TrekBBS, November - December 2005:
TrekBBS, November - December 2005:
Comments on Canon from Pocket Books and Viacom Consumer Products Personnel
Part I: Oct.
2005 (assorted Trek
authors)
Part II: Nov. 2005 (Marco Palmieri, assorted Trek
authors)
Part III: Dec. 2005 (Paula Block, John Ordover, assorted
Trek authors)
One November day I was searching for additional information on Richard Arnold to see if there was any more information to be found online regarding his opinion on canon. In doing so I bumped into a thread on TrekBBS featuring a month-old message by poster "Therin of Andor" claiming that, per Richard Arnold, the StarTrek.com site was a mere licensee like Pocket Books and as such contained no direct information about the Star Trek canon policy (which would've meant that the various canon-related FAQ answers were as unimportant as Pocket Books claims about canon).
I briefly skimmed the earlier portions of the thread (largely from 2004 and early 2005), unfortunately missing out on poster "CaptainHawk1" appearing at the bottom of the first page and developing a few arguments before I did. Below is the conversation he took part in from October 2005:
| "Captain- Hawk1" |
The only reason that I tend to disagree with the
opinion of what is canon and what isn't is because Paramount itself (Star
Trek.com) contradicts the statements here and the ones made by Steve Roby.
I'm frankly too tired to look it up for the thousandth time in the last 5
years but I'll tell you what it says (...and implies) and you can go look
it up. To simplify: Canon is anything that was on TV or in the movies excluding the Animated Series (however there are exceptions to that as elements of TAS are considered canon). Novels are generally not considered canon. The only exceptions to this rule are Mosaic and Pathways written by VOY co-creator Jeri Taylor that provide the back-stories for Janeway and her crew. Reference materials (TNG:Tech Manual, Trek Encyclopedia, etc.) are considered canon if they were written by Star Trek production personnel. Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise and the Trek tech manual (Franz Joseph?) would not be considered canon as they were not written by Trek staff. Now, these are not my words, these are Paramount's words that can be easily found here with a little work. I've always found these guidelines to be satisfactory, but people have been arguing with me for years about them. As far as Jeri Taylor's writings contradicting another Trek staffer's writings, this happens all the time on screen. Why should the fact that something that was written (in the only 2 novels that Paramount considers canon) happens to contradict other canon Trek screenwriting negate it's validity? Again, I'm not pulling this out of thin air, it's officially stated as such on Paramount's website. By the same token, what is more valid as far as canon goes: what was in an original theatrical release or what was added/or removed from the Director's Cut/Special Edition DVD? So what is it? What Paramount states on its official website or what everyone thinks canon is? Like I said, I lean toward Paramount's opinon and no one has ever been able to say anything to contradict this and make me change my mind. If there is a valid argument for against what Paramount has said about the definition of Trek canon is I'm more than willing to be open minded to it. The only other problem I see is that Trek may be done from TV forever unless some major changes occur. Isn't it likely that the only official vehicle for new Trek stories will someday be the novels and future novels may one day indeed be considered canon? |
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: StarTrek.com is not "Paramount itself." It is, like the Pocket novels, a licensed tie-in to Star Trek. Quote: That is a claim made on ST.com, but since ST.com is not Paramount, it does not actually represent official Paramount policy. It also conflicts with the simple facts, because a number of things in Pathways were contradicted by later episodes of VGR. Quote: Completely and utterly untrue. The authors of those works refute that in their own introductions. They say outright that they're merely offering one possible interpretation and do not intend to inhibit anyone's creativity in the process. Indeed, the shows themselves sometimes contradicted conjectural material in the Tech Manual, Chronology and so forth. Those works -- and even the official, behind-the-scenes writers' bibles -- were only meant as supplements to the shows, as possible sources of inspiration for future writers. They were not meant to restrict or limit future writers, so all they did was make suggestions which writers for the shows were free to use or ignore as they wished. Therefore, nothing offscreen is canon. Even the most authoritative offscreen references are subject to onscreen contradiction, because they merely support the show, not the other way around. The show, the canon, is the work itself; everything else (including Startrek.com, by the way) merely supports or derives from it. It would be ridiculous for a TV show watched by tens of millions to be restricted by things from a book read by mere hundreds of thousands, let alone by an internal, behind-the-scenes reference read by mere hundreds. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. Quote: Hard to say, but it's not our call. By definition, the only people who have a right -- or a need, for that matter -- to decide what is canonical are the people writing new Trek episodes or movies. Canon isn't meant to be binding on the fans; it's a guideline for the makers of the shows. So asking other fans for opinions on what constitutes canon is a pointless exercise, because our opinions, by definition, don't apply to that particular question. Indeed, since nobody's currently making new Trek, the whole question of canon has become pretty much a non-issue. As for those of us who write tie-in fiction, our mandate is to remain consistent with onscreen canon, but that doesn't forbid us from incorporating compatible material from other sources, including variant cuts of movies, or even deleted scenes if we wish (for instance, the recent TNG novels built on the deleted NEM reference to Beverly Crusher rejoining Starfleet Medical, while ignoring its deleted character of Commander Madden). In Ex Machina, I chose to treat the Director's Edition as the "true" story, since it represents the director's intended version of the film, the one he would've released to theaters originally if he'd had more time to finish it. But that's got nothing to do with canon. The people who make the shows define canon, and if they wanted to go by the theatrical or ABC version of TMP instead of the DE, that would determine canon. What I decided only determined the contents of my book. Quote: The only way the novels would be considered canon is if the makers of some future Trek series decided to acknowledge them. Because, for the three millionth time, canon simply means what the makers of the actual show itself choose to be bound by. It's only relevant to them. And as long as nobody's making new onscreen Trek, canon is simply a non-issue.
