MM> BN> Rem,ember the First Rule of canon -- the books aren't. ;)  Unless
MM> BN> I grossly miss my guess , you're referring to a novel, & they
MM> BN> NEVER have authority -- period. Not even the normally authoritative
MM> BN> tech books by Okuda are always considered solid & gospel.
MM>There are at least four categories of Star Trek information:
At a minimum, yup. }:)
MM>2.  Information seen on screen, but contradicted, needing rationalization
MM>to explain.  An example is Kirk's middle initial, "R." as seen in Where
MM>No Man Has Gone Before.  Gary was tweeking Kirk's well-known habit of
MM>using his middle initial by using the *wrong* initial on the gravestone.
And also RETCON or more logical explanation, "simple YATI."
MM>3.  Information never seen on screen, but which is likely to appear, if
MM>a particular script needs it in the future.  The Okuda books generally
MM>fall into this category, because Mike Okuda is one of the people
MM>responsible for defining the continuity at Paramount.  He should know
MM>what he is likely to include.  :-)
With, of course, the caveat that some of those books have in fact
contradicted *past* events, which is what I was talking about when
I said what I did about "normally authoritative." };)  "Likely" has
nothing to do with that at all, correct? 
MM>I have never liked the term "canon."   Better is "part of Star Trek
MM>continuity, as defined by Paramount on-screen."
To which might also need to be added "or known as part of TGBOTG's
core basics for the genre," for example W10 being the unreachable
brass ring maximum, warp-wise.  Folks can argue until they're blue
in the face that "Well, the Federation developed better technology,"
but that fails the one critical test of such a theory: to note the
fact that GR was making that dictum from the outside of Trek, not
the inside. His was the position of a god creating a universe, &
all items _within_ that universe being required to conform to
those rules.  [Direct Analogy:  In a poker game, the dealer calls
the game -- it's what he/she says it is, & that's that.  It's not
possible for one of the players to make the dealer's call into a
*different* game after he's looked at his cards & realizes he can't
win jack-diddly-squat with a 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. ]
Now if we want to say that another equal or *higher* god has since
_obviated_ those rules with another set, that's fine, too, but it
can't be done from the INside of the universe (IOW the character's
POV).  "To do so would not be logical." 
---
 * OLXWin 1.00b * "Simple ... logic." -- JTK
 * wcGATE 4.1 = FidoNet: The Right Note! 502-452-1453 Music Oriented BBS
--- GEcho/32 1.20/Pro
---------------