-=> Quoting Jay P. Hailey to CHRISTOPHER TARANA <=-
 JPH> True, but there are places where the novels flatly contradict
 JPH> each other, as well as what is seen on the screen.  Which is real
 JPH> and which isn't?
        Both are true.  The Trek universe only holds up within the
minds of its fans.  It's completely subjective.
 JPH> even read any of the books.  The TV show and the Books are two
 JPH> different offices.
        True, but that's where the reader/viewer has to make their own
personal adjustments to the whole thing.
 JPH> reading this sub to me is to wonder just what Star Trek show these
 JPH> people are watching.  Sometimes it bears little resemblance to what
 JPH> appears on *my* screen.
        That's the subjective part coming to play.  Everyone has a slightly
different view of what Trek is, therefore the whole point of Canon is moot,
unless 1 person on this planet is voted to be the final arbitor.  Not likely!
 JPH> The novel authors are the same way.  There is no guarantee
 JPH> that what they have seen in the episodes will agree with what I've
 JPH> seen.
        True, and that's where I like to kick in the "IDIC" factor...just
accept the discrepancy and chalk it to infinite diversity!
 JPH> But I also believe that canon can be a useful concept as a
 JPH> *starting point* from which to begin discussing the show.
        On that we can both agree.
 
 JPH> This is why the books and TV episodes often disagree.  That's
 JPH> why there is often disagreements within episodes.  The producers and
 JPH> directors are under a terrible time pressure to get product on the
 JPH> air.
        And there are times when it's too time consuming or costly to
listen to the continuity director and go back and fix something.  It's
almost a breeding ground for YATI's!
 
 JPH> I don't understand that use of the word *canon*.  I can hold
 JPH> an issue of the Weekly World News in my hands and see the words in
 JPH> black and white.  That doesn't make them any more truthful than any
 JPH> part of Star Trek.
        What I mean is books are a little harder to go back and rewrite,
and once something is written in a book, you either have to accept it,
or write another book to expolain it away.  Very tedious.
 JPH> entertaining fantasy.  It's mythology.  To debate the canonical truth
 JPH> of Star trek is actually sort of silly.
        Bingo!  So why can't everything be canon?
                        Christopher
... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (S)lap nearest innocent bystander.
--- PCBoard/2 15.30
---------------