goes around?
Many of the fandom designers are more careful to match aired material than the official sources. Yes, they get some things wrong, and some of the designers out there are complete morons, but the same applies to the official-type people at Paramount. I can't stand the work of Doug Drexler or John Eaves, because they don't have anyone over them to channel their work through a general "what has gone before" overview of what should or should not be in or on a starship. Even Alex Jaeger, while producing interesting designs, didn't know enough about Treknology to make them appropriate designs. But then, I'm one of the minority that thinks twinned warp cores (Akira class) would be problematic.
All that said (*whew!*), 'canon' is a null term except as applied to a conversation about what Paramount will be using as source material for anything they do in the future. I still agree with the 'non-canon' advisory one should give when one posts a response that incorporates something outside that scope -- so no one else (hopefully) flames them for babbling about something that wasn't in an actual episode or whatever. As Steve said, 'non-canon' contributions to a thread should be fine so long as the poster cites the source material.
I only ask those who are still in grade three thinking to start questioning your dogmas, and everyone who nitpicks to move from grade two to one -- instead of just tearing down, build something new to take its place.
For me, what started out as a simple cataloguing exercise has evolved over the years into a complete reworking/unkinking of the canon/fandom mess I laid out above. I've loved the detective work involved in digging up as much as I can find about what everyone's intentions and ideas were, from Matt Jeffries on up, following the logical paths both forward and back, identifying the contradictions, and coming up with as many potential solutions as I can.
I posted some of my early observations, conclusions, and ideas here a couple years back, and got it with both barrels from the dogmatics. *heh* At this point, the biggest gap in my research is Mr. Guenther. I'd love to be able to contact him (or someone who's worked with him -- *nudge*), find out how much b-t-s info he knew about, and get his story of why he did things the way he did.
God, I love this stuff...
--Jonah
P.S. The 8�"x11" glossy white booklet was the "Starship Design" book -- an 'in-universe' follow-on to SotSF that presents itself as a Starfleet-published engineering publication. The New Klingon Destroyer in there is the K'teremny.
P.P.S. Hey, aridas -- maybe you can answer this... On page 1019 of the above mentioned magazine, it says that no ships of the Federation class were built after Star Union (NCC-2112). Um... What about the Entente (NCC-2120), heard to be sending out a signal to the Epsilon IX station in TMP?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I really don't have a problem with people using non-canon stuff for the basis of fanfic/fan sites/whatever. I don't think it should be bought in to 'serious' discussions about the actual show unless it has some kind of special relevance or value to the discussion. I do not think that the fact that a book is considered non-canon is a 'slam'. I liked SotSF. I have both volumes (the second purchased second hand, BTW). I did a bit of stuff for Timo's Hitchhiker's Guide, which uses a lot of stuff from SotSF. I just wouldn't assume everyone would have heard of it or that it has much relevance to the Trek we see on screen. I really don't think that canonicity is something we should be getting this worked up about. Especially after we've gone over it so many times.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: I commend you on your well thought out and expressed post
No, you don't.
You feel that any parties who disagree with your anti-canonical viewpoint don't know anything about the non-canon, and are narrow-minded, blind, limited, unfree, failing to expand their horizons, crazy, stilted, paralyzed, incapable of getting out of the canon mindset, bound in a straitjacket, being fed by the Paramount money machine, and otherwise failing to live up to your 'principled' viewpoint wherein 'quality' (judged by you and those who agree with you and no one else, no doubt) should determine validity. Your pal in this thread seems to argue for the notion that those who accept the canon are unthinking dogmatists. Oh, and how dare they "slam" the book you're peddling for being non-canon!
I could, of course, have responded with equal levels of pompous jackassedness, shitting all over your silly viewpoint with equally disdainful commentary regarding any adherents of it. After all, the compartmentalization and intellectual hoop-jumping required for such a thing cannot be good for one's mind.
But I, at least, was trying to be kind.
The fact remains that you're willing to accept any craptastic fanfic (including your own) into your own personal Trek-wank. You also feel that the fact that one got published (sans license), and the artist graduated to the non-canon big leagues, somehow makes it better. Whooptee-frickin'-doo. You still don't realize that it doesn't mean spit in the Trek universe, unless and until it gets aired. That's the objective standard.
