quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: They are both a source where some information can be gleaned from, but to consider the whole canon when just tidbits are pulled into episodes and movies is illogical. It matters not that one is a book and one is a cartoon. Only the parts that appear in the episodes and movies are canon, everything else is still non-canon and subject to change on the whims of the writers.
Indeed. The problem with canon is that people mistake it for a criterion for what's "real" and what is "fake," relatively speaking. As such, canon has become something that the fans use, when it's really just a tool for the producers. Canon only tells what must be considered, it says nothing about what must not be considered.
The route that the producers have chosen is that only live-action Star Trek is canon. That is a perfectly reasonable (if frustrating for some) path for them to follow, because it provides the smallest data set without excluding anything the average viewer may have been exposed to. But it doesn't mean that the animated series didn't happen, nor the novels... it merely means that they didn't have to happen.
What we need is another word for "accepted by an individual as accurate." Canon is roughly defined as "sources that must be considered for continuity," but that is really only relevant for the producers; we don't make the continuity, so we don't need to consult anything. Personal canon works, but it causes problems because people inevitably drop the personal part and then you have conflicts between each person's view, with each claiming this and that to be canon. So we need a word, distinct from canon, that covers this concept of "personal canon."
As an analogy, consider the original use of the word canon: those texts that the Church consideres to be authoritative. Many Christians believe in many things that aren't ever specified in the Bible (Satan being the infamous tempting serpent from Genesis being an obvious one, ignoring most of the Old Testament except for the Ten Commandments being another). This doesn't make them part of the canon, it's just something that they accept for one reason or another.
We could just use the word accepted (as in "I accept the animated series, but it isn't canon"), but this causes problems, too, because everyone accepts some things and not others. Suggestions, anyone? Maybe personal canon is the best way to go afterall, as long as we are careful not to drop the personal.
[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
posted
You know, I never thought of canon as being interpretted that way, Ryan. As I read what you wrote, I find that you make a very compelling and interesting argument there. When you stop and think about it, canonicity really is just the measure of what the creative has to religiously follow for the series to be consistent unto itself.
"Personal canon" or "personally accepted" could work, but it would be too easy to drop the distinction in the heat of an argument. I can't really think of a short and sweet alternative to either of those unless we go with "in my opinion" all the time. And even then, we are going to have the same problems.
On another matter entirely, I do want to apologize to Monkey of Mim for sounding a bit harsh in my last few posts directed to you. Reading back on them, I find that I'm writing in a more hostile manner than I usually care to, so I'm sorry about that. I'll keep the energy toned down.
-------------------- 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: When you stop and think about it, canonicity really is just the measure of what the creative has to religiously follow for the series to be consistent unto itself.
That's exactly it.
Right around the publication of the Okuda Chronology and Encyclopedia, however, fans started seeing an increasing amount of non-canon information apparently ignored by not being included in those works. A sort of canon-elitism started, with a large segment of fans growing increasingly obsessive with the distinction (ironic, since the introduction to both books makes it clear that Okuda's usage of canon shouldn't affect the fans much at all). And now we're in the unfortunate situation where people have taken the benign (and unimportant) concept of canon and twisted it into a means of exclusion. Canon has no use at all unless something contradicts it and you're trying to know which to trust... and even then, it's only really relevant if you're writing a live-action episode of film of Star Trek, something none of us here are fortunate to be doing just yet.
posted
So what you are saying, Ryan, is that *we* need not limit the collection of evidence to just the show.
The problem is that if I say there is a black Defiant-class starship named Monitor, then start up Star Trek Armada and suggest that in 2373, the Defiant class had its crew upgraded to 80, some people won't accept it even though nothing in Star Trek contradicts it.
They won't accept it because everyone here has a common goal -- arriving at the truth. It is impossible to do that if one is not critical of the facts, and knowing that a fact is just a figment of a published fan's imagination is not very reassuring.
Even in the old days, the situation was similar. Only the books that were *well done* were accepted, and then those that came later would be accepted if they were done better, however one or another fan would define "better". This is impossible nowdays, however, as no book is better researched than our online discussions. It's an insult to us to have to include someone's book just because it got published, or because it looks nice.
