It's not nonsense, it's just that you fail to see the perspective where I'm arguing from.
Continuity
- Thread starter PrimeDirective
- Start date
Lazy? Hardly. This is me we're talking about. Christopher L. Bennett. I'm obsessive about detail. I'm the guy who invented the idea of Star Trek novel annotations. I'm the guy who actually took photos of enlarged freeze-frames of the rec-deck scene on the ST:TMP DVD and based characters in Ex Machina on the extras -- and then made a whole reference page for the photos on my website. I'm the guy who used my photo-processing program to enhance a screen grab from "The Battle" and pored over a blurry passage of text from an onscreen Okudagram so I could quote it in The Buried Age as a log entry -- and then e-mailed Mike Okuda to ask if he could clarify a couple of words I still wasn't sure of. I'm the guy who filled my sink with water and tossed my Micro Machines Stargazer into it over and over again to test if my idea for what would happen when the Stargazer hit a gas giant's atmosphere was credible. If that constitutes being lazy when it comes to continuity and detail, I shudder to think what diligence would look like.
So when someone like me talks about recognizing that there's more to storytelling than rigorous attention to detail, that's Nixon going to China. I'm not saying it because I'm too lazy to care, I'm saying it because I recognize it's true even though it goes against my natural impulses. Yes, continuity and consistency are nice, but we're not writing textbooks or scholarly papers here, we're writing works of entertainment. The priority is the quality of the story. Consistency and accuracy are part of that, sure, but there are times when other priorities override them. There are a lot of different things you have to weigh against each other when constructing a work of fiction, and if it's a choice between compromising on the quality or emotional impact of the story and compromising on some trivial detail... well, it should be obvious which one takes priority.
So when someone like me talks about recognizing that there's more to storytelling than rigorous attention to detail, that's Nixon going to China. I'm not saying it because I'm too lazy to care, I'm saying it because I recognize it's true even though it goes against my natural impulses. Yes, continuity and consistency are nice, but we're not writing textbooks or scholarly papers here, we're writing works of entertainment. The priority is the quality of the story. Consistency and accuracy are part of that, sure, but there are times when other priorities override them. There are a lot of different things you have to weigh against each other when constructing a work of fiction, and if it's a choice between compromising on the quality or emotional impact of the story and compromising on some trivial detail... well, it should be obvious which one takes priority.
I didn't know that the same guy who was blogging on here, was the same one who wrote Star Trek Titan: Beneath a Torrent Sea. I've read that book, and I have to say that it was one of the best Star Trek novels I've ever read
. Regarding the consistency issue between things in Star Trek, I understand your perspective, but for me, consistency is the factor that affects the quality of the story; it makes it more real and enjoyable.
. Regarding the consistency issue between things in Star Trek, I understand your perspective, but for me, consistency is the factor that affects the quality of the story; it makes it more real and enjoyable.
What the heck are you talking about? I can't find ANYTHING whatsoever to back up this statement.
Regarding the SW canon structure, anyone who is surprised by The Clone Wars television series invalidating what was established by Karen Traviss in her novels is either unfamiliar with or hasn't actually read Lucasfilm's canon policy, which has written into it provisions concerning situations like the above.
The company's official canon policy states point-blank that higher levels of canon (i.e. the 'T Canon' that comprises the material from The Clone Wars TV series [both of them], The Clone Wars movie, and the still-forthcoming live-action television series) cancel out or override lower levels of canon (i.e. the 'C Canon' into which Traviss' novels fall).
This forum, along with all the others on this page, are about Star Trek, so please try to keep them Star Wars-free.
Are you being serious? You're the one who initially brought up SW in this thread.
I initially brought it up to make my point, but now that I think we've all used it enough to make our points, we should focus on Star Trek-related topics. Just a thought
Sorry, PrimeDirective, but unless off topic talks degenerate into bar fights, we don't really police off topics posts in this forum.
Further, posting multiple times in a roll is considered spamming on this board, so please use the "edit" button when you want to add in a new thought and no one has posted after your latest post yet, or use the multi-quote button to quote 2 or more posts in your replies.
Thank you.
Further, posting multiple times in a roll is considered spamming on this board, so please use the "edit" button when you want to add in a new thought and no one has posted after your latest post yet, or use the multi-quote button to quote 2 or more posts in your replies.
Thank you.
sorry about that.
Not to be nit-picky (here?), but I'm pretty sure Andy Mangels and Mike Martin were doing it for quite a while before I started it, because I stole the idea from them for In the Name of Honor
DigificWriter said:
Star Trek and pretty much every other media property has the exact same policy with regards to their tie-ins, only they use simpler language: "Canon," and "not canon."
... But, it's not. It's not another reality that exists alongside the one you're a part of. It's fake. Imaginary. Pretend. Not-real.
.... who? There are no people who are part of the Star Trek Universe. The Star Trek Universe doesn't exist. The "people" who are part o the Star Trek Universe are imaginary people who never existed and never will.
I'm all for the joys of being able to pretend that it's all real, but that is pretend.