Peregrinus speaks of destruction, and he's more correct at that point than he knows. You see, those who hold to the fandom of the past are ignoring the canon of the present. You claim to have a good idea of Trek based on TOS, TAS, and some of Roddenberry's other work . . . well, where is it? The guys who worked with Roddenberry don't seem to agree with you . . . they went right on making canon Trek which shat all over your stuff. That doesn't make them wrong and you right, or vice versa . . . but it does mean that their work is more valid than your own.
Thus, instead of just cutting the crap and trying to make something that acknowledges the newer Trek, you and yours seek to destroy the very concept of Star Trek for others. "Abandon all common frames of reference, ye who enter here." And what are you creating in its place? Nothing except for your questionable "quality" standard, for which you are the judge.
Well, hell's bells, so much for objective standards of evidence. Everybody's got their own little preferred tidbits of data that help to make up their personal view of Trek . . . that doesn't mean that we all have to agree. But at least there is an objective standard to work from, giving everyone the opportunity to start from the same place.
And hey, perhaps one of Star Trek's strengths is that it can be 'tardified in so many directions simultaneously, from slash-fic to crappy fanfic-esque perimeter action ships. But that doesn't mean anyone has to read it, and it doesn't mean that others are blind or narrow-minded for refusing to accept it.
To know what Star Trek is, one only has to look at the movies and episodes. That's how it is, and no amount of whining, insults, or defenses of a subjectivist viewpoint will change that.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: Even Alex Jaeger, while producing interesting designs, didn't know enough about Treknology to make them appropriate designs. But then, I'm one of the minority that thinks twinned warp cores (Akira class) would be problematic.
There's no evidence to suggest the Akira Class has twin warp-cores.
Posted by QuinnTV (Member # 859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ... into your own personal Trek-wank.
Is that like a Picard-manuever?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dammmmn...Fosters might not be "good beer" but it gets the job done nicely.
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Yeah, but it's lager. I only like ale. *runs and hides*
--Jonah
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
As for the larger issue. Guardian, you need to slow up just a bit. When one slips over the line from making a reasoned rebuttal to ranting venomously (which your last post came across as), it makes it harder to read that rebuttal objectively, and I don't want to get dragged into a knee-jerk bitch-fest.
As I hope I said clearly before, I agree wholeheartedly that discussions about the aired material should confine themselves to just the aired material -- unless the topic of discussion involves something that was never in the aired material and the topic starter is looking for info to fill in what s/he sees as a gap. F'r instance, if someone asks what the Enterprise was doing for the ~15 years between TMP and TWOK, there's almost nothing in the shows or movies beyond a passing reference in Generations to Kirk spending some time retired from Starfleet. Into this space, I say one could easily reply to the effect of mentioning the various novels written for that time-frame, but with the proviso that TPTB reserve the right to contradict anything in the novels at any point. Sort of an 'official until proved otherwise' viewpoint. Some people may not have known about those novels. Some people might have, but never thought to include them. Some people might not give a rip, because the novels aren't canon and they've decided to only focus on the aired material. No problems there at all...
I have no problem with someone choosing a 'canon-only' approach after examining the options and making an informed choice. I think it unfortunate that they are evidently not willing to cull through the non-canon materials to see if there's even one item therein that would enrich their concept of the Trek universe, but they've reached their position through analysis and active thought. The only problem I have is with people who automatically decry all non-canon material solely on Paramount's say-so -- having never thought about the issue logically (or indeed, at all) and leaving the choices and conclusions utterly in someone else's hands.
I don't see where either aridas or I were saying we accepted or like all the 'craptastic' fan-created designs out there. Indeed, I actually said, a lot of the stuff out there (if not most) is shite. And I include almost all of my attempts in there, too. Let's see... I've been actively drawing starships since about 1987 (TNG was a kind of trigger for me). I think in that time I've created something over thirty distinct configurations. Of those, I've discarded all but six. Those six I deemed worthy of continued development, and the shape they're in now is only barely recognizable from how they started. And the refinement process is definitely continuing.
To look at a couple of the better known non-canon bodies of work out there, from SotSF (all of it) I personally only adopted the Belknap and Surya classes (not counting the included designs that are actual canon). From FASA, I felt -- of all the ships they designed -- only the Chandley, Wilkerson, Larson, and Loknar had potential, but even then they need 'cleaning up' before I'd call them done. *heh* The same holds for all the individuals out there. Some designs (very few) I jump onboard with wholeheartedly, but most just get a glance and dismissal.
Now, lest I come across as a snob here, I've actually got a sensible set of criteria I go by. Before anything, it has to catch my eye (in a good way). Adding a second pair of nacelles to an otherwise stock Galaxy gets skipped over so fast I hardly notice it. Once caught, the critique begins...
