www.ditl.org

I agree with the viewpoints expressed above on "personal canon," except for one small niggling trifle: the word "canon," in the 'Trek-affiliated sense of the word, is defined as what Paramount says it is. We may all have our own opinions as to what is relevant to our views of the 'Trek universes, and they may be valid ones; but to apply the word "canon" to them is incorrect. In addition, canon must be defined outside any one individual's viewpoint in order to have discussions.

I agree completely.

Mikey wrote:I agree with the viewpoints expressed above on "personal canon," except for one small niggling trifle: the word "canon," in the 'Trek-affiliated sense of the word, is defined as what Paramount says it is. We may all have our own opinions as to what is relevant to our views of the 'Trek universes, and they may be valid ones; but to apply the word "canon" to them is incorrect. In addition, canon must be defined outside any one individual's viewpoint in order to have discussions.

True, but the only problem is a lack of clarity regarding Paramount's stance on TAS.

Chris Propst wrote:True, but the only problem is a lack of clarity regarding Paramount's stance on TAS.

What lack of clarity? They've been very clear that TAS is non-canon. Any elements that originated in TAS that have since become canon have become such on the grounds of being mentioned in live-action Trek, not because any of TAS itself has been deemed to be canon.

Why does Paramount even care whether or not TAS is canon?


Of course, we could also why any of us care.

Varthikes wrote:Why does Paramount even care whether or not TAS is canon?

To let writers of future episodes know what previously writen Trek they have to adhere to, and which they can ignore.

Of course, we could also why any of us care.

If there was no canon, how could we debate? There would be no definitive statement of what was "real" Trek and what wasn't, which would lead to all sorts of arguments before the real debate even began.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Varthikes wrote:Why does Paramount even care whether or not TAS is canon?

To let writers of future episodes know what previously writen Trek they have to adhere to, and which they can ignore.

Which certain writers of certain episodes of ENT & VOY have ignored, anyway.

Meh, personal canon for the win for me. I use it in Star Trek and Star Wars.

Personal canon is nice for a lot of things. But when it comes to things like debates, or calcing stuff like the power of the GCS, or other info about the universe, going by canon is the only way to get a proper sollution.

And as I've pointed out before, Rochey, I know that.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Meh, personal canon for the win for me. I use it in Star Trek and Star Wars.

I agree. It's nice for nailing things like WWIII or the Eugenics wars down. Just pick what seems to fit with the rest of established trek.

Rochey wrote:Personal canon is nice for a lot of things. But when it comes to things like debates, or calcing stuff like the power of the GCS, or other info about the universe, going by canon is the only way to get a proper sollution.

I agree.

And as I've pointed out before, Rochey, I know that.

I know. I wasn't aiming that at you, I was just sort of making a general statement.

Question. Robert April made an appearance in TAS.........it's the only time I can remember him being mentioned. Is he cannon or not? Am I forgetting him from anywhere else?

He only appeared in TAS, so he's probably non-canon.

He might have been mention in IAMD, but I'm not sure about that.