As some have seen, I've already done a bit of exploration of the ST canon issue for the purposes of my site. The data I have on canon is compiled here:
The main point I'd like to bring up is the fact that at no point are the Sternbach-Okuda TNG/DS9 Tech Manuals referred to specifically as being not-canon . . . there's ambiguity in play. Tim Gaskill refers to them as "pretty much canon".
In any event, Paramount's position is that they do override those manuals which were not written by production personnel, such as the Joseph and Johnson works. Those are specifically referred to as being not-canon.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
First, John Ordover seems to consider Jeri Taylor novels canon, as did Jeri Taylor, but is that any longer true?
quote:
From: Arthur Levesque ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Jeri Taylor Interview Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View: Complete Thread (6 articles) | Original Format Date: 1996/09/16
[email protected] wrote: Ma>Warp 10 newsletter recently gave its members the opportunity to ask Ma>Jeri Taylor questions. Here is the transcript...
W10>FIRST, I like to John Ordover, Pocket Books Star Trek Editor, and W10>Pocket Books for arranging this interview... I would like to THANK W10>Jeri Taylor for taking the time to answer ALL submitted questions.
[only selected questions/answers kept -- However, I would like to draw attention to the fact that out of ALL submitted questions there didn't seem to be a single negative one. I find that truly suspicious.]
Jan Schliecker (From Lubeck, Germany) asks: JS>Will "Mosaic" be the first canonical Star Trek novel which is not an JS>adaptation?
Jeri Taylor's Answer: JT>Yes, I expect "Mosaic" will be held as canon. I've already included JT>details from the book in our episodes, and the other writers are JT>starting to do so as well...
quote: From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Is The Return canon? Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View this article only Date: 1996/07/28
First of all, Jeri Taylor's MOSAIC -is- canon. It's the life story of Captain Janeway, and it'll be out in September.
Second, it's logistically impossible to co-ordinate the shows and the books. It takes a year to go from proposal to finished book; it takes six weeks from script to screen. You either set everything in the past, like the B5 books, or you move slowly and carefully in the novels.
Star Wars is what I envy -- the books are the real front wave, with no movies or TV shows to worry about. weeks from script to screen. You either set everything in the past, like the B5 books, or you move slowly and carefully in the novels.
Star Wars is what I envy -- the books are the real front wave, with no movies or TV shows to worry about.
quote:
Message 6 in thread From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: The Star Trek Novels Are Canon Newsgroups: rec.arts.startrek.current View this article only Date: 1997/05/04
John Ordover here, Star Trek Novels editor for Pocket Books.
While I don't want to rain on anyone's enjoyment of the Star Trek novels, with the exception of Jeri Taylor's MOSAIC, they are - not- canon. What we hope they are is great stories well told.
As for the "canon" status of ST: THE FINAL FRONTIER, it falls into what we call the "grey area." There are a lot of things, like the "Yangs" and "Khoms" of the TOS episode THE OMEGA GLORY that are certainly canon, but since they are generally thought to be silly we'll never touch on them again. This is just a matter of taste, btw; for instance, my ex-boss -hated- the giant space amoeba from TOS: The Immunity Syndrome and I liked it, partly because I have a neat idea for where and how all the space-living beings we've seen in Trek evolved. So while he was in charge, we would never see another one of those amoebas, but now that I am, we may well.
But offically, ST: TFF is canon. John Ordover Senior Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books Check out the Star Trek: New Frontier website: www.simonsays.com/startrek/newfrontier
However, here Ordover didn't mention it:
quote: Search Result 2 From: ORDOVER ([email protected]) Subject: Re: Novels Cannon? Newsgroups: alt.startrek.books View: Complete Thread (42 articles) | Original Format Date: 2001-07-03 02:01:59 PST
The books aren't canon, and never are, whether they are contradicted by an episode or not.
It's a logisical impossibility to co-ordinate a novel, which takes a year to go from idea to the shelves, with an episode, which takes two months from idea to air.
Star Wars, OTOH, has produced only The Phantom Menace in the last umpteen years, so there's nothing for the books to contradict.
John Ordover Executive Editor Star Trek Fiction Pocket Books
We have to look into this further. The Paramount website still mentions the two novels, so maybe they're still canon. However, they also refer to "Yesteryear", which merely contains canonical details. In either event, they obviously hold a high status among the apocrypha.
Tim Gaskill seems to consider the manuals *accurate* because they are made by producers and because they in turn research the real canon. The Star Fleet Technical Manual has been the Copyright of Franz Joseph Designs, which is why Paramount doesn't like it. That's where the current books unfortunately must take precedence, although one could argue that while being unofficial, it has been used by producers and is therefore almost a piece of apocrypha, like any other random production source.