First, it has to be recognizably Starfleet, even if only vaguely (Dauntless, for example). Second, I look to see if there's already a ship in the era in question that performs the same function. If so, I look for any special features that would have caused Starfleet to spring for the time and resources needed to create that class when there was already that similar class in existence. Hell, I think we already have too many medium Cruiser classes in the late 24th century. Then I evaluate how well-thought-out the design is. If there are inconsistencies with established Treknology, I look to see if they can be resolved without rationalization.
The best example of that last that springs to mind is FASA's Northampton. The nacelle pylons are so long and have no less than three kinks in them. Aside from being very vulnerable to enemy fire, I joke that by the time the warp plasma gets to the nacelles it'd just be a warm breeze. Shortening the pylons just turns it into an unimaginative version of a Miranda or similar design, so I just dismiss it. *shrug*
On to the further issue of canon, just because they work for Paramount doesn't automatically mean they know what they're doing and can't make mistakes. Somewhere in this (Starships & Technology) section is an old thread in which I broke down the Jeffries system of starship registry, the FJ system of starship registry (which most fandom shipwrights employed in some form), and the Okuda system of starship registry. Being mostly non-canon and (unfortunately) not very well-researched, the FJ system is the one I have the least problem abandoning or modifying drastically to bring it in line with the other two. Seeing the Okuda system applies to the TOS era makes me grumpy, as Jeffries already had a system worked out, despite the lack of opportunities to put it on the screen. Likewise, Okuda's system is workable and stable, but only has evidence for entering practice in the later movies, revisionism aside.
Frankly, I'm amazed no one -- from FJ to Okuda -- thought to talk to Matt Jeffries about what he wanted. That information has only come to light in the last decade through interviews in magazines and coffee table books.
But be that as it may, this thread started because a new poster was bitching about how SotSF isn't considered canon, evidently because he wasn't clear on the definition of canon, and that canon does not necessarily mean better than non-canon -- just what TPTB consider an acceptable reference for the show/movie. All that said, I won't try to convince people to explore non-canon sources so long as their adherence to canon is an informed choice. And I ask in return that canon adherants not try to 'convert' me to their viewpoint, as I arrived at mine through careful consideration.
Ta... --Jonah
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:I can't stand the work of Doug Drexler or John Eaves, because they don't have anyone over them to channel their work through a general "what has gone before" overview of what should or should not be in or on a starship.
I don't like Eaves's work either, but not because of that. I just don't like that he seems to have no variety in his designs. No matter what alien race it comes from or what time period it comes from, his designs all look the same. For example, he can't get himself unstuck from the "Dominionesque nacelle" treatment most of his designs suffer from, whether they be 22nd century or 24th.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: FASA is also the source of the refit design still being Constitution-class, which Mike also parroted.
All my FASA books list the Constitution refit as an Enterprise Class.
I have an old book published just after Trek III (the front cover is the famous shot of Kirk and co. on the hilltop watching the burning Enterprise descend to Genesis.) This book has an interview with Gene Roddenberry where he calls the ship from Star Trek III a Constitution Class ship. Before that I was on the FASA bandwagon, not knowing otherwise. Okuda and even the diagram from Trek VI later echoes GR Constitution class name calling.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I hate the term "canon" and hope to never hear it or a discussion of it again. This thread shows yet again that certain people can't discuss this topic, even in response to a simple question, without making it personal or taking it personally.
I don't see why Paramount or we have to categorize material into "canon" and "noncanon" anyway. Just call stuff what it is -- onscreen evidence/references, books by production staff, behind the scenes information, licensed gaming products, novels, fan-produced works, etc. -- without using those damned categories. Any perceived advantages of the term "canon" are far outweighed by the trouble it causes.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Well, for me, it's the very fact that there's an argument at all that confuses. It's like talking to someone who insists that the sky is actually green, and not blue.
The people who make Trek have every right to say what has and hasn't happened in their universe. The people who make it now have more of a right than the people who used to make it. All of them have agreed (for well over a decade now) that everything that we've seen on screen has happened. Things we have read about haven't. The only reason the chronology and tech manuals get this "semi-canon" label is because they are written by the actual tech advisors on the show, who are obviously going to go with their opinions of the various things going on in the Trek universe.
