Author Habits That Annoy You

[I am not Herbert]

Even in acknowledging that I tend to be trivia minded enough to recognize that X, Y, and Z event don't necessarily line up right in the established timeline or something, I usually don't care...

Just so I don't come across as trying to sound superior, I too notice discontinuities and the like. Knowing a media property well enough to be able to do that (and to come up with one's own homespun 'headcanon') is of course part of the fun of being a fan. (I have a whole stack of headcanon explanations for intra-TOS inconsistencies, especially season 3). But every once in a while I have seen things said on this forum to the effect of 'the Final Reflection is a good book, but its depiction of Klingon life is no longer consistent with subsequent canon.' Strikes me as a terrible reason not to start reading an otherwise excellent book. Same with those of Bennett's novels that conflict somewhat with SNW (I'm told). Even "Pawns and Symbols" (a book that, admittedly, I enjoyed more than most) is still very readable despite the fact that its depiction of Klingon life was inconsistent even with the Final Reflection, let alone TNG.

Okay, rant over. Moving on...

 

[Christopher]

Same with those of Bennett's novels that conflict somewhat with SNW (I'm told).

At this point, Living Memory is the only one of my novels in that category, since I gave Uhura a different backstory and family history than SNW did. Also, my depiction of Rigel VII in Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel is hard to reconcile with "Among the Lotus Eaters," but it's a minor part of the novel (and I have an idea for how I could at least partially handwave it given the opportunity).

The main discrepancies between my novels and canon are in the post-Nemesis era. My Titan books, Aftermath, Greater than the Sum, Typhon Pact: The Struggle Within, and DTI are out, although Forgotten History could still work if you fudge a few details in the 24th-century parts or consider them an alternate timeline. Still good (for now) are Rise of the Federation, my TOS books other than Living Memory, The Buried Age, Places of Exile (since it's an alternate timeline anyway), and my anthology stories.

 

[Greg Cox]

Where I'm coming from:

I still remember the moment I began to despise the word "canon." I was at a convention, doing a presentation on Tor's new line of FARSCAPE novels. Understand that, at that point, I had put tons of time and effort into making those books happen and trying to make them the best possible FS novels I could manage: acquiring the license, working closely with the authors, the Jim Henson people, the British co-publisher, and so on; editing the manuscripts, getting the cover art and promotional materials approved by all parties, etc. It was a lot of work, but now at last I was ready to unveil the FS book line to the world. Ta-da!

But, sure enough, the very first question from the audience was: "But are they canon?"

As if that was all that really mattered, and as though there was maybe no point in reading the books if not.

Grumble, grumble.

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon again, "canon" didn't used to be such a Big Deal. Back in my day (harrumph!), I never worried about whether the latest GET SMART or DARK SHADOWS or LASSIE or MAJOR MATT MASON book was "canon" or not, or what "timeline" it was set in. We just read tie-in books and comics for fun -- and for the chance to spend a little extra time with our favorite movie and TV characters.

I like to think there's something to said for that approach, if only because it meant no constant, interminable debates about whether such-and-such is "canon" or not.

End of rant . . . for now.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

If a book is being written/published during the run of the actual show and/or subsequent shows, starring interesting original characters, or adding details to the lives of characters that readers like, I suppose what they'd really like to know is, "is there a good chance we'll someday see what we previously only read about?" (so, for instance, will we get an actor playing your OC, who we really like and wish we could see (more of) on screen?)

 

[Greg Cox]

There also seems to be this burning desire, at least on the part of some fans, to know whether books "count" or not.

Saw this again when I was writing The 4400 books. Lots of posts and emails wanting to know, rather urgently, whether the stuff in the books was "canon."

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

There also seems to be this burning desire, at least on the part of some fans, to know whether books "count" or not.

Saw this again when I was writing The 4400 books. Lots of posts and emails wanting to know, rather urgently, whether the stuff in the books in was "canon."

That sounds more like an annoying reader habit! At least in a milieu like ST or SW, where the books aren't the primary source.

 

[Christopher]

There also seems to be this burning desire, at least on the part of some fans, to know whether books "count" or not.

That's the weird thing about it. Why are they so adamant that everything has to be essential and integral? What's so bad about getting bonus content in addition to the stuff that "counts"? That's such a Spartan mindset, nothing beyond what's strictly necessary. Which, since it's all recreational anyway, doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[Bryan Levy]

I almost tend to avoid “canon”. It gets in the way of what I want, which is adventures with characters I like. During DC’s New52 era, I found myself looking to out of continuity stuff so I could avoid a “canon” I didn’t enjoy. It’s one of the great things about Star Trek novels, they’re just adventures with my friends.

 

[JD]

I don't care about canon, I just want to things to be as consistent as possible with how things are at the time the book or comic is written. I do to think of it as being an alternate timeline if it does end up being contradicted later, because for me that's my of keeping it consistent with what we know, since in universes like Star Trek or Farscape or Marvel or DC alternate universes have been established as part of the series and when I can do that I find it easier to just go with the contradictions.
Though that tends to apply more to inconsistencies in the history or universe itself, I do find it harder with things like the characterizations feeling wrong. For instance, I just finished the TNG novel Doomsday World the other day, and there were a few scenes where the characterizations felt off to me, with characters acting in ways that just don't fit how I've always seen them, and that bugged me a more than things like Andorians being the first alien race humans met in Strangers from the Sky.

 

[James Swallow]

That sounds more like an annoying reader habit! At least in a milieu like ST or SW, where the books aren't the primary source.

Oh, believe me, it happens with *every* franchise that has tie-ins.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Where I'm coming from:

I still remember the moment I began to despise the word "canon." I was at a convention, doing a presentation on Tor's new line of FARSCAPE novels. Understand that, at that point, I had put tons of time and effort into making those books happen and trying to make them the best possible FS novels I could manage: acquiring the license, working closely with the authors, the Jim Henson people, the British co-publisher, and so on; editing the manuscripts, getting the cover art and promotional materials approved by all parties, etc. It was a lot of work, but now at last I was ready to unveil the FS book line to the world. Ta-da!

But, sure enough, the very first question from the audience was: "But are they canon?"

As if that was all that really mattered, and as though there was maybe no point in reading the books if not.

Grumble, grumble.

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon again, "canon" didn't used to be such a Big Deal. Back in my day (harrumph!), I never worried about whether the latest GET SMART or DARK SHADOWS or LASSIE or MAJOR MATT MASON book was "canon" or not, or what "timeline" it was set in. We just read tie-in books and comics for fun -- and for the chance to spend a little extra time with our favorite movie and TV characters.

I like to think there's something to said for that approach, if only because it meant no constant, interminable debates about whether such-and-such is "canon" or not.

End of rant . . . for now.

Greg, I'm afraid that I've been told that this post is no longer canon for the BBS.

We apologize for the inconvenience. You understand, I'm sure.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I don't care about canon, I just want to things to be as consistent as possible with how things are at the time the book or comic is written. I do to think of it as being an alternate timeline if it does end up being contradicted later, because for me that's my of keeping it consistent with what we know, since in universes like Star Trek or Farscape or Marvel or DC alternate universes have been established as part of the series and when I can do that I find it easier to just go with the contradictions.

A number of years back I interviewed the comic writer & artist Keith Giffen about Invasion!, a big DC Comics crossover he was the mastermind of. He said that looked over the various tie-ins for consistency, not continuity. "Continuity be damned" was his exact quote.

Marv Wolfman (the writer of Crisis on Infinite Earths) also said that comic book continuity held the best writer hostage to the worst, and I think there's a lot to that.

 

[Daddy Todd]

the latest GET SMART or DARK SHADOWS or LASSIE or MAJOR MATT MASON book

Wait, there were Major Matt Mason books? How did I miss that fact for the last 5 or 6 decades????

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Oh, believe me, it happens with *every* franchise that has tie-ins.

No shit!
Storytelling trumps canon. But on the other hand, if there's no valid storytelling reason to break canon, then why do it?

I think my own opinions are well-known around here, regarding Baum's Oz canon in general, and a certain very well-known movie that is loaded with violations of it (which I only find objectionable because of the tail-wagging-the-dog situation that developed around it). As well as my mild amusement with how Gary Wolf decided he liked Disney's Roger Rabbit better than his own, and de-canonized Who Censored Roger Rabbit. And at how Douglas Adams considered every distinct incarnation of the H2G2 milieu to be a distinct literary reality. And at how, if I remember right, Clarke explicitly declared that 2001 and its direct sequels were not necessarily in continuity with each other.

 

[Greg Cox]

Wait, there were Major Matt Mason books? How did I miss that fact for the last 5 or 6 decades????

There was one: an illustrated "Big Little Book" that I read to pieces as a kid.

 

[Christopher]

No shit!
Storytelling trumps canon. But on the other hand, if there's no valid storytelling reason to break canon, then why do it?

I think that's something of a straw-man question. Presumably anyone who did so (intentionally and not by accident/forgetting) believed there was a valid reason for it, even if that reason isn't evident to a given reader.

I think my own opinions are well-known around here, regarding Baum's Oz canon in general, and a certain very well-known movie that is loaded with violations of it (which I only find objectionable because of the tail-wagging-the-dog situation that developed around it).

An adaptation of a work does not constitute part of its canon to begin with, so this statement makes no sense. The movie adaptation of The Wizard of Oz is not canonical to the Oz books any more than the novel adaptation of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is canonical to the TV/movie franchise. Nothing is "violated" by an alternate telling making different choices, because the original work still exists.

As well as my mild amusement with how Gary Wolf decided he liked Disney's Roger Rabbit better than his own, and de-canonized Who Censored Roger Rabbit.

It is always the prerogative of a canon's creator to alter it. The biggest misunderstanding fans have about the word "canon" is that it implies inflexibility or restriction. It's all made up, so obviously the people who made it up in the first place can decide to change it.

Although I think it's stretching the term to use the word "canon" for a single novel. A canon, by definition, is a complete body of related works.

And at how Douglas Adams considered every distinct incarnation of the H2G2 milieu to be a distinct literary reality.

Not unusual for British entertainment. The Red Dwarf novels are an alternate version of events from the TV series altered and expanded for prose, in the same way as the Hitchhiker's books. And after the first two novels, the two creators went their separate ways and did their own solo novels in alternate continuities from each other as well as from the show.

And at how, if I remember right, Clarke explicitly declared that 2001 and its direct sequels were not necessarily in continuity with each other.

That's much the same situation as Roger Rabbit. 2010: Odyssey Two is a sequel to the movie version of 2001 instead of the prose version, with the Monolith at Jupiter instead of Saturn. Only makes sense for a novelist to go with the better-known version, in hopes of attracting a larger audience.

Similarly, the first sequel novel to Logan's Run began by undoing the novel's ending and creating a status quo more like the movie's ending, although with the pretense of being in the same continuity. Then there are the various ways comic books have tried to align with their more popular adaptations, like Superman comics changing the Daily Star to the Daily Planet from the newspaper strips and introducing Perry White and Jimmy Olsen from the radio series, or Batman comics resurrecting Alfred from the dead when they learned he'd be a character in the '66 TV series.

 

[Daddy Todd]

There was one: an illustrated "Big Little Book" that I read to pieces as a kid.

eBay, here I come!

I only played the toys to pieces -- which wasn't hard, since the "bendy" wire in the arms & legs has a tendency to break after about a dozen poses...

 

[Greg Cox]

No shit!
Storytelling trumps canon. But on the other hand, if there's no valid storytelling reason to break canon, then why do it?

I think my own opinions are well-known around here, regarding Baum's Oz canon in general, and a certain very well-known movie that is loaded with violations of it (which I only find objectionable because of the tail-wagging-the-dog situation that developed around it). As well as my mild amusement with how Gary Wolf decided he liked Disney's Roger Rabbit better than his own, and de-canonized Who Censored Roger Rabbit. And at how Douglas Adams considered every distinct incarnation of the H2G2 milieu to be a distinct literary reality. And at how, if I remember right, Clarke explicitly declared that 2001 and its direct sequels were not necessarily in continuity with each other.

I'll spare you my usual spiel about how Johnston McCulley took a rather a laissez-faire approach to continuity in the original Zorro novels, especially after the Douglas Fairbanks movie turned Zorro into a cash cow.

 

[Christopher]

I'll spare you my usual spiel about how Johnston McCulley took a rather a laissez-faire approach to continuity in the original Zorro novels, especially after the Douglas Fairbanks movie turned Zorro into a cash cow.

As I recall, the original novel ended with Zorro revealing his identity and retiring. Presumably the later stories ignored that.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I'll spare you my usual spiel about how Johnston McCulley took a rather a laissez-faire approach to continuity in the original Zorro novels, especially after the Douglas Fairbanks movie turned Zorro into a cash cow.

Oh, Zorro's a great example! Whether or not Don Diego's identity is public depends entirely on what story you read. I think McCulley even brought a couple of villains back from the dead.