Star Wars vs. Star Trek: The Book

[Stofsk]

PS That channel is a fucking gold mine for hilarious TNG and Trek related re-edits/spoofs.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Though I think I read some of this, and the scenarios could be so silly that their having any canon validity would be bad for that reason alone.

Wait, wait, are there actual functioning grown adults somewhere who care about 'canon'.

[Darth Tedious]

Destructionator giveth, and Destructionator taketh away.

Yeah, but...

"Fire at will!" Picard wasn't playing games.

Worf pulled out his phaser and shot Riker.

"God dammit, Worf!"

It was all worth it for that bit!

[The Romulan Republic]

Though I think I read some of this, and the scenarios could be so silly that their having any canon validity would be bad for that reason alone.

Wait, wait, are there actual functioning grown adults somewhere who care about 'canon'.

Yes, there are. Let me explain why I care about it.

Canon, of course, is the standard by which one determines what is or is not valid in part of a fictional world. As such, it is absolutely essential. A poorly constructed canon, especially in a vast, sprawling franchise of many authors such as Star Trek or Star Wars, simply invites continuity errors, inconsistencies in style and tone, stupidity that prevents the audience from taking the work in question seriously, and so on, all of which serve to undermine the entire franchise. Therefore, what is and is not canon is of the utmost importance.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It seems that expecting and trying to set rules to make a general audience take a work of fiction seriously is an exercise in futility. Let's face it: Worldwide religions can't even get their followers to adhere to 'canon', what chance does a momentarily (relatively speaking) popular sci-fi fad have? You make your story, you put it out there. If people like it, awesome. If people build on it an add their own ideas to it, which themselves become popular, the story will change from your original intentions. Trying to force your 'official' version over something that is cooler and more popular will, at best, get you a small, neckbearded cult, but still ignored by most, at worst it will get you thoroughly mocked and have your credit as originator of the story diminished.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Canon, of course, is the standard by which one determines what is or is not valid in part of a fictional world.

Hey, I have a secret for you.

You can do that yourself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Canon, of course, is the standard by which one determines what is or is not valid in part of a fictional world.

Hey, I have a secret for you.

You can do that yourself.

I try to show a bit more respect for the creators of a work of fiction. In extreme cases I'll ignore a piece of canon, but normally only if there's an irreconcilable contradiction.

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

[StarSword]

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

Remember all the flak Bungie took for Halo: Reach violating the canon as set forth by The Fall of Reach?

My view: A writer should keep his own work consistent. Material by multiple writers but within the same universe should be kept consistent. And once you get multiple writers involved, you need a canon policy.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

It seems to me like you have no idea what I'm arguing at all.

[Bakustra]

I try to show a bit more respect for the creators of a work of fiction. In extreme cases I'll ignore a piece of canon, but normally only if there's an irreconcilable contradiction.

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

As an aspiring creator of fiction, you are disrespecting the absolute shit out of me with your ignorance of terminology about fiction. I don't think I've ever been so disrespected in my entire life, possibly excepting that whippersnapper down at the corner store. In fact, I doubt that I ever will be so disrespected in my entire life going forward as you have done by making this post, again possibly excepting that kid cashier who keeps laughing at my Werther's habit. Laugh it up, punk, for someday you too will shuffle into a convenience store, walk to the back, and carefully, with liver-spotted and wrinkled hands, withdraw a four-pack of Red Bull or Monster, and have to face the robot clerk making insolent beeps as it rings you up. I'd relish it if I weren't going to be dead soon, because I'm old. Do you get that? Do you grasp that I am of the elderly persuasion? No? Well how about if I yelled at you to get off my lawn? What's that, you say? I barely look thirty? Well, get your eyes checked!

PS: I hereby declare the above ultra-short story to be canonical with respect to the fictional universe of The Dark Tower, as written primarily by Stephen King.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Ugh, now how am I supposed to read Under the Dome?

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I try to show a bit more respect for the creators of a work of fiction.

How is treating their work with baby-gloves 'respectful'? If anything, I'd consider that rather patronizing. If I create a world, and you come up with a more entertaining idea of how something should work out in that world, I damn well want to hear about it and see it implemented, because that would both be fucking awesome and make the world better overall. Your statement sort of defeats itself: If the creator of a work of fiction is so fragile that they cannot take anyone else's interpretation of their work as valid, and try to enforce that, then they aren't very worthy of respect.

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

What if there is an inconsistency *within* an established piece of canon, what do you do then? By your standards, you have to accept the paradox as true. Take a look at the Bible, there are plenty of inconsistencies depending on where you look, yet the whole thing is considered 'canon' (whichever version you wish to match with whatever denomination).

And so ends the lesson where we learn that 'canon' =/= 'consistent'.

[StarSword]

It almost seems to me that what you're essentially arguing is that consistency and continuity in a work of fiction don't matter. This is a staggeringly stupid and illogical position.

It seems to me like you have no idea what I'm arguing at all.

Then what are you arguing?

[Connor MacLeod]

Canon started out as something that provided some of the "rules for the game" it set up (basically) what each side had resource-wise to use in the debate (science in theory would provide what passes for the "rules" - eg "Do not violate conservation of energy if you do an calc to melt something, etc.) They were things to keep the debate from being completely and utterly arbitrary. Over time, the canon issue evolved and became much more.. political and needlessly complicated as more and more was added to SW (and I suspect shit like the Holocron and Wookieepedia, and other various wiki, trope and other related sites contributed) Add in a growth in people who will treat vs debating as some sort of courtroom drama (Picture Phoenix Wright standing up in defense of Trek and shouting OBJECTION! anytime someone uses the ICS) and trying to dismiss evidence on trivial things like piddly contradictions, "common sense" or "reasonable doubt" as well as an increasingly dogmatic approach to things (nowadays I think some peopel confuse the Saxton ICSes for some sort of literal "bible" - at least thats how it sounds to me sometimes how readily and by rote they can be used in debate. Or by how someone like Mike, or Curtis, or evne someone minor like myself can be "cited" as an authority. That never ceases to astonish/infuriate me.) and the entire thing has become one convoluted, fucked up mess.

Whats funny (to me at least) is I wasted years in obsession over canon (moreso when I was younger) because I found it hard to grasp what I've come to understand later on and what I outlined above. You really need to get past that "all or nothing" idea to really start to understand. Nowdays I don't really give a flying fuck about most canon (STar wars included) - like with 40K I completely bypass the issue of "what is or isn't canon or should or shouldn't be paid attention to" by simply dealing with it all (or at least as much of it I can get my hands on) and handle issues on a case by case basis. More complicated, more time consuming, but also generally less prone to a discussion getting sidetracked about silly canon issues.

Hell, I'm convinced now that the more you adhere to "canon" or to a particular source (EG the ICS) to the exclusion of others, the more dogmatic you are and the less likely you are to have an effective argument. Someone who is willing to deviate from the party line or dogma to consider a new idea is more likely (to me at least) to get it right.

[DarthPooky]

I bout the book a few years ago its actually what got me into the debate and also what led to fined stardestroyer.net. the book is pretty dumb thou like khan vs. Vader. khans crew some how get aboard the death star and kill the millions aboard and then khan manages to get close enough to rip Vader's helmet of before Vader telekinetically throes him out the window or when spock meets yoda on daygoba and all yoda says are the stuff about the force that he tells luke and then spock with no cause decides to beam yoda to the brig. so many of the story's in that book make no sense what so ever.

[NecronLord]

This is thread necromancy. Please review the rules.