Now, this isn't making any sort of argument about what's better, what's worse, what can be discussed, and so forth. But saying stuff like this:
quote:There is Roddenberry canon, and Non-Roddenberry canon. And there is fan material that exponds on each. It all has its place if it is any good. That's the standard that we should debate. Whether it is on screen or made on some guy's computer is it any good?
...is just pointless. Arguing different definitions of canon is pointless. Arguing anything apart from "if it happened on TV, it was real" is pointless. Because, basically, you're wrong, by definition.
(and don't be smart and start saying stuff like "Oh, are you saying that the Enterprise-A had 78 decks labelled bottom to top then?", because then you're just being childish and stupid.)
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
I agree with PsyLiam. I'm not sure why the whole "canon" issue is that hard.
Since Star Trek is a TV/Movie franchise, the actual episodes and movies get the highest canon status if you will.
Next, you have your reference materials, and of those, we're counting stuff written by the folks who actually work on the show or at the very least, who's work will most likely be incorporated if ever into the shows and movies. It's the old "we'll just assume this until proven otherwise by the actual episodes and movies."
And then you have everything else: your novels, comic books, games, AND I would say stuff that was in the "assumed until proven otherwise" category such as this Ships of the Fleet and the rest of the like. Since the actual shows or movies don't use these sources anymore, why make such a big fuss trying to get it "canon?" You can still enjoy the works as alternative ideas, some of which may seem better to you than what actually did happen, but what's done is done.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace: I agree with PsyLiam. I'm not sure why the whole "canon" issue is that hard.
Mainly it's the desire to nullify the bad on-screen moments (Spock's Brain, ST V, Threshold, etc.)and adopt the good off-screen ones (the stuff that fuills holes and contributes to the overall universe of Trek in a plausable way).
Posted by aridas (Member # 1051) on :
Peregrinus wrote:
quote:"Hey, aridas -- maybe you can answer this... On page 1019 of the above mentioned magazine, it says that no ships of the Federation class were built after Star Union (NCC-2112). Um... What about the Entente (NCC-2120), heard to be sending out a signal to the Epsilon IX station in TMP?"
We tried to limit the size of those FJ fleets. We thought the huge numbers of ships he had coming off the assembly lines diminished the "special-ness" of the Constitution class. Furthermore, even though FJ had met with Jefferies and Roddenberry while working on one of Roddenberry's pilots, and was thus able to get first hand info on how some of this stuff was imagined by the Trek staff, we still thought he got this detail wrong. It went against the very idea expressed in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" -- "only twelve like her". The Federation class was more than "like her". It was the capital ship to the Constitution's heavy cruiser. That just didn't sit too well with our view of the Trek universe.
That being said, we did account for the Entente, but it was in a later publication called the "Federation Starship Recognition Chart". There, NCC-2020 is noted as being part of the Balson class -- a group of command ships based on the Federation but with only two nacelles. That way we acknowledged the TMP reference without doing so completely (the reference in the movie was to "dreadnought Entente", wasn't it?). The story for the Balsons was that they were refits of un-needed Federation class dreadnoughts. If we had ever gone into more detail in another publication this would have been explained as being due to fleet downsizing in the TMP era, and the perception that the Federation class was not the best choice for the job they were assigned. Thus, the refits, and the building of other dreadnought designs (like the Ascension class).
On the broader subject of "canon" that you expound upon to great effect, I realize I have been remiss in acknowledging a use for canon among fans, and further admitting to using it this way myself in the past. First, some background.
When I distinguish between Roddenberry trek and Non-Roddenberry trek, there is some basis to the distinction beyond who held the producer's job. Beyond the fact that Roddenberry was also the creator, and thus had a different level of emotional investment in Star Trek, (largely because he knew full-well he would always be identified with it), there is the matter of style. Subjective to be sure, but telling. Particularly as concerns this canon business.
The original trek, TAS and TMP were written as plot-driven pieces. The characters were there to advance the plot, the plot was not there to develop the characters. We learned a fraction of what we would eventually discover about characters from later series. That created tension with the stars, particularly as Trek stirred back to life as a movie, then a series, then a movie again. It also created a lot of bruised feelings with many of the most notable SF writers of the 60s, who resented having their scripts rewritten. Roddenberry rewrote everybody. He has gotten the reputation as an egomaniac for doing so. But what is lost in all this is the question of why, beyond the ego that is.