|
| Terri Osborne (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
The only relevant definition of "canon" is
what the writers of the TV series and movies are obliged not to
contradict. For the moment, that constitutes TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the
movies. Whether or not that changes is for the future to decide.  Anything else falls into the realms of "personal continuity," which is purely and wholly subjective. |
| "Captain- Hawk1" |
Quote:With all due respect, where are you coming up with your information? Check the terms of use page as it clearly states the Star Trek.com is operated by Pramount Digital Entertainment, an affiliate of Paramount Pictures Corporation. The last time I checked Pocket Books was not an affiliate of Paramount, simply a licensee. I.e., Paramount runs that site and is responsible for its content including the statemnets made about what is canon and what is not. Well, so what? Again, the way I look at it, if Paramount (see:previous paragraph) says it's canon, it really doesn't matter what Rick Sternbach or Mike Okuda think about even their own work. I'm well aware that many things in those reference materials have been contradicted by what's been on screen, and I don't suggest that any writer be strictly tied to using said reference materials as their unviolable source in their writing or creativity process. That being said, canon is changed all of the time in Trek and contradicted from episode to episode. My point is that the standard for canon that keeps being touted is first of all not the same as Paramount's own standard (see: previous paragraph) and second the argument against reference materials doesn't stand on its own because it is being ignored that the TV shows and movies contradict themselves, not just the reference materials. Just read the Nitpicker's Guides and you'll see the glaring sontradictions in onscreen Trek. It's not hard to understand, as you put it, and I don't suggest that anyone be strictly tied to anything published about Trek, even by production staff, but nonetheless, Paramount has made it official that they consider reference materials by Trek staff official. That doesn't mean it won't change or be contradicted.Quote: This I really take issue with. It is not the right of the writers to decide what canon in Trek is. It is at Paramount's (the owner of the property) sole discretion to decide what canon is and what can be changed. I've read on numerous occasions where writers would not stick to canon and the producers would shoot them down and make them change what they wrote to accomodate established Trek canon.Quote: This I totally agree with. Canon, as far as Trek is concerned, is a guide. We are not talking about the Catholic Church's definition of canon. We are talking about Star Trek's canon, which has a tendency to be changed and contradicted all of the time on accident or simply because the creative process dictated it. This is not the same as what is considered canon by the Cathollic Church by any stretch of the imagination. Star Trek's canon is fluid and flexible and I believe meant to change every now and then. Again, I wouldn't go to fans to determine what is canon, I go to the source and everything that I keep digging up confirms what I said before about Star Trek.com.Quote: Of course not, and for the record the writers of Star Trek novels have done an excellent job over the past few years not only sticking to canon, but also walking the fine line as to not put in any material that may be refuted in future onscreen Trek. There have been many novels over the past few years that are so good and so no-contradictory that I've always thought they should be considered canon, but obviously, because they are novels, they won't be and I accept that.Quote: First, I haven't read that bookQuote: 
. Second, the only point I was trying to bring up about SE/DC's of films
is that even Paramount cotradicts their own rules on canon and
has never made a statement regarding SE/DC's canon and have left it
vague and ambiguous for the rest of us....And as we've seen time and time again, they don't always bind themselves to anything. I've never had a problem with not considering novels as canon as the problem is that there is just way too much on screen Trek and there is no way that the novels are going to be able to keep up with all of the continuity.Quote: |
| Steve Roby | As for startrek.com being the official arbiter: you say yourself it's created by Paramount Digital Entertainment, right? Well, Paramount Digital Entertainment, like Pocket, is part of the Viacom empire, but it is not the part of that corporate entity that produced the Star Trek movies and TV series. |
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: Yes, operated by an affiliate of Paramount. That doesn't mean that it's personally assembled by the people actually making the show. It's just produced by some folks hired by the corporation that also hired them. The website is not some statement of official doctrine or law. It's just a piece of entertainment, put together by some guys hired to put together an entertaining website. (For that matter, Pocket Books and Paramount are both owned by Viacom, so they are technically affiliated.) Quote: It doesn't matter what some employees at Paramount Digital thought either, because canon is defined by those actually making the show. The statement on ST.com about Jeri Taylor's novels being canon was true when it was written, because at the time, Jeri Taylor was still the show-runner on Voyager and chose to treat her books as authoritative sources. Once she left the show, her successor did not feel beholden to the conjectures she made in her books, therefore they were no longer considered part of the canon. The statement on the website is nearly a decade out of date. It may have been true at the time, but it isn't any longer. Quote: Exactly. Which is why it's such a waste of effort to make a big deal about what is or isn't "canon" in the first place. It's just not that important. It isn't binding on the fans, and as you say, it isn't even absolutely binding on the people who made the shows. So why does it even matter? Quote: Yes, those materials are official. But "official" is not "canonical." As you say yourself, the shows were free to contradict the material in those official sources -- thereby proving that being official does not make something part of canon. What is meant by saying that those materials are official is partly just that Paramount approved them, and partly that tie-in works are expected to abide by their conjectures until and unless they are contradicted by onscreen canon. Official is a tier above unofficial, to be sure, but neither is on a par with canon. Quote: That is the strangest thing I've heard all day. Canon means the actual content of the shows. And of course it's the writers who decide what's in the show. That's their job. The "owner of the property," as you put it, hired them for the specific purpose of creating the show's universe and deciding what happens within it. Yes, Paramount approved their decisions, and did have the discretion to reject or change those decisions. But it hired them specifically to make those decisions. Besides, "Paramount" is not a single entity. It's a corporation made up of individual human beings, executives who make the decisions that constitute "Paramount policy." When you talk about "Paramount," you're talking about those individual people who made the decisions. And in the case of Star Trek, the relevant individual embodying "Paramount" was a fellow named Rick Berman. He was a Paramount executive whose job it was to oversee ST, to make the decisions about its creative direction, and to hire the people who wrote it. Quote: The producers were writers. The writer/producers on the show's regular staff collaborated with each other and with freelance authors to make sure that their scripts remained consistent with the canon that the staff defined. |
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: No. The reality is that the canon is, simply and literally, the actual content of filmed and televised Star Trek. That canon is not absolutely consistent; no canon is (Biblical canon least of all). But it is what defines the "reality" of the series' universe. The problem is that people insist on misdefining "canon" to mean any number of other things, such as "What I want to be real Trek" or "That which is absolutely consistent and unquestionable" or "That which Paramount commands us to obey." You're right that none of those concepts have real meaning or functionality here, but none of those concepts equates with canon. There is a canon; the canon is, plain and simple, the show itself. The original work, as opposed to the secondary works derived from or interpreting it. That is what the word "canon" actually means. Quote: Saying that an individual considers something official is as paradoxical as saying that an individual considers something canonical. "Official" means that it has the cachet of an office, of the company or agency that has authority over the matter. If something is official, it's because Paramount says it's official, not because you or I think it should be. And as I said, the staff-written reference materials are considered official by Paramount, in that tie-in creators are instructed to conform to their conjectures where not overtly contradicted by canon. But "official" is a far cry from "canonical," and the two don't have that much to do with each other. Quote: And I'm not deciding what is canon, I'm simply explaining the definition of the word. Canon literally means the core text, the essential work or body of work, exclusive of anything external or supplementary to that essential body. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of the literal dictionary definition of the word "canon" in general terms. The decision as to what actually constitutes the core text lies in the hands of the people responsible for creating that text, so they can decide what the canon contains; but what the word "canon" means in basic terms is a matter of established definition, not individual opinion. Quote: "Represent?" That's a bit pretentious. It's an entertainment site tying into a show. It's meant to be entertaining, not to stand for some deep principle or embody the core values of the corporation or something. It's just supply trying to meet demand. It's a business venture. And let's face it, only a tiny minority of fans even cares to debate what is or isn't canon. The issue would only come up in the minds of fans who are aware of supplemental/tie-in materials beyond the show and are curious to know how it relates to the show itself. But according to estimates posted here by former Pocket editor John Ordover, such tie-ins are generally read by only two percent of a show's viewing audience. So probably over 95 percent of Trek viewers have no particular interest in the question of canon, and a very large percentage of those have probably never even heard the word applied in this context. So it's supply and demand. Most Trek viewers couldn't care less about the Great Canon Debate, so ensuring accurate information about it is not going to be at the tippy-tip-top of Startrek.com's priority list. It's a big site; they've got a lot of other stuff to do. |
| "Captain- Hawk1" |
To respond to all 3 of you. Very simply, an official
Paramount site, Star Tek.com, defines what is considered canon in the Star
Trek Universe. Everyone has continued to question the validity of that
source with nothing to back up their assertions other than their own
understanding of what 'canon' is. And this argument about the literal
definition of 'canon' is moot because that is not how the owner of the
property defines 'canon.' Regardless of the printed materials, they don't
even consider TAS canon! What makes TAS different than the other on screen
Trek? You can't dispute these facts by conjecture and off-handed comments
made by Trek writers. Show me an official Pramount press release that disputes what an affiliate of Paramount says on the property's official website, then I'll be glad to ignore st.com. Regardless of this, may I ask a question? Why all of the 'pretentious' vitriol. What, I can't have an opinion based on the facts I see? This isn't life and death sh*t, here. Why does everyone seem so angry? Chill out... it's only Star Trek. |
|
Keith R.A. DeCandido (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
^ Because it's not a matter of opinion, and it's not in any way, shape, or form relevant to anything unless you're actually writing something in the Trek universe, and because somebody shows up every three-and-a-half seconds like clockwork and drags this discussion out all over again, and those of us who've been on the board for more than three-and-a-half seconds are tired of repeating ourselves for the benefit of people who can't be bothered to come up with new topics for discussion that actually matter, preferring to beat a very very very very dead horse. |
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: Very simply, no it doesn't. The errors in this assumption have been clearly explained to you. One outdated document on an entertainment site put together by some people hired by Paramount to help promote one of its television shows does not represent a statement with the weight of law. Startrek.com is no more and no less "official" than any licensed magazine, novel, comic book, action figure or Christmas tree ornament. It's a cross-promotion, not a declaration of inviolable principle. Quote: Your own "assertions" are based on nothing more than your own understanding of what Startrek.com is and what "official" is. Why are you so quick to assume that your understandings are unquestionably true while the understandings of actual professionals working in the field are false and deluded? The people telling you this aren't just writers like me, they're editors like KRAD and Marco. These are people who work with Paramount Licensing on a daily basis. Questions of canon and officialness and the relation of the show to its tie-ins are things they need to understand and deal with as part of their profession. To you, they're just abstract questions for debate. So how arrogant is it for you to assume that you have more insight into the subject than they do?? Quote: Again, you're the one making conjectures and guesses. You only have an outsider's knowledge of these matters, yet you're rejecting the insights of people who deal with them far more directly. Does that make any sense? And again, you've got to stop thinking in terms of "Paramount" and "they" as though the corporation were some reified entity existing independently of any human beings and issuing fiats on its own. Paramount is a business run by individual people, and those people within the corporation who have responsibility for Star Trek have formed varying opinions over the years about what they would regard as canon. Gene Roddenberry decided that he did not want TAS to be considered canon, so that became the policy. Rick Berman did not choose to change it, so it remained. "Paramount" did not decide TAS was not canon. "They" did not decide that. Gene Roddenberry decided that, and his successors did not overrule it. Quote: Because we are just so sick of the wealth of myths and misconceptions and petty disputes that arise over the issue of "canon." We keep trying to explain how simple it is, and how pointless it is to argue over, but people keep dredging up the same old myths and making this simple thing far more complicated and contentious than it has to be. And that's frustrating. Especially when someone who is so clearly burdened by myths and misconceptions is arrogantly assuming he understands the matter better than the professionals.