In the end, Ron D. Moore has said that the official manuals are not canon:
quote:
...interview with Ron D. Moore, Monday, October 26, 1998
Q: What type of books are considered canon? The ones written by Production staff? A: Actually, NONE of the books are considered canon. We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes. We do use things like the Encylopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books.
In any event, if something is canon, it is on the level of a TV episode. If the Jeri Taylor books are canon, then any detail from there would be on the same level as a detail from a TOS episode, a TNG episode, etc. That's the crucial distinction. Jeri Taylor was an executive producer. Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda were technical advisors/artists. Big difference.
posted
I read Star Trek novels. I like Star Trek novels. But under no circumstances have I ever considered any novel I've read as canon, no matter what TPTB might say. You just can't do it, because the novels not only contradict what is shown on screen, but they also contradict other novels. That doesn't decrease my enjoyment of reading them, though. One of the best ST novels, IMHO, was "The Final Reflection," dealing with pre-TOS Klingon society. With the advent of TNG, however, everything in that novel was contradicted by Ron Moore's revamping of the Klingons for the new show. But like I said, that doesn't make me enjoy the book any less.
The novels are nothing more than fan fiction that had the good fortune of being published. Whether it's written by a Star Trek producer, a Star Trek actor (or ghostwriter), or even the Star Trek creator himself, it still doesn't hold water if it's contradicted by something on the screen.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, the point of contention are Mosaic and Pathways. Whichever label we apply to them, perhaps an argument can be made that they're not as serious as an episode in every aspect. To use a B5 example, JMS initially said that his wife's book, "To Dream in the City of Sorrows", which he checked line by line, is 100% canon, as valid as any TV episode. In later statements, he only considered it 99% canon.
Still, in the case of Jeri Taylor, we're talking about a novel written by an executive producer. Very few people could disagree with her view of the characters and situations, and since she obviously didn't go the route of independently envisioning the characters for the book, the novel was canonized.
But let's be practical -- whatever label we put on these books, if anything can override them it's a live-action TV episode or a movie.
quote:we're talking about a novel written by an executive producer.
And the TMP novelization was written by Gene Roddenberry (at least that's what the cover says), but we don't consider it canon.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not saying that its being written by an executive producer makes it possibly canon. It's the statements by John Ordover and the Paramount website, singling out these books among so many. I'm merely explaining why it might have become canon -- it is clear that Gene Roddenberry didn't manage (or want) to canonize his book.
I am only insisting that things be explained and supported by evidence, as opposed to "This is my vision of Star Trek."
I see a severe problem here. Of course, that's what most of us are striving to achieve here - as opposed to the majority of fan authors or RPG players. But as hard as we try, Star Trek will always be a matter of interpretation as soon as our attempts to apply the laws of real science fail. I am quite pessimistic that we could ever find, as you commented on my "flow chart", a common idea of how the diagram should look like. Therefore I explicitly called it "personal".
To quote only the most blatant example, Boris, there is one person in another sci-fi fandom of whose (allegedly!) scientific approach you are quite fond, but with whom I strongly disagree in almost every respect, as I am absolutely sure that everything from his basic approach over the criteria to the weighting of evidence is wrong, not to mention the pre-fabrication of results and the open aggression. I can disprove for myself, or simply disregard because of irrelevance, almost everything he is claiming, even if the methods of gathering evidence are partially appropriate. But evidence may not be the ultimate proof, and even a scientific approach may become debatable. I know we will never agree in this particular problem.
Fortunately, we all share a largely common and sensible idea of how Trek should be treated, so it won't become *that* bad, but I just wanted to point out that we wouldn't find 100% agreement about even fundamental ways to approach a topic. There is nothing like the one scientifically correct way.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boris: . To use a B5 example, JMS initially said that his wife's book, "To Dream in the City of Sorrows", which he checked line by line, is 100% canon, as valid as any TV episode. In later statements, he only considered it 99% canon.
A divorce only managed to knock 1% off? Impressive.
The book dealing with Anna Sheridan going to Z'Ha'Dum was considered about 90% canon, and I don't think he'd made up his mind whether the extra stuff in PAD's novelisation of "in the beginning" was canon.
Regarding Taylor, hasn't some of the stuff already been contradicted on air?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Mike Wong and I disagree on some issues, including the relevance of medium to the interpretation as well as the style of his pages. That is why I didn't use those pages as an example, but rather those of his associate, Curtis Saxton, whose methods are identical.
However, once you look beyond the style and verbal attacks (which are no worse than in the common Internet phenomenon called a flameboard), he makes a number of good points about the writers' ignorance of science and scientific principles in what started out, and supposedly still is, a science fiction show.
