posted
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 ]
[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
posted
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.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
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?)
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...
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
posted
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.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
-------------------- "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
"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
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
