Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
I promise this is my penultimate new topic for today...
It seems to me like a lot of "official" stuff (DS9 Tech Manual, Official Star Trek Fact Files, ST: The Magazine, and others) makes significant mistakes. The shows themselves do contain inconsistencies, but that's only to be expected. Therefore, I want to make two proposals: 1. That the term "canon" be used only for hard data compiled from all sources (including official ones) and checked; and,
2. That not all official material is canon - given the number of goof-ups, we should be suspicious of this stuff. For example, Defiant length, and the recent Nova/Noble argument.
Anyone want to try compiling a canon reference source?
------------------ WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave may be hazardous to your health!
posted
The term "canon" cannot be arbitrarily defined by you or anyone else here. It's a term for the things are officially part of the Trek universe, i.e. the things that are not allowably contradicted in future Trek. Of course, that doesn't mean that canon always isn't contradicted. However, it isn't supposed to be. Things like the STMag and the Tech Manuals are not canon because the writers are under no obligation to follow what's put forth in them.
------------------ "Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?" -Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
Anyway, as Frank said, there are really very few outright contradictions that are impossible to explain away. Given enough cunning on our part, anyway.
------------------ "And if we weren't good to you, Dave, you shouldn't take it all the way to your grave." -- Will Rigby
posted
More specifically, at the moment, only the shows/movies are canon. However, if TPTB decide that some future (or even past) publication will be thenceforth considered canon, it is. "Canon" means "what is officially part of the Trek universe". Therefore, the people who control the official Trek universe, also control what falls under the term "canon".
------------------ "Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?" -Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
Starbuck "Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
Member # 153
posted
Fair enough...
I still think we should have some way of identifying this stuff... how about calling the results of SWDAOs and similar error correction "accepted" material?
------------------ WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave may be hazardous to your health!
posted
Yes, or perhaps "Generally accepted (except, of course, by Frank, but you know him)".
Seriously, I have no problem with "canon" as long as the explanation for the inconsistencies does not offend my sense of logic. If you have to bend over backwards to accommodate a real stupid error on the part of the writers, you have to remember that Star Trek is not a documentary, but a videoplay presented for our entertainment. It is produced by fallible humans (who, without exception, slept through their science classes ) and is subject to the occasional (or even more frequent) error.
Not every error needs to be accommodated. The writers work against deadlines and within budgets. They can't make the show perfect without running the risk of getting fired or otherwise penalized. Deal with it.
--Baloo
------------------ It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.
) and is subject to the occasional (or even more frequent) error.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