Another sort of screening becomes necessary, and one way to do it is compare it to canon. But here's another way. Compare it to how well its author has researched online discussions. That would be a perfect way for accepting it in *our* "fan canon".
posted
Ryan: What we have to accept though is that fans on the web have become rather accustomed to TPTB's concept of canon, largely because it works well in making sure everyone's on the same page when talking about stuff online. Access to TAS, the novels, the computer games etc. is far from universal, and exactly the same way as the writers have kept to a filmed-only view of canon in order to cut down on contradictions, so have the fans.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not saying canon should be ignored altogether... but Star Trek is entirely subjective. A given fan may not include even the real canon in his "personal canon;" Gene Roddenberry himself didn't include Star Trek V in his... but it's still a part of the canon. Another fan may include far more than the real canon. That's the point: there is no "truth" when it comes to fiction, particularly a fictional setting as diverse as Star Trek. Canon can and is used as common ground between most "personal canons," but there will never be an objectively agreed upon version of which parts to include and which parts not to.
From a fan perspective, I think canon is best defined as this sort of common ground for discussion. It comprises the things that everyone has generally had access to, the things about which there is the most material to work from. I don't think that anyone should pretend that non-canon material has any required bearing on canon, but there's no harm in mentioning it as long as nobody gets any faulty ideas. Speculation is speculation, whether done by we the fans, by Mike Okuda, or by a novelist.
posted
Every time somebody quotes a non-canon source, there will likely be another person saying, "that isn't canon", even though person A merely intended it as a theory. Yes, that's a problem.
I disagree however that there is no truth in fiction. If you imagine Star Trek as a long novel-in-progress whose previous chapters can't be revised, any writer will agree that there are certain truths established in the former chapters that have to be adhered to in the later ones.
Now, the no-revision format also requires scientific rationalizing by a good writer. That's where our kind of analysis comes in. We can derive scientific truths resulting from analysis of those basic truths. These theories and even mere collection of data are as personally-biased as any scientific research is, but far above mere personal belief. Like any scientific research, the reasons to accept this and reject that piece of data have to be well argued. Once the writer has our basic, scientific structure ("the first Klingon emperor must have been about hundred years old when he died"), she can add her creative view ("the first Klingon emperor named Q're'eded was 103 years old when he died of cancer") .
Since the previous chapters consist mostly of previous shows, that is our data. If this were just for fun, a hobby, the exercise doesn't change one way or another if we include non-canon sources. You merely play the game on a more difficult level. However, and I know some people will disagree, this is a hobby only about 99% of the time. A part of discussing tech includes a desire that the writers/producers are affected by our ideas, and that they adhere to our theories. We're helping them finish the Star Trek novel by reminding them of what they need to know about the previous chapters. We're especially useful in preventing contradictions with our creative rationalizing of the past. I think the writing staff is suffering from not having one of us on the team.
Again, it's about purposeful discussion, and I really don't think it was any looser in the past. People accepted the Star Fleet Technical Manual and blueprints because they really were authorized by Roddenberry for a while. They accepted the novels because they were licensed, and after all, who among the producers cared to make them non-canon? Star Trek was not being produced, so it didn't really matter. Then came tech fandom books, which were well done and publicized, and again, there was nobody to say, "this isn't canon." In fact, some of the material was referenced in the movies.
However, when TNG arrived, canon again became relevant, and many materials were declared invalid. That's why most fans changed around. It's not really elitism, as it is a desire for accuracy and purpose, namely to see our discussions actually have relevance to what the producers and the writers are doing. And, judging from the increased involvment of some of them, like Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, we've been somewhat successful.
Now, we know that writers like to pick up a TAS reference or a novel idea from time to time because they really liked these sources back in their younger days. Here's where we can try and slip the better non-canon materials in, by arguing that they were well done and well researched at the time, influential in fandom (which the writers ought to care about, it's their audience), and so on. It need not be whole works, but just a pervasive idea. Can we think of some, other than the Vulcan first contact which already got in through FC?
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: Satan being the infamous tempting serpent from Genesis being an obvious one, ignoring most of the Old Testament except for the Ten Commandments being another
Having just deleted a very big post on this... I'll try to keep this one short. I disagree with what you say here. While I know it wasn't mentioned in Genesis, I am fairly certain that it was mentioned elsewhere that Satan and the serpent are one in the same. The second part, you're right... some do, and it's wrong to do so because the NT is pretty much worthless without the OT, they are not seperate, they are the same book one begins the other completes.
It really doesn't apply to Star Trek either. Star Trek canon is certainly not consistant [I think we've brought up the issue of Biblical consistancy... no need to again, I and many others accept it as consistant]. The uses of the word canon are different. One is an authoritive source, the other is a pool of information [the authoritive source is TPTB].
It's as simple as this, what the producers say is canon in Star Trek is canon [the live-action shows and movies are canon in Star Trek (at this time)]. The Bible is canon. As a matter of faith all things that one believes must be filtered by this canon source before one can accept it. Consider TAS or the TMs like Protestants do the Apocrypha.
Here is the problem. Concerning the Bible, it hasn't been changed --- it doesn't change. It's source is itself [ever wonder why it's "The Word was God"?]. Concerning Star Trek the canon source changes on whims. The TMs used to be canon... the old TMs [Starfleet TM and the like] used to be canon. Because ST Canon is so static, we get these arguements on what is canon and what isn't. We also get some arguements because it has horrible internal consistancy. You never get this kind of arguement in Protestant debates--- it's all about interruptation there!
"Darmok his eyes wide open" Thanks Ryan... I'm ready to quit now... let's all do so. I mean, this really isn't Salvation.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
PS: The word you are all looking for is "faith" that which isn't canon but is held in similar light.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
quote: On another matter entirely, I do want to apologize to Monkey of Mim for sounding a bit harsh in my last few posts directed to you. Reading back on them, I find that I'm writing in a more hostile manner than I usually care to, so I'm sorry about that. I'll keep the energy toned down.
On the contrary, Siggie, I should apologize to you for calling what you said "bullshit" and the like. I will make a greater attempt to control my temper.
Sorry, MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Um... bit of a theological correction here. By all means, keep on the topic. I like where it's going. But I don't want this misconception to spread.
The OT and the NT are not a single entity, nor are they two seperate entities. They are 66 distinct entities, grouped according to their relations to each other. The OT provides the context for the NT, but it is not necessary to grasp the concepts put forth: "God did this for you, so you'd have a shot at eternal life. Therefore, you owe him."
Further, Christians don't follow the OT law (except where there's overlap with ours) because it doesn't apply to us. The Old Testament was a contract between the Jews and God, which God fulfilled when He sent Christ. It's over and done with, and a new contract has taken its place. Thus, "Old Testament". Old, over, finished, complete, no longer applicable. It doesn't have to be stated outright that this is the case, because it's the underlying nature of the situation. Although it is stated somewhere in Paul's letters, I believe, that we are no longer under the law, so the entire point is moot.
I'll shut up now. Consider yourselves enlightened. What? Yes, you.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
posted
The Christians may believe the Bible is one and only and constant word of God, but there is evidence that it has undergone huge additions and removals -- hence all the inconsistencies between its parts. Even the New Testament contained books that now are left out -- the Gnostic Gospels, for instance, which describe Jesus in a different way, interpret his resurrection in a more metaphorical way than the extremely literal interpretation of the Catholic Church ("he *did* rise and that's why it's a miracle, we eat *his* body and drink *his* blood in the ritual")
It's only a matter of different religions believing that different texts are true/false. The Star Trek fandom has already split along the lines of those who reject the Books of Tech Fandom as Apocryphal and those who don't. But within such categories, it *is* all a matter of interpretation. You won't see a good, analytical web page that rejects a piece of onscreen evidence without a good argument.
posted
While we are "off-topic," let me add that the gnostic gospels were never part of the New Testament. Until the Catholic Church determined the New Testament canon (I forget the date), there was not an "official" New Testament canon. How much of the "New Testament" you had depended on what texts you had access to. Your "New Testament" may have amounted to a letter from Paul to your church, or it may have run the gamut from gnostic gospel to the gospel of Mary Magdalene [spelling?].
Even when the New Testament had been determined, since printing had not yet been discovered in the west, there were very few copies of the canon New Testament. Thus, the only people who really had access to canon scriptures were seminarians (who later became priests). Unfortunately, this was later misconstrued as the Church not wanting "the common people" to have access to scripture (unfotunately, that was also true at times, though not to the degree some protestants would have you believe).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
