the delphic expanse

Aquarius wrote:I have to weigh in with Middleman on this one. That Elizabeth died doesn't invalidate that she lived. It also doesn't invalidate her hybridness.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I follow the "soft-canon" of the re-launch novels as the only viable (and official) continuation of "Enterprise's" story, conventional wisdom of the fandom be damned. I really want to see where Michael Martian and the other "powers that be" at CBS take us regarding our favorite couple and their (possible) off-spring. The likelihood of us ever hearing about Trip or T'Pol again on-screen is practically non-existent (IMO), so St. Michael is writing the Gospel as far as I'm concerned.

Aquarius wrote:On the other hand, "creator's-mouth-to-your-ears" doesn't always "canonize" things, either. Look at how many times George Lucas has changed and backtracked on even a simple issue like what Star Wars is about.

I'm not a big Star wars fan so I can't weigh in on this, and Roddenberry is not without his inconsistencies. However, to the majority of Trek Fans, Roddenberry is like a god, where I don't think Lucas holds that same status with the Star Wars Fans. All I'm saying is that there was never, ever any canon evidence that says Spock was the first Vulcan / Human. Roddenberry's book indicates that he wasn't. So there is more than enough room in canon for B&B to do what they did and for Michael Martian to take it further if the "powers that be" let him. I was and still am a big fan of TOS (not the re-boot stuff) and I remember watching it during its first run as a little kid, but I don't hold Spock sacrosanct as many in the fandom do.

Aquarius wrote:Whether we like it or not, they reserve the right to change their minds about things. They also reserve the right not to tell us when they do.

Isn't that what all the bitching about Enterprise was about?

Aquarius wrote:Whether we like it or not, they reserve the right to change their minds about things. They also reserve the right not to tell us when they do.

The Middleman wrote:Isn't that what all the bitching about Enterprise was about?

I don't know about all of it, but certainly a good part of it.

Two things:

First, I seem to vaguely remember an interview with David Bowie where he basically said that an artist can have certain ideas and meanings behind his music, but once it's been recorded and available for purchase, it's no longer solely his. It now also belongs to the fans who have their own ideas and meanings which are not necessarily his but are just as valid.

Second, this whole thing about canon and non-canon books. I've got no clue whether what I own is canon or non-canon, only that they were bought legally from Crown or B&N or Borders with their covers on. If the authors had permission from the owners of the Star Trek franchise to write their books for pay, then how is anything in them non-canon? I find that odd when one of the reasons given for cutting the relaunch books a lot of slack is that the authors had to work to such strict guidelines. It just seems like somebody, methinks the owners of the franchise, is having their cake and eating it, too. I guess I'm glad I only write for fun because the publishing world doesn't sound like a good time.

It's very simple: The shows and the films were and/are considered canon for the purposes of the show's writers (and by extension fans). Beta media, such as comics, books and even The Animated Series - it not considered canon because Gene Rodenberry said it wasn't before he died - and there was no regulation of the early books and comics, so they all contradicted themselves. It was considered too unwieldy for show writers to try and not contradict the "beta" material, so they stuck to the films and tv shows as "canon" and were not obliged to take the other material into consideration.

Now, the shows contradicted themselves - not just various series - but TOS often contradicts itself because nobody was thinking that it would matter and no one was keeping track during the show's early run. So, it was hard enough for writers to be consistent just based on films and tv episodes.

These days, some Enterprise fans consider the relaunch books "canon" because of the series's early demise and the fact that it's the "official" completion of the story. But that is controversial and, as Middleman says above it's called "soft canon" even among those who adhere to it.

Glory1863 wrote:First, I seem to vaguely remember an interview with David Bowie where he basically said that an artist can have certain ideas and meanings behind his music, but once it's been recorded and available for purchase, it's no longer solely his. It now also belongs to the fans who have their own ideas and meanings which are not necessarily his but are just as valid.

