CT>        I'd agree with you up to a point, Jay.  The shows are a starting
CT>point, as well as the movies.  But the novels have a couple of benefits
CT>that the shows dont have, including one you pointed out.  The novels
CT>serve to fill in the blanks between the movies, and take off from
CT>the shows as a starting point.
        True, but there are places where the novels flatly contradict
  each other, as well as what is seen on the screen.  Which is real and
  which isn't?
CT>        There actually is no difference between a book and the actual
CT>series episode, in fact all the Trek episodes start out as books
CT>(stories) that end up in a nice little one hour audio/visual format.
        Not true.  The novels are not written by the same people who
  make up the episodes.  There is little contact between the novel
  writers and the television writers.  The Television writers are not
  obligated to follow or abide by anyhting the novel writers say or even
  read any of the books.  The TV show and the Books are two different
  offices.
CT>        Now, on the canon issue, a novel author invariably draws from
CT>the movies and the series for his/her inspiration.  It's necessary for
CT>continuity's sake.  But they also have the luxury of more time between
CT>publication for a individual author to get a handle on the technical
CT>aspects of the story.  No author sets out to write an inaccurate book,
CT>even a piece of fiction.
        True.  However, you can see it around here.  Half the fun of
 reading this sub to me is to wonder just what Star Trek show these
 people are watching.  Sometimes it bears little resemblance to what
 appears on *my* screen.
        This isn't literal, in most cases.  it's just that different
 people bring a different mindset to each experience and the same
 object can look totally different to two different people, right.
        The novel authors are the same way.  There is no guarantee that
 what they have seen in the episodes will agree with what I've seen.
        A friend of mine likes to tease me that Star Trek is like my
 religion.  I deny this on most levels, but it does have one thing in
 common with many religions.  people see many things and think they are
 looking at the one *truth*.
        I used to say, and I still do, that canon is a silly thing that
 no one should consider themselves bound by.  I still believe this.
        But I also believe that canon can be a useful concept as a
 *starting point* from which to begin discussing the show.
CT>        Right now I think the lead time between TOS/TMP novels is about
CT>three months.  That's just looking at the concurrent numbered novels.  If
CT>you look at individual authors who have repeat submissions in the
CT>series, the lead time is actually closer to a year.  The producers of the
CT>shows are lucky to have a week in advance to hammer out and print
CT>an episode.
        This is why the books and TV episodes often disagree.  That's
 why there is often disagreements within episodes.  The producers and
 directors are under a terrible time pressure to get product on the air.
CT>        You can hold a book in your hand and see the words in black and
CT>white, and that's about as close to canon as you're going to get with
CT>any media.
CT> Chris
        I don't understand that use of the word *canon*.  I can hold an
 issue of the Weekly World News in my hands and see the words in black
 and white.  That doesn't make them any more truthful than any part of
 Star Trek.
        Let's remember that Star Trek is *not real*.  It is an
 entertaining fantasy.  It's mythology.  To debate the canonical truth
 of Star trek is actually sort of silly.
Jay P. Hailey 
Chief Editor
THE UNIVERSE: TREK
CT>... Press  now to access the pirate software.
CT>--- PCBoard/2 15.30
 * OLX 2.1 TD * "I don't handle .. delicacy very well." - Odo
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------