Accordingly, the approach he uses has a certain goal -- to imbue a show with realism, answer the question of "if what we see onscreen were real, how would it be understood?" To achieve objectivity, the object of analysis is not his own vision/remembrance of the show, but rather the exact visual and verbal contents of the footage which are measurable.
Accordingly, the simplest theory that explains all the measurements/observations is the best. True, that's one way to approach this hobby. It's goal is to make the show more rational and consistent with reality, to get the people to research the world around them. This was precisely the goal of Franz Joseph with his manual, who saw that fans of that time were getting too obsessed with Star Trek but didn't know the world around them well enough to expand on the show -- to write a proper technical manual. Gene Roddenberry and Paramount bought into it, because it matched the spirit of The Original Series, which was all about making the show consistent with the real world. It's what makes science fiction that as opposed to fantasy.
True, Franz Joseph wasn't that obsessed about making sure his details are correct, and did make some engineering corrections to what he saw as problems. Curtis Saxton does this likewise, although to a lesser degree, whereas Mike Wong uses these problems to make fun of the show, and then maybe find an explanation that reveals more of what Star Trek is as opposed to what it's supposed to be. For example, why doesn't Picard ever separate the saucer to protect the children of the Enterprise? Why do so few people have vessels of their own? Why are people of the TNG era so homogeneous? Where is personal freedom here?
I would also point out that I am not the only person on these boards to, at least in part, agree with this approach. Perhaps it's only one way, but it strives for objectivity, requires effort, and tries to make Trek into a better show than it already is. That's good enough for me.
posted
For the record, I love Mike Wong's site. Not only do I think that his scientific analyses are spot-on about 90% of the time, his characterizations of the rabid Trekkie debator are entirely correct. Read his "Hate Mail" section. If I had to put up with the losers Mike does, I'd hate Trekkies, too.
That said, I'm not at all objective when it comes to Star Trek, so I don't neccessarily care that much about scientific accuray for my own personal use. But it has it's place; specifically, for those who feel it neccessary to contrast Trek ships with Star Wars ships. In that context specifically, there is really no way to do a fair comparison than by being scientific. How can you figure out whose guns do more damage than to observe what they've done and compare?
Context is the key, though. When it comes to staying within a specific universe we're free to say, "Well, they screwed up here," or, "That's just visual effects for ease of viewing."
I don't think that Mike Wong's calculations and such reflect the "real" Star Trek universe because I don't think that Star Trek reflects the "real" Star Trek universe, as silly as that sounds. If I'm going to pretend there is a "real" Star Trek universe, I think of Star Trek the show as something like a 30th century program, subject to all the same dramatic effects and bloopers as a 20th century "historical" movie like Gladiator or Pearl Harbor. Nobody pretends that the events in those movies happened exactly as we see, but even in the mostly fictional Gladiator there are real elements.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --Phillip K. Dick
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
...the only real elements being the names of the characters.
I'm all for scientific accuracy. And as long as a show (including spinoffs) stays internally consistant, I'm happy. But at some point science ends and fiction kicks in. From there, it's up to the writers how to fill the void that exists outside the current framework of physics et all. Personally, I think the best option is to leave it entirely blank -- the less technobabble, the better. SF is not so much about technology as it is about personae.
quote:How can you figure out whose guns do more damage than to observe what they've done and compare?
See, this is where said obsessive and endless attempts to compare fall short. If we're going to argue over the credibility of dodgy calculations, which are fairly obtuse in their own right, then we might as well question the validity of the special effects themselves, since we're at the whim of those who create them. Using VFX produced by folks holding a degree in (digital) art as a basis for collating, is, to cut a long story short, an exercise in futility.
[ September 14, 2002, 10:59: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I tend to agree. I also think the whole ST vs. SW debate is an exercise in futility... but if you're going to do that particular exercise, you have to have an objective measure to compare them. Sadly, the only objective measure is the visual effects. Hence the aforementioned futility.
quote:Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds: For the record, I love Mike Wong's site. Not only do I think that his scientific analyses are spot-on about 90% of the time, his characterizations of the rabid Trekkie debator are entirely correct.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I wanted to avoid a discussion about Wong's site but just for the record:
Part of his findings may be scientific as only details and mere data gathering are concerned, like his observations about power usage in several cases. But that does not change anything about the fact that he is betraying about every basic principle a scientist has to heed. And even if we accept his pretty much self-made "rules for scientific debates", I can easily prove that he systematically acts against every single of them. The scientific merit of Wong's site, even if we leave aside all verbal and style issues, is near zero. If people are willing to accept that he is following a scientific approach, that would give scientists a bad taste.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic