StarTrek.com FAQ Update
In the comments to the last thread, GStone broke some news . . . there's a StarTrek.com FAQ update regarding canon!
Cool! Thanks for the tip GStone . . . nice to see some action regarding canon stuff. (The peril of CanonWars.com, besides the subject matter which should be so dry (and yet which also can spawn such vitriol from rabid fans), is that as a rule of thumb, there's just not a whole lot of movement on the subject, especially in regards to Trek . . . i.e. never will there be "Canon Today" or something.)
Anywho, let's see what's new here:
(from http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html)
07.10.2003
No change to the date, entertainingly enough. That corresponds with my statements in the TrekBBS thread about how the page had enjoyed a minor edit without the date being modified. But anyway . . .
How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? What is considered Star Trek "canon"?
As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon.
This is largely similar to the old version:
"As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon."
Video games are added to the mix, and the language is significantly softened. By analogy, instead of a proverbial "thou shalt not" it's more of a "hey, you sure you wanna do that?"
This segues right into the following new stuff, speaking of thou-shalt-nots . . .
But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.
There's a lot of juicy stuff here. Most notable is the point that there is no single voice or arbiter to decide canon anymore (contrast that with Gaskill's past statement wherein he mentions Berman as the final arbiter). Roddenberry is long since departed, and now Berman is out of the picture too. And, now that the rights to the Star Trek intellectual property are somehow divvied up between CBS Corp. and Viacom after the recent split, there's really no old-style "Star Trek Office" at all now, nor "the writers and the producers" at CBS Corp. Of course, someone at CBS Paramount Television is in charge of Trek, but whoever it is is about as likely to hand down a ruling as the Talifan are to be logical ... i.e. not.
Note, of course, that Paula Block is not identified as that arbiter, naturally. Sorry SDN.
In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule: the Jeri Taylor- penned books "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters and were to be considered as references by writers on the show. Now that the show is over, some of those events may never be incorporated into a live action format, so the question of whether details from these novels remain canon is open to interpretation.
This is quite nicely diplomatic on StarTrek.com's part. See, according to http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=100736 some random dude at SDN e-mailed the StarTrek.com editor and referred to Paula Block's opinion on the matter. With the above, StarTrek.com makes the situation seem more fluid, yet also gives firmer indication of the novels' status during Voyager's run. They were most assuredly canon at the time, and to be considered so by the writers (as was also related to the fans).
The odd part above is the suggestion that the novel events had to be incorporated into a live action format, as if Mosaic and Pathways were instead the show's Writer's Bible (which no one ever considers canon). If the novels were canon as indicated, then the information within did not have to be incorporated into live-action material any more than third-season TOS has to be mentioned or referenced again.
To my mind, the novels' canonicity has been reinforced here, and although things are left "open to interpretation" there is no self-consistent interpretation that ignores them, save for one where everything is "fluid" and the whole shebang is left "open to interpretation".
What StarTrek.com has done is to attempt to channel the spirit of the diplomatic Steve Sansweet (of Star Wars), who tried to leave things to one's point of view. In other words, they wanted to smooth the issue over amongst folks, some of whom (like the anti-canon brigade at TrekBBS who rejects everything after TMP and anything else they don't like, or the writer's bloc at TrekBBS that rejects Taylor) have unique and venom-backed opinions on Trek canon. Of course, such a 'multilateral' revision of the FAQ will undoubtedly be viewed by such wackos as opening the door to all manner of off-the-wall ideas.
As for this site, the canon pages are based on finding the bedrock . . . the best conclusion on what is "real" for the universe in question, based on objective opinions weighed properly, so that one can be comfortable taking information and saying "this is true" or "that is not true" about the content of the canon in question.
As the new StarTrek.com FAQ notes, there is no current arbiter of canon. That means there is no enforcer of the old rules. However, that also means that no one has changed them. As such, our choices are to either wipe the slate clean and go willy-nilly with what we want canon to include (as SDN denizens, anti-canon wackjobs, and Pocket Books licensees at TrekBBS will do), or we can acknowledge the "last known good" canon policy, which should hold us just fine. After all, it was the policy in effect during Trek's run (meaning it also provides us with the most useful standard), so unless and until whoever's in charge at CBS Paramount Television decides to canonize or decanonize things officially then we've got the answers already.