|
| "Therin of Andor" | Quote: Since Richard Arnold supposedly wrote the infamous "What is canon?" memo, on "Star Trek Office" letterhead, on Gene Roddenberry's behalf in 1989, he is a good source of the status of st.com. He has stated in several issues of "Star Trek Communicator" - and elsewhere - over the years that st.com is a ST licensee, just like other ST tie-in licensees, such as Pocket Books and (when they had contracts, DC Comics, Marvel, Malibu Graphics, WildStorm, FASA, Last Unicorn Games, Decipher and Interplay). The word of st.com is not gospel, nor indeed, canon. Of course, all the information on st.com is correct at time of uploading. All licensed ST tie-in material is vetted twice by Viacom Licensing, at time of proposal and again at pre-publication. Noone at Viacom goes back through old, already-approved and uploaded web pages and corrects them when circumstances change, just as noone orders Pocket Books to rewrite all novels made redundant by events in ENT episodes. So if the website still says that "Mosaic" is canonical, then they are referring to the fact that Jeri Taylor was still the VOY boss at the time "Mosaic" was current. And the "bible" Taylor used for Janeway on VOY was used and expanded for "Mosaic". When Taylor left VOY and started working on "Pathways", she told the writing staff that information about Janeway in "Mosaic", and the rest of the crew in "Pathways", was her gift to them, but they could ignore as they saw fit. And, eventually, they did. I can't show you a copy of the 1989 memo, but it was retyped verbatim by ST fans and angry ex-Pocket authors on the old Usenet in 1989 and throughout 1990. I saw it there. Several times Richard Arnold also posted comments explaining points in the memo, such as TAS no longer being binding on new scripts and then that Roddenberry had decreed parts of ST V to be "apocryphal". The thrust of the memo is also quoted, in part, in issue #1, Series II, of DC Comics' post-ST V comic, where it explains that TAS "no longer crosses over" to the TOS movies - and thus Arex and M'Ress would not be appearing in Series II after all (even though a great b/w set of panels featuring M'Ress appeared in comic review journals previewing issue #1). |
And I have to say, I'm incredibly impressed by the CaptainHawk fellow. He was clear, concise, and his points were very on-target, while the Trek authors were enraged and silly, making retorts that didn't answer the point. This pattern continues below.
That last message above is the one I saw on the second page of the thread. In November, I replied to it, and thus began the conversation below:
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Quote: Fair enough, but given that he hasn't been around Paramount since circa 1992 his opinion is a little dated. Quote: So the claim here is that StarTrek.com, which is maintained by Paramount Digital Entertainment (or whatever it will be after the coming Viacom split), is in fact just a licensed product (much like an AMT model) that had to get permission from Viacom Consumer Products to make StarTrek.com. Is there any evidence for this claim? I just find it odd, given that even Paramount.com is maintained by Paramount Digital Entertainment. It seems logical that PDE wouldn't be a licensee in the sense you're going for when making the official websites . . . just the basement division wherein the webmasters are kept much as one would keep a Neanderthal in a cave.  Quote: Oh, of course it isn't canon. That's one of the amusing things about canon policy debates . . . the canon policy is outside the contents of the canon. Quote: Well, the page detailing the canonicity of Mosaic and Pathways has existed since circa November 2000. It was moved in the great StarTrek.com reorganization of 2003, and still has a July 2003 date. However, sometime between June 2004 and October 2004 the page was updated and rendered more specific via the use of the word "only". Quote: Given that the page has been updated and maintained, I see no reason to assume it should be disregarded as old. Quote: Jeri Taylor left Voyager in 1998 with the end of the fourth season. The StarTrek.com page . . . according to my sources . . . first appears in November 2000, or the middle of the final season. Quote: Source for that statement? Quote: Given the internal continuity of Voyager, I wouldn't call that proof of much. Quote: I can't find it in Google's Usenet archive. Remember anything more? Key phrases, funny responses? All I have is the text of the Tim Lynch interview from 1991 (snippets available here), which was the first text I'd found of Richard Arnold ever. Quote: How much was there? Just wondering if I need to be hunting on eBay. Sorry if I'm being a pest and peppering you with questions, but if my canon page is incomplete or in error I certainly need to know about it. Thanks!
|
| Dayton Ward |
The editors at Pocket repeatedly state that none of the
books are canon. Even if Mosaic and Pathways ever were
considered canon by anyone on the Trek writing staff who wasn't named Jeri
Taylor, they're certainly not considered that way now. Call me crazy, but I'm tempted to believe the folks at Pocket, given their regular and ongoing contact with the good folks at Paramount, have some grasp of the subject. |
| (Note: Several days pass between the message above and the message below.) | |
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Well, I'd been waiting for a meatier reply (no offense
intended Dayton), but perhaps I can clarify my request more thoroughly in
a reply to this:Quote: Got quotes? I've got some second- and third-hand info much like has been reported in this thread and of course in your own reply, but nothing solid. And if you'll forgive me, I prefer things as close to first-hand as possible for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I prefer any errors to be my own. How could I report, for instance, that "Paramount Licensing" says or does such-and-such as Christopher reported toward the end of page one, when in fact no such organization exists? (Reference here) What he obviously meant to refer to was Viacom Consumer Products (ignoring, for the moment, that the coming split is going to muddle that up a bit). Surely you can understand that I'd rather have a direct quote than mere insistence by other interested parties. Quote: The above is an example of what I'm referring to. It's a statement with zero supporting facts offered, and indeed we have direct counterevidence thanks to the late-2004 update of StarTrek.com's notes regarding the canon policy. I've got the full references on my site, and I linked to these earlier. In short, your contention is supported by the following: 1. I have hearsay from Ordover quoted on my site. He works for a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Paramount Communications and, save for a couple of story ideas he sold to DS9, isn't involved in the production of live-action Trek. In other words, it's hearsay from a guy who is of questionable rank in the matter anyway. 2. Less a positive claim and more of a counterclaim against positions such as those on my page, there's the suggestion that Paramount's webmasters at PDE are mere licensees, and hence anything on StarTrek.com is of a rank similar to that enjoyed by Ordover, leaving it as a he-said-she-said sort of thing. I addressed this concept in my last post on this thread. So far as I know, that's it. If you'll forgive me for saying so, it ain't much. Don't get me wrong . . . I fully agree that anyone can hold any opinion they like insofar as their personal canon is concerned. You want TAS? Cool. Cox's iffy Khan books? Swell. T-Negative? Go for it. FASA? Rock on. However, if one is going to discuss the canon policy and make claims about its contents, then we've gone beyond the subjectivity of personal canon and into a discussion of objective fact. "This is what it is, this is what it contains," and so on. That's why I try to make my page as well-researched as possible. So, do you have anything in particular to support your statements? Thanks in advance. |
| Dayton
Ward (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: Editors post here regularly. Feel free to ask them. That's about as close to first-hand as you're liable to get. Quote: Support my statements? Am I on trial here? I don't particularly appreciate the implication that I must be pulling this information from the air or my ass. When it comes to matters pertaining to canon as it relates to the Star Trek fiction I write, I take my direction from the editorial staff at Pocket Books, who in turn takes their lead from the instructions provided to them via Paramount. That's really all the justification I require and as I've already stated, I deal with these people on a regular basis and am therefore inclined to believe they must know what the hell they're talking about.
|
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: Not under that name, perhaps. I'm referring to the people whose job it is to decide such things, including Paula Block and John van Citters -- people that I and all the other writers and editors cooperate with on every single Trek project we do. Quote: This just goes to show that people who use the word "obviously" are usually wrong. Quote: Oh, come ON! Let it go, already. You treat this like it's a federal case, like "canon policy" is some all-important law that governs whole lives or something. You're obsessed with something that just has no meaning. We deal with these issues as part of our jobs -- to you it's merely an abstraction. Can't you see how overweeningly obnoxious it is for you to assume that you're a better judge of this issue than we are? If you were really interested in a fair evaluation of the evidence, you would've accepted what we told you months ago. {Editor's Note: Evidently Christopher had me confused with CaptainHawk1, here, since I've never discussed canon with him and thus couldn't possibly have ignored something from months earlier. This might explain some, but not all, of his jackassery.} The fact that you insist on dragging out this ridiculous, pathetic argument and dismissing the insights of people far more qualified than you just goes to show that you couldn't care less about objective truth, only about legitimizing your own preconceptions. And it's really, really pathetic.
|
| Kevin Killiany (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
DSG2k, let me see if I understand your position: Because the professional authors who write the Star Trek novels and the editors who select and oversee the production of these novels and the publishing house which prints and distributes the novels and the company which holds the license for producing all things related to Star Trek are all in unanimous agreement that absolutely nothing except the live-action television episodes and movies are canon, they are mistaken because the facts disagree with opinions posted on your website? Despite your opinon that Paula Block and her department do not exist, those of us who do this for a living have to deal with every line we write being vetted as consistent with canon -- though it is referred to as continuity in house. We know exactly what we are talking about. There are no grey areas. And it's more than a little annoying to have someone who has contructed their own fantasy of "how it ought to be" accuse us of dishonesty and ignorance when we share this information. From the FAQ section of the Star Trek submission guidelines: Quote: I understand you have the most frequently visited site concerning Star Trek canon. As a service to those who visit your site, you should either post the truth or clearly state that the site reflects only your opinion and is a work of fiction. |
| Marco
Palmieri (Trek Novels Editor, Pocket Books) |
Quote: "None of the books are canon. No exceptions." - Marco Palmieri, Senior Editor, Pocket Books Been repeating that statement for years. Believe it, or don't believe it--it doesn' t much matter. It's the reality in which I work.
|
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Quote: Of course not. Quote: Then my apologies, for I was not attempting to suggest that the information must have been made up . . . simply that I had no source whatsoever other than your statement. And, if you'll forgive me for admitting this, until you mentioned "fiction I write" it never dawned on me that you might be an author. Indeed . . . and I say this with more than a little embarrassment . . . I read "Foundations" about a year and a half ago. I've always been bad about remembering the names of author teams, though (except the Reeves-Stevens duo, but that's cheating). I do hope you'll forgive my senility. This is why I try to have everything written down, which of course is the reason I have my site to begin with.
|
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Quote: I treat it like a subject about which there are objective facts. Virtually any subject has some, and thus can be addressed with equal rigor. You note later that the canon policy has no meaning. In many cases this is so, but not all. The very reason the concept gets brought up so often among fans is because their discussions frequently require an objective standard to start from . . . a basis of discussion. An obvious and extreme example would be someone trying to say "well, in my fanfic I established such-and-such". And on the flip side, you get people dismissing anything from certain later Trek series. Somewhere between the two extremes, you might end up with folks wanting to discuss Federation history or technology or whatever and they're trying to decide between them whether such-and-such date from such-and-such non-TV non-movie source should be allowed. The canon policy gives an objective third-party (and important-party) guideline for how to deal with that. This is especially true when you're actually comparing two separate universes. Unfortunately, my hobby (ST-v-SW.Net) requires this level of rigor, thanks in no small part to the 'loyal opposition' on the other side of the debate which attempts to rewrite the rules of acceptable evidence for both universes in order to aim for their preferred conclusions. I was actually amused when you said I was treating it like a federal case, since I recently compared all this policy debate rigor to the long and arduous discovery phase of a trial. Quote: That would be absurd. However, it does help guide discussions about Trek. Quote: It's not an abstraction . . . my hobby entails a lot of work, and that work is guided by the canon policy. Knowing what that is is as important to my work as it is to yours. The fact that I work for free doesn't make that need less concrete. (Insert any "you get what you pay for" jokes here.) Quote: While I'm dismissing the rest of your baseless personal attacks, I did want to address the above. Any discussion of canon policy is going to need to deal with issues of rank. If you were to say one thing and Roddenberry had said another (for an extreme example), then a third party encountering both quotes (such as myself) would have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Your understanding of the canon policy is framed from (if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor) "a certain point of view". Pocket Books is a licensee, and thus receives lower consideration than statements from Paramount-proper. The issue of consequence in this thread is whether the say from Pocket Books personnel like Ordover (who previously gave at-least-tacit confirmation of the Taylor novels' canonicity) and Marco Palmieri (whose more modern statements dismiss it) outweigh the seemingly-paramount statements on StarTrek.com. Because the statements are in direct contradiction, some selection must be made. I could either do this according to my own whim ("I prefer to believe so-and-so"), or I can do it according to the same rigorously-enforced guidelines that I've used elsewhere. You'll note that my original post to Therin requested further information regarding the suggestion that PDE and StarTrek.com were no different than Pocket and a book. I still have no answer on that, but that's not my point. My point is simply this: the only thing I'm guilty of is consistency. If that's obnoxious to you, then I'm truly sorry. |
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Quote: If by "opinions posted on your website" you refer to "statements made by executive producers and production staff of the actual television shows as quoted on the site", you would be correct. They outrank everyone on your list above. The question of the moment, as noted in my last post, is whether the StarTrek.com statement is of Paramount origin or is to be considered as coming from a licensee. After that, of course, there's the issue of how to consider a situation where an executive producer's statements are both confirmed and contradicted by different licensees. Quote: I was unaware that I held such an opinion. Thank you for advising me of the opinions I hold. I'm sure others find this service you provide as useful as I do. Back to the matter at hand, yes it's true that Paula Block doesn't appear on my page. There's a very good reason: I have no quotes on the matter from her. I searched around quite a bit a year or two ago for some, but none were available. If you can point me in the direction of publicly available comments from her, then I'd naturally be quite appreciative. Quote: I have done no such thing, but I'd certainly have grounds to do so if you keep that sort of behavior up. Happily, you do share some useful information in your post: Quote: You'll find this quoted on my site soon. Thanks! Quote: That's precisely what I'm doing . . . the former, mind you, and not the latter. I strive to be accurate, after all (and your quotation above furthered that goal). Have a nice day. {Editor's Note: He later apologized for his post and the misunderstandings therein via private message. Then, naturally, he pressed his attacks to ridiculous levels, eventually obsessing to the point that he attacks me elsewhere on the internet, and even joined StarDestroyer.Net for the purpose.} |
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: No, you don't, because you've been given the facts by people far more qualified to know them than you, and have rejected them out of hand because they didn't fit your unwavering preconceptions. Quote: And that's exactly the point. "Canon" is something that fans obsess on, but it's not something that the actual makers of the show care about that much. Canon is the show itself; everything else is supplemental. Paramount and the producers of the Trek shows and films are mainly concerned with the shows and films. The tie-in materials are read by at most two percent of the audience for the shows and films, so they really don't pay that much attention to them. So to them, canon is a non-issue, because everything they make is intrinsically canon, and everything else is incidental. That's why there isn't some big, important declaration of "canon policy" on their site or whatever -- because they don't need such a policy. It's just the way things naturally happen to work. All these overblown fan debates and arguments are therefore just the fans manufacturing their own beliefs and problems and making all sorts of trouble for themselves. The people who make the shows know what canon is; the people who write and edit the tie-ins know what canon is. It's a very basic and simple issue: the shows are the canon, the original work; everything else is only a supplement. Whether anyone chooses to acknowledge a supplemental, tie-in work as "real" in their own mind is a matter of individual opinion, and no sort of formal "policy" has any bearing on it whatsoever. That's all you need to know. Quote: It's ridiculous to keep insisting that there needs to be some official fiat defining matters of personal opinion and taste. There can be, should be, no "objective guideline," because it's a subjective question to begin with. If you want to believe something in a Trek novel is "real" in your personal version of Trek reality, go ahead! You have every right to, and nobody -- not another fan, not Paramount, not Pocket Books -- has any right to tell you otherwise. Just exercise your own judgment and imagination. It's as simple as that. If other fans disagree with you, that's fine, because you're each constructing your own personal, individual interpretation of the Trekverse. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" answer, because it's only make-believe. It's all about imagination. So stop treating it like some urgent debate where you have to prove your case or disprove others'. That's a pointless exercise, just arguing for the sake of argument. It's all made up anyway. Just read and enjoy the stories in your own way, and allow other people the freedom to do the same in their own different ways. There's nothing more futile than trying to prove "right" or "wrong" in a matter of personal opinion. Quote: But you need to understand, again: Paramount has no interest in facilitating that kind of hobby. It's not something that affects them, so there's no reason why they'd bother to define some kind of absolute "canon policy" in order to satisfy the needs of your hobby. Their priorities are different, and their approach to the issue of canon is fundamentally unlike yours. So you're never going to find the kind of "canon policy" you want from any Paramount source. Like I said, they don't need to define a formal policy for something that's self-evident to them. And canon is not about telling the fans what to believe or what is "right," it's about telling the writers for the shows what to remain consistent with. So the only "canon policy" you could ever have in your terms is one you define yourself. It's your hobby, it's your imagination and approach to the Trekverse, so you have to make your own "policy" to suit your own needs. Because those needs are apparently very different from the needs of Paramount or Pocket Books.