Dayton Ward;3886547[I said:
You hit on the one significant difference between SW and ST, Dayton; Lucasfilm regards a great deal of the licensed material (novels, comics, games, etc.) associated with the SW franchise as being part of its official canon, albeit segregated into various levels of 'canonicity' that determine what can be overriden by what. The 'ultimate' source of SW canonicity is of course the six films that make up the 'core' SW saga, and which are referred to as 'G-Canon', or George Lucas Canon ('G-Canon' also includes subsidiary material such as unpublished production notes from Lucas or his production department that are never seen by the public, and any material contained in reference books, novelizations, etc. that has been provided directly by Lucas himself). The descending levels of 'canonicity' are then laid out as follows:
'T-Canon' or Television Canon (relating directly, as mentioned by me earlier, to The Clone Wars movie and television series, and the still-forthcoming live-action television series)
'C-Canon' or Continuity Canon (relating to most of the novels, video games, comics, non-theatrical films, etc. that have been officially licensed by Lucasfilm over the years)
'S-Canon' or Secondary Canon (relating to materials, such as the Star Wars comics published by Marvel Comics, that are available to be used or ignored as needed)
'N-Canon' or Non-Canon (relating to materials such as the SW Infinities imprint, as well as anything directly and irreconcilably contradicted by higher canon)
Steering this back towards Star Trek, though, as much as I think it would be interesting and kind of neat for the franchise to adopt a similar policy, I honestly don't think it would be practical or feasible. The policy that the ST franchise operates under works well for it, because it allows for something that I think may in fact be uniquely 'Trekkian': the concept of 'personal canon' (the concept of looking at the wealth of officially non-canon subsidiary ST material and deciding which elements of it - both specific and general - best fit one's own vision of the ST shared universe as a whole).
How much of an overlap is there between the two? I'm sure it's probably not very many who have worked on both, but it makes sense to me that the staff who work on the shows and movies would, ideally, be supportive of some of the writers and other contributors who work on the tie-ins. I think the main advantage of this, from my own perspective at least, is that there's a lot of potential that's not easy for either side to do on their own. There are a lot of Trek races who are supposed to be major players (the Andorians and Tellarites as examples) but who have rarely made a lot of canonical appearances, due to a variety of restrictions. Hiring guest actors and doing makeup etc.
But there's a lot of opportunity to explore those races in the tie-ins, where consistency is the only major concern, and get some of the important developments done that way. I guess the way I like to view things, the "canon" and "non-canon" aspects could ideally be one part of the creative whole rather than separate categories.
Valid meaning that although they're not binding on the canon material, they still count as part of the overall continuity unless said material decides to make the specific exceptions like the ones you've mentioned. I don't know how often that actually happens in SW and other franchises, but I've gotten the impression that it's relatively rare. And I realize that canon and continuity are not always intertwined or interchangeable.
You're right. But that doesn't mean it's in their best interest to alienate myself and other fans by cutting corners in some areas (as was the case with ENT) and expecting us not to complain when they lower the standards of consistency and quality, and we know they could do good Trek instead. We may only be minor contributors to the franchise overall as fans, but we're a part of the reason Star Trek achieved that level to begin with. And while I don't think we have any special entitlements from that, the least the PTB can do is continue to show us a measure of respect for supporting them.
That's true. It's never exactly a perfect allegory, since the two franchises have always been different animals and SW has had its canon focused on a much smaller, specific time frame than has been the case with Trek. I think in some respects it's therefore been a bit easier to build stories representing the events that come both before and after the period in which the movies are set, and to keep those details largely consistent with each other.
That's pretty much how I tend to be. And there are some series which actually seem to run pretty well with multiple continuities running around - Transformers is the one that most immediately comes to mind. It would be harder to try and keep a single Transformers universe, but I think Hasbro has the advantage of not needing a single universe to cover everything - it just has each little continuity (series) being self-contained, and what happens to the characters in one series usually doesn't affect them in another.
That's what you think. If you ask physicists, most of them will tell you that our reality probably isn't the only one that exists. To paraphrase Morpheus from the Matrix: "Real? If what you believe to be real is what you can see, feel, touch, smell, and hear, then all reality is, is a bunch of electrical signals interpreted by your brain." Isn't that what happens when you read a comic book or a novel, watch a movie or television series?
Look, if everyone else went to this level of detail, we probably wouldn't have any of these problems.
To address the matter of TOS writers not keeping things straight, 1) they were still making the thing up as they went along, and 2) they did try to keep things straight, as much as the pressures of production would allow, which is certainly more than could be said of the competition of the day. And in doing so, they set a standard for later shows to follow.
What I object to is this cavalier attitude I'm seeing towards even bothering to keep things straight, on the stance that somehow this Great American Star Trek Novel that's being presented is all the justification that's needed for ignoring established continuity.
From where I sit, that story'd better be a guaranteed Hugo award winner before you even think about screwing around with the backstory.
And if that's what was happening, you might have justification for your "outrage." But, that's not at all what's being said. Nobody here's giving the finger to established continuity, most especially that of the films or television series. Adhering to what's actually "canon" is what we're paid to do. Trying to keep things straight between the books is also what we're paid to do, but as Christopher's said, it's a guideline, not a rule, and sometimes choices will be made to chart a different course.
And sometimes, there will just be fuck-ups, despite the best of intentions.
I don't think it's that people don't care about keeping things consistent, it's just that majority of us are more concerned with the quality of the story, than it if contradicts a book that came out 30 years ago. Like I said above, I like continuity, and I do agree that it makes stories more enjoyable, but it's not the only factor in that equation. Personally, I'm more concerned with the qualities of the writing, characters, dialog, and plot than I am with consistency.
Now are you guys saying that if someone wrote the greatest Star Trek story ever, but the whole thing contradicted a reference made in an obscure comic book written 20 years ago and there was no way to work around, then they shouldn't be allowed to write it?
Now are you guys saying that if someone wrote the greatest Star Trek story ever, but the whole thing contradicted a reference made in an obscure comic book written 20 years ago and there was no way to work around, then they shouldn't be allowed to write it?
What consistency does to a story for me, is that it makes it more believable, which in turn makes me enjoy it more since I feel like I'm a part of the story.
I don't recall saying that "it's the only thing that mattered", I said that it was the most important thing that decides the quality of the story for me.
Similar threads