Though, I'd still like to know whether the director's editions of the films or the originals are canon. But I guess that'll have to be one area that's fluid and open to interpretation.
With regard to the Animated Series, there are a few details from the episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, that reveal biographical background on Spock and planet Vulcan. Details from this episode have been successfully incorporated into the canon of Star Trek (such as in "The Forge") and now that the Animated Series is out on DVD, we hope that even more can make its way in!
That last comment is based on a poll done at StarTrek.com where 2/3rds of the respondents indicated that they wanted the Animated Series to be Star Trek canon. Of course, since there is no more live-action TV Trek I'm not sure how TAS stuff would make its way into anything, but in any case it's nice to see the ENT-era updates to this section.
All around, I'm quite satisfied with the change to the page insofar as whether or not I'd need to rewrite anything at CanonWars. No damage has been done. However, the multilateral approach is going to cause problems among the Trek fan base, as weirdos like the anti-canon folks at TrekBBS may now feel vindication, and of course the anonymous SDN nuts above are going to try to make use of every bit of the wiggle room StarTrek.com gives them.
The purpose of a canon policy is, in part, to have a base standard of what is real in a fiction franchise. The weirdos are going to have that all muddied up by rejecting or including random things, so that in the end I fear Trek fandom is going to look like the largely-made-up and frequently-self-contradictory mish-mash it was during the last interregnum. (A good example is looking through the "Best of Trek" books, where some folks treat fandom as fact and base all kinds of nonsense off of other nonsense, whereas others speculate from the show itself. A newbie to Trek would be utterly confused.)
But of course, during that interregnum between TOS and TNG, Star Trek hardcore fandom was small but quite vigorous, and grew from virtually nothing to being a force that resurrected Trek. Maybe this sort of multilateralism for the fans will do something similar.
posted by Author @ 13:17
24 Comments:
I guess you missed the words "used to", uh?
I'll just repost my comments from below:
Block, as well as the writers and other persons, is in a far better position to know the workings of the canon than you or the Talifan DSG2k.
This has never been an issue. What has has been Block et all in relation to those determining canon for the trek of the films and TV shows.
The 'self-canonization' BS is your idea and your idea only.
As I have shown, the webmaster of trek.com, after speaking with an SDnetter, changed the canon page, showing that it isn't just Darkstar's idea.
As I have shown, the webmaster of trek.com, after speaking with an SDnetter, changed the canon page, showing that it isn't just Darkstar's idea.
Yes he changed it from "canon" into "open to interpretation". And you feel that this somehow reinforces Darkstar's view? You guys are hilarious. I hope you'll keep up the good work because tonight is the last episode of Seinfeld's reruns and there are no more good sitcoms lately.
Well, in any good sitcom, the show gets better when the source of the protagonist's "frustration" reveals themselves. So, stop hiding behind the name anonymous or are you traveller going back under cover again?
As for how I feel, reread my comments in the last thread when I brought up the issue. Besides, what you posted in this thread blurs the context of the paragraph that it was mentioned in.
Naughty naughty.
I'll start again, if you want to have at it.
[clears throat]
Even when one says that canon is open to interpretation, there is still a level of heirarchy in that idea. We certainly are not gonna say that a random trek fan's personal view of canon supplants everyone else (and I know you're just salivating at saying this is what Darkstar is doing).
As for her position, Paula Block never could dictate what was canon for the films/TV. She may have been told stuff and made unilateral decisions on her own for the writers of books, but she wasn't in charge of it. The fact that she followed the view of Taylor for directions for the books' writers and only said the writers didn't have to follow it anymore after she left is evidence that Taylor's views trumped Block's. The fact that the episodes that used her books were never removed from the list of acceptable canon after she left the show is more evidence for, not against, the books canonizing remaining.
That's enough for now.
'In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule.'
We understand the novel rule to be: Novels aren't canon.
Term in the text: 'used to be two exceptions'.
So, n the past, two books were exempt from the non-canon 'novel rule'.
Thus, if one says 'they used to be exceptions', one means that they are not exceptions any longer. No amount of semantic trickery is going to change the truth of this. If they say that they 'used to be' exceptions, they mean they no longer are.
But of course, you can't admit that you got it wrong now can you?
Traveller/SDN Anon/Whoever . . .
