Series specific canon

[Aedh Rua]

An interesting thought as to how to deal with some of the contradictions in canon. It really is a problem as things stand. Not only do you have all this non-canon material which contradicts both canon and the other non-canon material, but, in addition, the variety of Star Trek series has led to a whole lot of canon contradicting itself.

We all know, for instance, that the Klingons are cold, treacherous, and sneaky people who advance in rank by murder, but that Romulans are the "honorable enemy". Unfortunately, we also know that Klingons are honorable, ritual-bound warriors, and that Romulans are treacherous, intellectual, and Byzantine plotters.

Now, LUG did a good job of coming up with ways to reconcile all of these disparate bits of contradictory information. In fact, they did better than anyone I have ever read or heard of, including Paramount itself.

But it was, in my opinion, still not quite enough to be completely successful. And now, with a new, Braga-produced series coming down the pike, we can be sure that canon will become hopelessly self-contradictory. Soon, there will be no way to make a coherant universe out of Star Trek, no way at all.

What is the solution? Series specific canon. In TOS, the Klingons are villainous, and the Romulans honorable. In TNG, the Klingons are honorable, the Romulans Byzantine, the Borg the ultimate enemy, the Breen a mystery, and the Ferengi a threat. In DS9, the Dominion is the ultimate enemy, the Breen a major power, and the Ferengi lovable rogues. And so on. The various Star Trek universes are related, but not the same, even when they are very similar.

This is even more true when the different axioms of different series are taken into account. While the worlds of TNG and DS9 resemble one another, for example, it is very difficult to reconcile the clean, utopian Federation of TNG with its gritty, paranoid DS9 counterpart.

Note that it not including Voyager, as it contradicts itself......

This would mean that the new series will not be a problem as long as it is not self-contradictory. It will merely generate its own "Enterprise" canon, its own Star Trek spinoff universe.



------------------
Slan agat!

[SIR SIG]

Im not sure Im quite getting what you mean.

So your saying all the spinoffs are their own little show which do but dont share the same universe?

------------------
SIRSIG
AKA: SirPostalot
AKA: The MapMaker
AKA: The Trek Cartographer
AKA:...Well I could keep going forever

[Aedh Rua]

Essentially, yes, although it is more subtle than that. Each show is a slightly different Star Trek parallel world, or really, just a different show.

We can talk about what is or isn't "canon" for each show, but not for all of them at once, because they contradict each other. This, by the way, is just the sober truth, they really do....

The Star Trek universe, in this case, becomes a complex of related fictional universes, a sort of "Star Trek multiverse". All are "Star Trek" because they share certain similarities, but each has its own history, and its own rules which give it its unique flavor.

Really, I am not trying to do an explanation from within as much as develop a way to structure Star Trek canon as literature. That is, I am not trying to explain the differences, as to re-structure the idea of Star Trek canon based on them. I am not trying to write fiction so much as literary or media analysis.

This probably makes what I am trying to get at harder to understand, and not easier.

The thing is, if we don't think seriously about what "canon" is or isn't, it will rapidly become meaningless, if it hasn't already. A canon which contradicts itself is when "Star Trek" becomes "Land of the Giants", Gilligan's Island", or "Lost in Space"........

That is, Star Trek is rapidly reaching the point where the errors aren't lovable anymore, and where there is just nothing to attract intelligent viewers any longer. Series specific canon may keep some life in the old corpse yet.

------------------
Slan agat!

[This message has been edited by Aedh Rua (edited 05-11-2001).]

[qerlin]

WE handle the problem another way: we ignore TOS as canon -- which elininated a lot of the trouble from the original show in TNG/DS9 series. We start canon at the movies.

Another good idea is to ignore Voyager for that era. For TOS, we ignore some of the episodes for teh sake of continuity.

My take is TOS was a 24th C representation of Jim Kirk's adventures: splashy and adventurous; the movies were more of the 'real Starfleet' of the 23rd C.

Just our take on it...

[Lancer]

Great, someone has put down in writing what I've been thinking all along.

IMO you are absolutely right. ST:TNG should be just TNG and ST S9 just DS9, etc.
All the Star Trek shows have a distinct feeling and style. Trying to come up with any explanation for all the differences in 'facts' and style of these shows can only lead to disaster IMHO.

From a roleplaying-perspective it's a good idea as well. After all, from what I can see on these boards people either run a TOS or TNG or DS9 campaigne, but don't mix these different settings (apart from the occasional time-travel episode).
Therefore, why bother if TNG contradicts DS9 canon or vice-versa? I would probably go mad trying to come up with an explanation for all the contradictions.

To sum up all this rambling; Thumbs up Aedh Rua !

------------------
"To seek, to strive, to find and not to yield" - Alfred Tennyson

[Rottwang]

Personally, when I run campaigns in universes established in popular fiction, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, and DC comics, I will place my own since of canon above what is officially written. Heck, it might be said that I play in established universe so I can rewrite things the way I would rather have it.

As far as watching movies and tv show and reading books, I want a good story more than I want a good sense of continuuity. In fact, I would go so far as to say that a strict adherence to continuuity is the enemy of active creativity.

------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of
their dreams."
--Eleanor Roosevelt

[Drifter]

Of course, there is another way to look at it. Some very good points and suggestions have been made, but here's another perspective:

Essentially, what we are seeing with these various series are someone's version of a story. Whether it be from an internal perspective, ie someone in the series is telling the story with his or her own views and recollections thrown in, or from an external viewpoint, ie that of a future historian. Either way, some facts will be skewed and the bottom line is you will have to decide for yourself what really happened and what was glorified or remembered incorrectly.

What this all boils down to is RPGs are great for this sort of thing. The gamemaster basically determines what truths exist and what do not and then molds the story around his or her individual paradigm. Which, of course, brings us to the parallel or multiverse concept which is so prominant in Star Trek stories of all "eras". Each of us runs our own little piece of the multiverse, defining canon as we see fit and changing the future history of the setting.

Hell, maybe warp drives aren't canon. Maybe the ships all run off of twinkie wrappers and cattle leavings... Extreme, but not outside the realm of possibility. It is all someone's fantasy vision of the future. Mr. Roddenberry took his fantastic vision with him to the grave and while some may be able to do justice to it, no one will ever give us exactly what he saw when he looked through his mind's eye.

[Jabara Eris]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by spyone1:
The New Frontier books had a cute little bit where Admiral Jelico is saying that his father told him that Starfleet Command thought Kirk was making stuff up in his reports just to get a rise out of them. They put a "kid" in charge of a starship, next thing you know he's reporting Space Amoebas and the theft of his First Officer's brain.
</font>

Now that's funny!

Arthur C. Clark was once asked about the difference in continuity between his three "Space Odyssey" books, and he said he simply considers each book to have taken place in a separate alternate universe.

That's the way I've always considered TOS. I figured that if my players ever went back in time to that era, they would see the Klingons with bumpy foreheads, and analog readouts on a ship's bridge would be replaced with digital readouts.

Of course, that also assumes that "Troubles and Tribblations" never took place ...

Another theory is that something really big happened between TOS and "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." Maybe Q (or some other omnipotent entity) made various subtle changes to the universe, then made everybody not notice that the changes occurred.

Okay, that's stretching it a bit, I admit, but it could work if your desperate to find an explanation for problems with continuity.

Actually, I think I might start using what Jellico said, that maybe Kirk was making a lot of it up ...

Eris