He was very clear that nothing should slow down the progression of the story. He gave explicit rules about avoiding technical details, saying they were as out of place as a cowboy explaining how his horse worked or a cop explaining his .38 before he fired it. After years of collecting unproduced scripts and proposals from the likes of Frank Herbert, George Clayton Johnson, Fredrick Pohl, AE van Vogt, Philip Farmer and David Gerrold, I have found a remarkable tendency in some of them towards including "hard SF" elements. Just the kind of thing Roddenberry wanted avoided. No wonder he was rewriting these guys.
When I had the chance to talk to him in 1981, I asked him about this very thing, and he acknowledged the desire to keep plot first and foremost. But then he also noted his desire to create "timeless fiction". He didn't want the technology catching up too soon with what was presented.
The point of this is to distinguish this kind of Star Trek from non-Roddenberry Trek where, not having him lording over the writers and doing his constant rewrites, the emphasis changed. First, under Bennett, to character-driven stories. And then, under Berman, to stories that incorporated copious amounts of techno-speak in the place of dialog that advanced the story. I have heard on more than one occasion people speculate on why (in the case of Berman Trek) this is so. And one reason that is sometimes cited is the vocal desire expressed by Paramount to take back control of the very profitable ancillary products market from fandom.
You see, Roddenberry had convinced Paramount to go lightly on the fans during the lean years of the early 70s. It was his belief that this would eventually help revive Star Trek. And I think he was right. He had created both a media phenomenon and a fan phenomenon. By avoiding telling us anything about the rest of StarFleet or what politics were like back on Earth or just how the ship really worked, he created both fast-paced, plot-driven fiction AND a realm of mysteries that inquisitive minds wanted to explore. I also pointed this out to him and he said, with some lack of humility, that he'd planned it that way. Who knows just how true that was.
When things changed around the time Roddenberry ceased being involved in the day-to-day production of TNG, there was also a revolution in marketing afoot. Sure, he wrote the introduction to the TNG technical manual, and one may assume that he was just as much a part of bringing the defining of all the little details under the "official" roof. After all, by that time he was so deeply into drugs that he no longer knew what in the hell he was doing. But whether it was with or without his knowing approval, it happened, and what had been consciously left vague was now made explicitly clear. That, and what had been left to the fans to make up was now fed to them via officially licensed outlets.
Canon was not insignificant in judging materials in the pre-TNG days. But it was as part of a continuum that gave what was on air primacy, with production materials coming next, then official, licensed products including novels, etc on down the line and including near the end, fan-produced material. This was the prioritization that many fandom publishers worked with. But it wasn't binding in such a way that if a stinker episode came out it couldn't be discounted. And if a particularly good design by Matt Jefferies hadn't been used, or something of worth had been mentioned in a novel, or God forbid, if a fan came up with something neat, then it could likewise be included in that publisher's own Trek universe.
Where the idea came from that the limitations the creators of Trek impose upon themselves should somehow be considered restrictive to anyone else is beyond me. Maybe it is the introduction to the TNG tech manual, with its hyping of its "official" status and its dismissal of other publications as being "disinformation". Fans ate that shit up.
Shit right from the marketing people. Right from the people that wanted to pick up all the Trek side markets they could. Right from the technospeak-heavy new Trek, with all its details filled in.
For anyone that enjoys that kind of Trek, it should be fine to put the official stuff at the top of the heap of what is to be taken seriously. But that heap need not be followed religiously. If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should. Once that step is taken, include what you want in your view of what Trek should be. If you are discussing it with people online, cite your sources and direct people to images of what you're talking about so everyone can be on the same page. And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
In the world of Sherlock Holmes fiction there is Doyle canon and everything else. The stuff created by the guy that came up with the characters, and the stuff by everyone else. No matter how good you are, if you write a Holmes story that wins even the Nobel prize for literature, it isn't canon. That's because the special relationship of Doyle to his creations is regarded as worth distinguishing. If fans want to adopt a canon standard , that wouldn't be a bad one. Roddenberry canon, and everything else. Otherwise, leave canon to the people that know how to use it. Or in the case of Berman, who don't.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I think that dividing things into a "Rodenberry canon" and "everything else" does a great diservice to people like DC Fontana, or Geen Coon. It's just not comparable to Doyle in that way. No matter how much he rewrote stuff, Trek was, and is, produced by a team, not an individual.
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide.
This is one of those rare moments when I'm tempted to use an emoticon. Probably this one: O_O
Don't worry though. I'd never do that.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Tell me, aridas, have you read Harlan Ellison's book containing the original drafts of "The City on the Edge of Forever" and the events surrounding its production? I won't go into all that in this threat, but suffice to say you've got some nice rose-colored glasses there.
Bringing in Roddenberry's so-called "devotion to the plot" and all that other nonsense is a complete non sequitur. You're confusing the issue, which I believe was this: "What is canon, and is it good or bad?". Rambling on about plot-driven storylines and avoiding "hard sci-fi" is bullshit.
I'd lay good odds that even Roddenberry would have lots of difficulty in keeping track of the various facts, data, and incarnations of Star Trek if he were alive today.
quote:Canon was not insignificant in judging materials in the pre-TNG days. But it was as part of a continuum that gave what was on air primacy, with production materials coming next, then official, licensed products including novels, etc on down the line and including near the end, fan-produced material.
Well gee, isn't that what we've been saying all along? The only difference would be how seriously you take the pure fan-created stuff. And that is something that can only be considered on an individual level and should never be worked into a major creation except in unusual circumstances. Especially when you're considering two fan-created works.
Would you have any idea how confused readers would get if, for example, Lt. Quinlan (of the Enterprise-G in the Star Trek: Renaissance series I'm part of) started spouting history tidbits from the Starfleet Museum, would the readers have any idea what she was talking about? Moreover, would they necessarily care?
The whole point is that, excellent though some of it may be, you're trying to make fan-created works a whole lot more important than they really are.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: For anyone that enjoys that kind of Trek, it should be fine to put the official stuff at the top of the heap of what is to be taken seriously. But that heap need not be followed religiously. If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should. Once that step is taken, include what you want in your view of what Trek should be. If you are discussing it with people online, cite your sources and direct people to images of what you're talking about so everyone can be on the same page. And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
You know, I really must applaud your rhetorical skill. Couching your preferences in the metaphor of liberation was an excellent maneuver, one I'm sure you worked long and hard to perfect.
It allows you to dress up the ugly reality of your disparagement of Trek and its makers, including your sweeping generalizations of the many series, your drug-addicted Roddenberry, and your shit-peddling market-monger Okuda. (Neither Star Trek nor the makers of it are perfect, but don't forget that you aren't either.)
In contrast to your view that abandoning the concept of canon makes you free, I would argue that in fact you are the one bound and chained, but by your own fandom-based preconceptions of what the new Treks should've been. When there was only fandom, that is what you based your preferred Trek on. And, as you acknowledge, you feel that such things as the Okuda tech manuals are "shit", no doubt because they did not 'live up to your standards of quality' (i.e. 'follow along with the stuff you had previously chosen to believe/manufacture regarding the Trek universe').
'Free your mind', Aridas. You might find that you could enjoy the Trek you've decided to loathe in advance of ever seeing it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This guy's almost as annoyimg a Mountain Man was. Quite an accomplishment, really.
How can you favor the varied quality (by "varied", I mean "mostly inane") of fanfic ideas on Trek but despise the (mostly) well thought out tech manuals?
Senseless.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by aridas: If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should.
(...)
And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
You know what I just realized? This argument is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" Posted by Starship Salvage Ops (Member # 1212) on :
Had I known in advance that my question would push such a hot button for the general membership I would not have asked the question.
My appologies.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You have no reason at all to apologise. You asked a simple question. I'm not sure the answer was ever given, but here it is:
*clears throat*
It's not canon because it's a book. And none of the books are canon, with the slight exception of the tech books and chronologies done by Okuda and co (and they are only slightly canon because they are written by people who did and still do work on the show).
That's not to say that it isn't possibly what the ships of Starfleet did look like in those years. However, that's fairly redundent since, well, the Star Trek universe isn't real. It is created and modified to suit the whims of the writers. If, for some reason, they do an episode detailing the ships shown in 2290, they might match this book. They probably won't though. And the ships capabilities will be whatever they need to be to fulfil the story.
You said "So if it's not blessed by Paramount it can't possibly have ever happened." That's not what we are saying at all. The following is:
"If it's not blessed by Paramount, then it probably hasn't happened, and the current team has no compulsion to look at it."
Or...
"If it's been shown on TV, then it has happened." This is different from saying "If it hasn't been shown on TV, it's never happened". But remember, Star Trek is a TV show. And, essentially for the writers, if it hasn't been shown, then it hasn't happened.
Got that?
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
"Getting that" isn't going to be one of the features of this discussion. I think the *technical* questions posed to aridas have been conclusively answered, so it's time for the good old padlock... As regards the non-technical issue of canonicity, the Flameboard eagerly awaits your further contribution on this fascinating subject.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)