|
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
I'm trying to get across to DSG2k that there is no "policy" to begin with, that he's blowing the whole thing ridiculously out of proportion. If it's a hobby, he should just relax and have fun with it rather than asking that some higher authority hand down a gospel for him and others to follow. |
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
I came back to give the good Mr. Palmieri thanks for
his quote and to let him know that I'd updated the page (and to note to
Kevin Killiany that I'd gone ahead and uploaded some tangential quotes
from Paula Block regarding novel continuity). From my perspective, as a
fellow who has evidently asked the proverbial 'too many questions' in the
course of trying to keep my canon page at its best, I figured this would
be a good way of decreasing this peculiar hostility I've found. Instead, I find more flames and character attacks from Christopher, here. Chris, I gave you the chance to back down from your behavior by taking the time to explain to you why I asked the questions I asked. I didn't flame you back, question your intellectual integrity, tell you that your books are ill-considered poorly-written crap, or ask you if you'd ever done any research regarding whether authors who engage with their readers but are hostile jackasses sell better than those who engage nicely. (The third would've been entirely unfair since I've never read anything of yours, and though I'd been considering Ex Machina lately I'm not sure I want to bother now.) The fact is that I have the utmost respect for what you fellows do, and there are a lot of great books and book-derived concepts that ought to be Star Trek canon. It is perhaps unfair that Jeri Taylor had the chance to canonize her own material. However, getting in a huff over the fact that you can't do the same isn't going to help you, and while flaming a guy for keeping track of the canon policy might make you feel better, that doesn't help you either. Regarding my "basis of discussion" idea for why Trek fans discuss canon so much, you dismiss it as a fan obsession and say Paramount cares little, noting: Quote: And probably two percent of people actually get involved in in-depth discussions on Trek minutiae (historical, technical, et al.) online. Is it really so hard to believe that these two two-percent groups overlap significantly? Quote: Ever see the StarTrek.com FAQ? I've pointed it out several times and linked to the relevant answers more than once in this thread. I'm amazed you missed it. Sure, it's not a big policy in legalese designed to withstand attacks by the same sort of quote-warping fanatics that I have to deal with, but there are multiple frequently-asked-questions pointing to two multi-paragraph answers, including the "rule of thumb" answer. For most purposes that's all that would be needed. Elsewhere on the site we have additional statements (even in the "Introduction to Star Trek" for newbies) and the concept is discussed in episode podcasts. The concept has even been discussed by the show writers here on TrekBBS. Quote: We both agree that people can and should have their own subjective canon. However, the notion that fans should apply this subjective view in the company of other fans while discussing Trek is absurd. You participate in other forums . . . how many times have you seen threads degrade into discussions of canon? Can you even begin to count them? Do you really think that's only a TrekBBS phenomenon? Do you really think that's only a Star Trek phenomenon? And do you really think that there would be any improvement if there was no canon for people to fall back on? It would serve as an end to discussion. There are posters here at TrekBBS who reject much of the live-action Trek we've seen. How could you possibly have a thoughtful discussion with someone about, say, the Borg when you get some guy saying "well, I don't think they exist" or "they never came to the Federation, because I reject everything after "Q Who?"" or even "well, in my fanfic I established . . . "? This is the very reason that religious groups, Sherlock Holmes fans, and a whole lot of other fan groups and producers thereof trouble themselves to make canon policies to begin with. (The idea even appears in soap opera fan pages . . . a group more likely to be female than the male-centric list above.) Now I agree that the idea of a canon policy . . . itself a uniting influence . . . can be taken too far when people seem bent on meddling with one's personal canon. However, I'm not attempting to meddle with your personal choices about what you want to accept. My purpose with the canon page and with my messages in this thread has been to clarify what that third-party uniting influence actually says we're uniting towards. And regarding my page, thanks to some subjectivists who believe what they want to believe while claiming they are speaking objectively, I'm having to be damned careful about it, too. That's the very reason I popped up in this thread to ask for clarification in the first place. Your gross misunderstanding of me notwithstanding, I intend to continue pursuing that goal as I see fit. Quote: This sounds great as a paper ideal, but the history of threads devolving into discussions about acceptable evidence makes it pretty clear that this just won't work in practice. Religions work the same way. Everyone wants their religion to be objectively valid. And, sad a commentary on humanity as it is, the same is usually true of our other beliefs. I mean, hell, just look how fast you started flaming me in this thread. No offense, but you certainly can't claim to embody this pro-subjectivism happy-hippies view of everyone's individual interpretation about canon being okay if you're sitting there flaming the crap out of a guy for having a contrary opinion! And actually, I'm gonna stop right there, because that's game, set, and match . . . QED, and all that jazz. With your behavior you disproved your own argument. Have a great day.
|
| Christopher Bennett (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote: Oh, lighten up. That's all I've been saying all along -- just relax. Stop making some huge contentious issue out of this, stop being so condescending and hostile toward people who disagree with you, stop demanding proof and hard evidence as if this were some criminal trial, and try to remember that this is supposed to be entertainment. We're here to have fun, not to try each other in court. And your refusal to let go of this fixation of yours is making things a lot less fun for the rest of us -- especially when you stubbornly refuse to listen to our every sincere attempt to provide you with information and answers and just treat us with dismissal and denigration. If you treat people like that, you have no business accusing them of flaming when they react badly to it. So just let it go. Lighten up. This is supposed to be fun.
|
| "Therin of Andor" | Quote: Well, when Usenet newsgroups published a copy of a 1989 memo about the canonicity of various "Star Trek" products, from the then "Star Trek Office" at Paramount (ie. Richard Arnold writing on behalf of Gene Roddenberry), I think the term "Paramount Licensing" actually did exist and the "Star Trek Office" consulted with them. Certainly, "Paramount Licensing" was the shorthand way everyone referred to it. After the "Star Trek Office" was wound up in the days after Roddenberry's death, "Paramount Licensing" took over the vetting of all tie-in merchandise. "Viacom" came along later. I'm sorry I didn't keep you a copy of the memo, although I may have a copy of it in an issue of "Data Entries", an early Brent Spiner newszine. It was also referred to, in part, in DC Comics "Star Trek" Series II, issue #1. Quote: Ask Paula Block. She posts here. Quote: Hearsay? He was the bloody editor of Star Trek fiction at Pocket Books for years! (A decade?) Quote: They are. This has been stated in issues of "Star Trek Communicator". See Richard Arnold's column. He used to be "Star Trek Archivist" at Paramount and vetted many ST tie-ins for the then-"Star Trek Office". Quote: Richard's quote at many ST conventions, and referring to the 1989 memo re TAS was, "The animated series does not cross over with the movies" and he went on to explain that "canon" was now considered to be "live-action Star Trek episodes as they appeared onscreen". ie. Not scripts, cut footage, books, comics, movie studio rides/performances, greeting cards, Borg shampoo bottles, action figure cardback biographies of characters, or RPGs. The memo also talked about tie-in authors not sharing original characters. But this is old news. The memo was superceded not long after Roddenberry's death. Not rescinded in writing, but just referred to less as the concerns became less urgent. There was a TAS reference in the novelization of "Unification". Quote: Visit Richard Arnold's huckster table - he's at a ST convention every weekend, somewhere in the world. Or why not write a letter to "Viacom Consumer Products"?
|
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Quote: Despite protracted effort and search strings including the quotes you provide later in this post, I am unable to locate any posting of this memo on Usenet archives. If you can remember anything else about it . . . length, responses to it, participants in it, tangential comments about it . . . anything like that might be helpful. Quote: You quoted that on TrekBBS some time ago . . . I was able to locate it and quote it. So, if you ever need to make reference to it, feel free to use this link. Quote: Really? Excellent. Thanks! Quote: Hold your horses, kemosabe. Hearsay is hearsay because it isn't first-hand data. That's why your quoting of the DC Comics thing is in the Hearsay section. Ordover's in there because I got his words off of some untrustworthy folks. And besides which, the statements I have where he talks about Paramount's position are also hearsay, though I usually put such comments in my non-hearsay section as a quote by the person making the hearsay statement. I know my excessive caution and rigor is frustrating, but it's necessary for my page given the people I deal with. Besides, if something can't stand up to a little logical rigor, what good is it? Quote: Well, as noted, even Paramount.com is maintained by Paramount Digital Entertainment, so unless there's a separate licensing agreement for every single Paramount-related website I don't see how this works. (Further, Pocket Books info on the internet is on the website of their parent company Simon & Schuster at SimonSays.com. Even the parent company's site is maintained by Simon & Schuster Online, though, and not Simon & Schuster itself.) To be sure, PDE are the guys who maintain StarTrek.com, but there's no evidence to suggest that there's a licensing agreement in place. The site itself reads "This site and its contents TM & © 2005 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved." This is different than we saw with, say, Star Trek: The Magazine, a licensed publication. On the June 1999 edition I happen to own it simply says "Officially authorized by Paramount Pictures" and, inside, "STAR TREK and All Related Elements ™, ® & © 1999 Paramount Pictures. All Rights Reserved." In legalese, that means there's no apparent claim by Paramount Pictures as to the contents of Star Trek: The Magazine beyond their trademarks and copyrighted material . . . whereas with StarTrek.com, they're claiming the whole thing as their own. Don't get me wrong . . . I'm not trying to bust your chops, here. It's just that for my page, I just can't go dismissing the StarTrek.com statements based on a second-hand report that they only count as much as Pocket Books statements. I'll see if I can catch up with Paula Block, though, since you've noted that she posts here . . . perhaps she has some insight. Thanks for your help! |
There was no reply to the final message above.
Isn't it ironic, though, how poor the reading comprehension is of a bunch of pissy authors who aren't canon and never will be? I found it quite amusing.
Several days later, on December 5, 2005, I began a new thread with my message below:
| DSG2k ST-v-SW.Net |
Hello, Some of the Pocket Books folks posting on this forum noted that you sometimes post here as well. I was hoping to trouble you with a couple of quick questions. 1. As Senior Director of Licensed Publishing at Viacom Consumer Products, you are to Pocket Books what Harry Lang is to Perpetual (makers of the Star Trek Online game). Is there anyone in such a role to Paramount Digital Entertaiment, maintainers of the StarTrek.com and Paramount.com websites? If so, who might that be? 2. According to Jon Ordover and Marco Palmieri, none of the Star Trek books are canon. However, non-Pocket resources still list two of Jeri Taylor's several novels (Mosaic and Pathways) as being canon, and Jeri Taylor and Jon Ordover in older interviews confirmed that she intended them to be canon. Assuming for the moment that they aren't held as canon by Paramount or VCP now, how would such a change come about? I see a few possibilities: A. Viacom Consumer Products received a directive from Paramount Communications or Berman or what-have-you which explicitly decanonized the materials. B. Viacom Consumer Products received a directive from Paramount Communications or Berman or what-have-you that did not specifically include the novels as canon. C. At Viacom Consumer Products, the books were considered to have been decanonized after Taylor's departure. D. At Viacom Consumer Products, the books were considered to have been decanonized after certain events in Voyager seemed to contradict the novels. Just wondering how the change would have come about. I presume something like that would require explicit decanonization, but it never hurts to ask. Thank you in advance for your answers. They'll help me improve the page I ever-so-shamelessly plug in my sig below. -------------------- Author of Google's #1 ranked page on "Star Trek canon" |
| Keith R.A. DeCandido (Trek Author for Pocket Books) |
Quote:Something that should be pointed out: If Mosaic and Pathways were canon, I wouldn't have been allowed to contradict them in the least in The Brave and the Bold. But my account of how Tuvok joined the Maquis in the latter is not quite consistent with what was in Pathways. If those novels were canon, I wouldn't have gotten the proposal approved.
|
| "Therin of Andor" | Quote: AFAIK, all of those people would send their ST material to Paula Block, Senior Director of Licensed Publishing at Viacom Consumer Products, for approval.
|
| "DaveR" | Since Taylor wrote them when she was producer of the show, she'd be perfectly within her rights to consider them canon. But once she left, anything from the books that she |