No doubt about it, fans pay for the artist's materials and they are entitled to their own interpretation of the work. However, the artist's intent, if known, has to be taken into consideration.

Glory1863 wrote:Second, this whole thing about canon and non-canon books. I've got no clue whether what I own is canon or non-canon, only that they were bought legally from Crown or B&N or Borders with their covers on. If the authors had permission from the owners of the Star Trek franchise to write their books for pay, then how is anything in them non-canon? I find that odd when one of the reasons given for cutting the relaunch books a lot of slack is that the authors had to work to such strict guidelines.

You hit the nail on the head, the control around the writing since CBS took over ownership of the franchise is pretty strict. CBS owns the Star Trek Franchise, controls the licensing and even owns Pocket Books, the publisher. The authors are actually contractors who are paid to write the story for CBS Products (Licensing). It is my understanding that the authors have no rights to their work once it's done. As far as I'm concerned, if the story isn't going to be on screen, the book is canon. Under this kind of control, I don't understand how it could not be.

Glory1863 wrote:It just seems like somebody, methinks the owners of the franchise, is having their cake and eating it, too.

Check this opinion out.

... This could mean that the Star Trek franchise has fractured into two halves: the new, sexed up continuity, which will appeal to the masses, and the old continuity, which will continue to be explored in books, games, comics and other ephemera.

If that's the case it's brilliant on Paramount's part. Nobody's going to pay to see Next Generation, Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise movies. But there is a large population who will pay to read books or play games set in that continuity, and there will likely be a steady stream of product for those people. Paramount's having its cake and eating it too - a hot new franchise brings in the big bucks while the stodgy old nerdy franchise is a reliable moneymaker on its own.
.
.
There's a lot of money to be made from geeks.

The hierarchy basically goes like this:

"Canon"--if it was on the screen, it's canon

"Official"--legally licensed from CBS/Paramount, but not "canon"

"soft canon"--deleted scenes, stuff on a computer terminal in the background that was never meant to be seen by viewers but HD tv changed all that, novelizations with details not in the films/movies, etc.

Aquarius wrote:"soft canon"--deleted scenes, stuff on a computer terminal in the background that was never meant to be seen by viewers but HD tv changed all that, novelizations with details not in the films/movies, etc.

Hey, hey, hey... Jonathan Archer will be President of the Federation someday!

Aquarius wrote:The hierarchy basically goes like this:

"Canon"--if it was on the screen, it's canon

"Official"--legally licensed from CBS/Paramount, but not "canon"

"soft canon"--deleted scenes, stuff on a computer terminal in the background that was never meant to be seen by viewers but HD tv changed all that, novelizations with details not in the films/movies, etc.

Again I ask (and not sarcastically): "Who Said"!

Canon and official are both terms that were used by writers and showrunners.

Soft canon, I believe that's a fandom term, but Aquarius might no more about the derivation of the term.

I've also heard Enterprise's relaunch books referred to as both soft canon and official - since the relaunch books are the only official continuation of the series that's going to happen and they don't plan on allowing any books to present a different version of events.

Honeybee wrote:Canon and official are both terms that were used by writers and showrunners.

Soft canon, I believe that's a fandom term, but Aquarius might no more about the derivation of the term.

I've also heard Enterprise's relaunch books referred to as both soft canon and official - since the relaunch books are the only official continuation of the series that's going to happen and they don't plan on allowing any books to present a different version of events.

Just to add to this - though I think it's already been said? - I'm pretty sure the terms "canon" and "official" were never really meant to apply to fandom, but rather as something helpful to those behind the show. At some point, the body of work that is Star Trek -- from television to movies to books, to blueprints to role-playing games to fanfiction that became well known -- is just too much information (some of it contradictory) for the staff episode writers to have to wade through in order to create a a story that fits snugly into the universe. Establishing an arbitrary but concrete boundary like that makes it much a more manageable knowledge base to draw from on a weekly basis for scripting television episodes.

As fans, we can choose to limit ourselves ... or not ... in our fiction.