1. It doesn't matter who you are in the grand scheme. Ideas are what is important, not people. That said, though, you could at least employ a unique identifier for you and/or your sock puppets.
2. "[... T]here used to be two exceptions to the novel rule" . . . this you take to mean that they are no longer exceptions, and hence are not canon. However, you're just blatantly stripping that statement out of context. Clearly they are no longer exceptions, but they were canon for the show staff and, as the quote specifies, the issue of their canonicity is "open to interpretation".
Furthermore, your argument is fallacious. Entertainingly enough, I once committed the same fallacy regarding a StarTrek.com FAQ answer. (http://www.canonwars.com/STCanon-denyante.html)
What you're thinking is basically this:
1. If exception then canon
2. Not exception
3. Therefore not canon
This is a logical fallacy known as denying the antecedent. Whereas I performed a sort of reverse version of the fallacy, you went full-bore with the basic version.
Here's the Wikipedia link so you can figure it out for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
Furthermore (and reinforcing the earlier point), the statements on canon from the new FAQ reject your interpretation of the 'used to be exceptions' statement. It only says that they used to be firm exceptions . . . now it's a matter of how one wishes to view it. Clearly you and your SDN buddies wish to view canon as a willy-nilly "I'll say it's this 'cause I like it better and I'll claim I'm being objective" thing, just as you've always done regarding Trek canon, Wars canon, et cetera. But now more than ever, you must acknowledge this as the subjective choice of interpretation that you've made.
Folks like Bernd have always noted the old FAQ answer yet also noted their choice in the matter. Can't you be as honest?
GStone
2. "[... T]here used to be two exceptions to the novel rule" . . . this you take to mean that they are no longer exceptions, and hence are not canon. However, you're just blatantly stripping that statement out of context. Clearly they are no longer exceptions, but they were canon for the show staff and, as the quote specifies, the issue of their canonicity is "open to interpretation".
You're spinning out of control. Nothing from the two novels found their way into Voyager and the Voyager series flatly contradicts elements from the novels. A few examples: The name of Torres' mother, the name of Harry's roommate, the reason why Tom Paris was kicked out from Starfleet, Tom's relation to his father and that B'Elanna and Paris were romantically involved during their time with the Maquis when they hardly seemed to know each other in the series.
Those are quite serious contradictions and this shows precisely why the two novels aren't canon and the other elements of the two novels will certainly never will be included in the canon.
DSG2k
Can't you be as honest?
Can't you be as honest as to admit that this flatly contradicts your position instead of pretending that this was what you had in mind?
Nothing from the two novels found their way into Voyager and the Voyager series flatly contradicts elements from the novels. A few examples: The name of Torres' mother,
Prabsa vs. Miral. Big whoop . . . Prabsa looks interesting in text, but rolls off the tongue like a ton of bricks. I have no problem with the change. Her character and behavior are just alike, though. That's from the beginning of season six, too (Taylor left at the end of season 4), so the consistency is grand for people who are not you.
the name of Harry's roommate,
Funny, Harry's gay roommate George from "Pathways" moved out. Further, the other roommie was mentioned in season one. Here's the text from Memory Alpha:
"During his last year at the Academy, he had a roommate named James Mooney MacAllister, who studied excessively, even at night. This forced Kim to wear an eye mask to help sleep, reminding him of his mother's womb, of which he still retained memories. He retained the practice of wearing the mask at night throughout his Voyager assignment. McAllister helped Kim in his fourth year Quantum Chemistry class. (VOY: "The Cloud")"
Hmm ... James was roommate in the fourth year. I wonder . . . could it be that Harry had another roommate before this? I guess in your mind the answer is no, but that's just the hole Taylor wrote George into.
the reason why Tom Paris was kicked out from Starfleet,
How is it different between show and novel? I always thought that if anything, Taylor took Tom's line about three ghosts too literally.
Tom's relation to his father
What, is Tom not his son?
and that B'Elanna and Paris were romantically involved during their time with the Maquis when they hardly seemed to know each other in the series.
They weren't romantically involved in the novel. Have you even read it?
Those are quite serious contradictions and this shows precisely why the two novels aren't canon and the other elements of the two novels will certainly never will be included in the canon.
One contradiction . . . a change to a more speak-able name . . . hardly constitutes a multitude of serious contradictions.
Can't you be as honest as to admit that this flatly contradicts your position instead of pretending that this was what you had in mind?
But it doesn't flatly contradict my position, as I showed you regarding your fallacy. StarTrek.com opened up the whole she-bang of what is canon to interpretation, but nothing was canonized or decanonized that I held the opposite position on. Was the edit the best of all positions to take? Maybe not, but it was the most diplomatic.
Prabsa vs. Miral. Big whoop . . . Prabsa looks interesting in text, but rolls off the tongue like a ton of bricks. I have no problem with the change. Her character and behavior are just alike, though. That's from the beginning of season six, too (Taylor left at the end of season 4), so the consistency is grand for people who are not you.
"...people who are not you". I take it that you mean two things: 1) People who understands that things they're saying on a freaking website have no bearing on the policies of the respective franchise and company 2) People who understands the canon policy of the respective franchise.
Funny, Harry's gay roommate George from "Pathways" moved out. Further, the other roommie was mentioned in season one. Here's the text from Memory Alpha:
Unsupported conjecture.
How is it different between show and novel? I always thought that if anything, Taylor took Tom's line about three ghosts too literally.
You have read Pathways and seen the series, haven't you? Then you should know that it was mentioned in Caretaker that the events which lead to the death of the three officers took place on Caldik Prime while Pathways mentions Vega.
What, is Tom not his son?
I was referring to Tom's relationship with his father and how Owen Paris is described.
They weren't romantically involved in the novel. Have you even read it?
It's been awhile, they're rather forgettable (much like the series, actually) and I don't have the novels in my hand, so I'll concede this point temporarily until I can dig it up.
One contradiction . . . a change to a more speak-able name . . . hardly constitutes a multitude of serious contradictions.
But it doesn't flatly contradict my position, as I showed you regarding your fallacy. StarTrek.com opened up the whole she-bang of what is canon to interpretation, but nothing was canonized or decanonized that I held the opposite position on. Was the edit the best of all positions to take? Maybe not, but it was the most diplomatic.
These two paragraphs speaks well for themselves.
Traveller, I didn't say what you quoted me saying. That was Darkstar.
Traveller, I didn't say what you quoted me saying. That was Darkstar.
Oops, I'm sorry about that. No offense intended.
In any case, I'm through discussing this. DSG2k is certainly entitled to his opinion, but you should remember that it's just that: Your opinion and not fact and that the canon sites of the respective franchise is, as you were told, a work of fiction (with fictionalized elements such as the 'OCP'´for the Star Wars canon and the 'self-canonization' for the Star Trek canon.
Offense? What? The only reason you'd say no offense intended is because you've got such a love of bashing Darkstar. I pointed out a mistake. Just a mistake. It wasn't the end of the world.
And ending it with saying your argument is just your opinion and the franchises are just works of fiction is truly lame. It hasn't been a question if it's real or not. The only ones that think it is are those that have tried to make jedi-ism a recognized religion in reality.
1. A pissy diva author calling my canon site a work of fiction because it dares to rank Roddenberry, Berman, Moore, Taylor, et al. above him and his compatriates doesn't make it so.
2. When an exec producer canonizes her own works, she's engaged in 'self-canonization' of them. Your rejection of that doesn't make this site a work of fiction.
3. When the term "official continuity policy" is used by folks at Lucas Licensing's publishing department in regards to how they address the Star Wars-brand stories they handle the continuity of, then calling their policy the official continuity policy (OCP) doesn't make this site a work of fiction, either.
4. There is no discontinuity between Voyager and Taylor's novels regarding Caldik Prime and Vega. At no point is the accident said to have occurred there . . . only the butthole doctor from "Caretaker" mentions being stationed there while Paris was, which doesn't prove what you seek to prove. Caldik is even mentioned in Pathways (confirmed here also: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Talk:Caldik_Prime). I'll get back to my page on tech data from the two books ASAP and find the reference.
As that is the only significant discontinuity besides a name change for the same character (with the same personality) that you could come up with, I note your concession along with your departure.
Good day.
Offense? What? The only reason you'd say no offense intended is because you've got such a love of bashing Darkstar. I pointed out a mistake. Just a mistake. It wasn't the end of the world.
I have no love of bashing anyone, G2k included.
And ending it with saying your argument is just your opinion and the franchises are just works of fiction is truly lame. It hasn't been a question if it's real or not. The only ones that think it is are those that have tried to make jedi-ism a recognized religion in reality.
No, that's not at all what I was saying. I said that G2k is entitled to his opinion, but that it's his opinion only (and to add: It's irrelevant the canon is decided by the owner of the respective franchise, no matter what scheme he's using on his site).
By "work of fiction" I was referring to his canon pages (and most of the site as well, even if G2k does show some insight on things relating to pure Star Trek). We all know (I hope...) that the franchises are works of fiction.
1. A pissy diva author calling my canon site a work of fiction because it dares to rank Roddenberry, Berman, Moore, Taylor, et al. above him and his compatriates doesn't make it so.
You're sounding like one of them 'Talifans'... I won't retread this ground, but hey, these people are in a position to understand the canon more than you do.
As that is the only significant discontinuity besides a name change for the same character (with the same personality) that you could come up with, I note your concession along with your departure.
Oh, there's no concession and there's nothing to concede. You've been proven wrong: First by your arguments, then by your fact finding mission and now by the StarTrek.com FAQ.
Thank you, it has been a pleasant discussion!
No, that's not at all what I was saying. I said that G2k is entitled to his opinion, but that it's his opinion only
Except, he has been using objective criteria. I could use the same methods you've used to bash scientists at NASA by saying 'well, it's just their opinion of what's going on'.
(and to add: It's irrelevant the canon is decided by the owner of the respective franchise, no matter what scheme he's using on his site).
Which is antithetical to the idea that Paula Block can dictate canon for the films/TV shows, even though she's never worked on them, as an executive producer or whatever. You've said she can because she is in a better position than any of us, but her position is her job. Her job has never been in any kind of authoritative one for any of the films or the shows.
She has never own the rights to Trek.
The rights to the films and TV shows are now split, so tell me, just how is it supposed to be now? If someone in authority for the films says one thing, does that mean that the ones overseeing the shows are to bow to their view? Does this mean a revision of the shows must be done...all because someone in authority of the films says something of their view of canon? They aren't in charge of the canon for the shows. What is to be done then? I'd like to know your answer.
We all know (I hope...) that the franchises are works of fiction.
Like I said, tell that to those that wanted to make jedi-ism a recognized religion in reality.
You're sounding like one of them 'Talifans'
Cute. Attacking authors is the Talifan job . . . being attacked by them was mine.
http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2006/04/labels-logic-and-lies.html
these people are in a position to understand the canon more than you do.
They know the canon handed down from CBS Consumer Products and distributed from Pocket editors. Given that Block of CCP was a few years behind regarding the canon (Taylor, et al.), the Pocket authors didn't know it either.
You've been proven wrong
On the contrary, I've been proven right. But now that the rules have changed and the StarTrek.com FAQ isn't so rigid, more people are able to imagine themselves as right . . . even folks like you.
Seriously.
Why bother changing the words;
'There are a couple of exceptions to this rule'
to
'There used to be a couple of exceptions'
Other than to say they are no longer exceptions. It is the ONLY logical conclusion to draw. Otherwise it would still state 'there are a couple of conclusions'.
If one day I say . 'I own a car' you would come to the conclusion, quite rightly that I own a car. If the next day I say 'I used to own a car', you would come to the conclusion that I no longer own a car. That doesn't negate the fact that I did at one time own a car. So, the FAQ update clearly reflects what Block said, that they used to be considered 'canon' while Taylor was on the staff but are no longer, but given how you attacked her I know you're too proud to admit your mistake. I don't know how to make the obvious truth in those statements any simpler than they are in the original. You rely on semantic trickery and verbose maneuvers to lend credibility to your own personal canon and here you're proving one thing; You'll go to any lengths to protect your interpretation.
Now you seem confused, there's a clear definition of what's canon, there's an open interpretation to what is canon. Which is it? There's no evidence anywhere now from any official sources stating explicitly that these books are canon. None. Yet there is volumes of it stating that they aren't. Keep up thy pretenses, noble knight.
*ghetto edit: couple of exceptions.
Indeed.
Why bother changing the words Other than to say they are no longer exceptions. It is the ONLY logical conclusion to draw. Otherwise it would still state 'there are a couple of conclusions'.
Bcause the context of what was said was speaking of how things were in the past. Then, the webmaster proceeds to talk about how things are more fluid now, though it still doesn't override the statements of those higher than a webmaster.
We go back again to the idea that the webmaster is supposedly in a better position to know what is canon. nd what is their position? Webmaster. Not owner of Trek, not executive producer of the films or TV shows (if they make a new one again). Just webmaster.
If it really was a stark contrast, then it would have been easier just to write 'the books have since been removed as canon from the list of what is canon'.
Does he? No, he says whether the books are now canon is open to personal interpretation, but even if you assumed that he meant that they are no longer canon at all, he still can't override Taylor because he is a webmaster, not an executive producer of Trek and not the owner of Trek. His position is webmaster. That is the position he is in. He is not in the position of Trek owner.
So, the FAQ update clearly reflects what Block said, that they used to be considered 'canon' while Taylor was on the staff but are no longer...
...for the writers of Trek EU. Because they needed something and the books gave them that. That's what that was about.
>>he still can't override Taylor because he is a webmaster, not an executive producer of Trek and not the owner of Trek. His position is webmaster. That is the position he is in. He is not in the position of Trek owner.<<
Of course I know this, but according to Darkstar, he's the next best thing, and in a better position than Paula Block to dictate what is and isn't canon, apparently.
As for Paula, she made it very clear that after Taylor left, her books were no longer considered as anything that had to be adhered to. Just because they weren't significantly contradicted thereafter means nothing. She left, her books were not considered even 'quasi-canon' thereafter.
Of course I know this, but according to Darkstar, he's the next best thing
But, only after and while considering Taylor's position at the time she made her statement and also while considering the fact that her statement hasn't been overridden by someone at an equal or higher authoritative position than hers at the time she made the statement.
As for Paula, she made it very clear that after Taylor left, her books were no longer considered as anything that had to be adhered to...
...when the Trek EU authors are writting their stories. That's it.
Anon:
1. Your car analogy is flawed. The issue of exceptions is clearly explained in the new FAQ answer, and your attempt to strip the context from the "used to be" thing is just as wrong now as it was when I explained the fallacy and out-of-context reasoning you tried before. Read all the words . . . stop picking and choosing the ones you like. The analogy is a new argument on the matter, but it is a false analogy.
An exception is a special case, whereas your analogy is not. You would improve your analogy by having it say something like "I used to have sole ownership of a car." Does that mean you do not own the car now? Not at all . . . you might now have it under joint ownership with a spouse, or you might've sold it to a company in which you own controlling share, or what-have-you. And so the ownership is open to interpretation.
The context of the FAQ answer and the "used to be" issue is one of firmness or rigidity or however you wish to describe it. The answer was previously quite firm in that the novels were exceptions. But the answer now suggests (about the novels and Trek canon altogether) that this is not a firm exception set in stone, and that the issue is open to interpretation.
At the same time, though, it confirms the truth of my 'interpretation' of the earlier answer.
2.
Of course I know this, but according to Darkstar, he's the next best thing, and in a better position than Paula Block to dictate what is and isn't canon, apparently.
Gaskill is not in a position to dictate canon and never was. He was, however, in a position to report the dictates of the decision-makers. (And given that StarTrek.com reflected Taylor's decision whereas Block wasn't even aware of it, then yes I do think Gaskill did a better job of reporting than she did.)
The FAQ answer makes it clear that there is no longer an arbiter for canon. Thus Gaskill had no one to go to. o this time around, and as such responsibility for the statement is borne by him, and cannot be considered as coming from the decision-makers on Trek canon.
Does that make things clearer for you?
s for Paula, she made it very clear that after Taylor left, her books were no longer considered as anything that had to be adhered to.
Certainly true regarding licensees, but an opinion in regards authors and other to the show writers.
Just because they weren't significantly contradicted thereafter means nothing.
Waitaminute, make up your mind. Either it does mean something or it doesn't. If it doesn't then why'd you go trying to argue inconsistencies?
She left, her books were not considered even 'quasi-canon' thereafter.
Certainly true regarding licensees, but an opinion in regards authors and other to the show writers.
In short, you can choose to believe they were ignored and no longer considered canon after her departure, but you have no evidence for that belief.
So long as you continue to assert things in the absence of evidence, you'll continue to find me opposing you. Get some evidence and then we'll talk.
Whoops . . . editing error correction:
"Certainly true regarding authors and other licensees, but an opinion in regards to the show writers."
Post a Comment
<< Home