Canon? Canon? What is canon? (was: Gary Mitchell and Cont...

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Duny...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Jungle Kitty wrote,

> I hope, Judith, you don't believe that I intended to trivialize Kirk or
> his importance to Trek. I was merely trying to address Mary Ellen's
> comments in terms she had used.

Perhaps it was Mary Ellen, then, who seemed to be arguing that we attribute
qualities of heroism and nobility to Kirk *only* because we've been suckered
in by fannish and extra-fannish convention, and not because that is a
rational construction of what appears on the screen. I don't know how else to
read the comment by Mary Ellen that your story "Golden Boy"

> does *not* IMO contradict screen
> canon, but it contradicts convention all over the lot (not
> just dedicated-fan convention, either -- Kirk has become
> a cultural icon). In fact, many of my ideas about "what is
> canon" came out of thinking about GB, because I think it
> is *exceptionally* canonical.

I thought you were agreeing with Mary Ellen when you wrote that

> So, although this story
> doesn't contradict canon events (as Mary Ellen points out), it does
> contradict reader assumptions and the cultural icon Kirk that she
> referred to. <snip> At the time
> I posted this story, I put in a comment: "This story stomps all over
> canon." <snip> If I were posting the story today, I would still code it
A/U but
> I'd change the note to reader: "This story stomps all over fanon."

You seemed to be distinguishing between "canon" and "reader assumptions" and
relegating the notion that Kirk is a heroic character to the realm of
"fanon." However, perhaps I exaggerated the extent of your agreement, because
you did write,

> I find the idea of
> GB being highly canonical very difficult to accept.

I agree with you that

I really don't think "cultural icon"
> trivilizes him.

It doesn't. My point is that Kirk's "cultural icon" status is not simply an
artifact of "convention." It arises from what we genuinely see on the screen.
As Jane (Skazki) said,

> Kirk has become a cultural icon because that is a rational,
> widespread response to what we see on screen, not vice versa.

I heartily agree. And it does seem dismissive and trivializing to me to
assert that fans who see Kirk as a heroic character do so *only* because they
have been influenced by "fanon" and "convention," not because they have made
their own reasonable judgments, grounded in what they observe on aired Trek.
I'm still not sure what your position is, exactly, but I'm glad you clarified
it to some extent.

Judith

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Posting to ASCEM is easy: send your messages to as...@earthlink.net.
ASCEM messages are copied to a mailing list. Most recent messages
can be found at http://www.onelist.com/community/ASCEML.

Jungle Kitty

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Duny...@aol.com wrote:

> Perhaps it was Mary Ellen, then, who seemed to be arguing that we attribute
> qualities of heroism and nobility to Kirk *only* because we've been suckered
> in by fannish and extra-fannish convention, and not because that is a
> rational construction of what appears on the screen.

I didn't read her comment that way.

> You seemed to be distinguishing between "canon" and "reader assumptions" and
> relegating the notion that Kirk is a heroic character to the realm of
> "fanon."

Yes, I do distinguish btwn "canon" and "reader assumptions." As I've
said, my definition of canon is aired Trek, the actual events. Many
interpretation of those events are possible. I also felt the story
contradicted "reader assumptions" or "common assumptions" with the
childhood I gave Kirk and his Academy activities.

I watch Kirk and I see a hero. Others see a jerk. From my POV, Kirk in
GB is A/U. It's difficult to say whether onscreen characterization is
canon or reader assumptions or a combination of both. I believe that
"canon Kirk" (if I can be allowed to use that term) is a good man and
amazingly appealing and intriguing, and I also believe that was the
intent of TPTB. To me, Spock is rarely a sexy character; to others,
every time he appears, he's a hunka hunka burnin' Vulcan. I don't
believe that was the intent of TPTB. Canon or interpretation?

--
Jungle Kitty
http://www.accesscom.com/~jkitty

----------------------------------------------
"Literature is not a Rorschach blot."

- Jane Thompson
----------------------------------------------

Mary Ellen Curtin

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Judith said I

>seemed to be arguing that we attribute >qualities of heroism and nobility to Kirk
*only* because we've been suckered
>in by fannish and extra-fannish convention, and not because that is a
>rational construction of what appears on the screen. I don't know how else to
>read the comment by Mary Ellen that your story "Golden Boy"
>
> > does *not* IMO contradict screen
>> canon, but it contradicts convention all over the lot (not
>> just dedicated-fan convention, either -- Kirk has become
>> a cultural icon).

Nononononono. When I said Kirk is a "cultural icon" I
mean he is symbolically & emotionally important to a lot
of people beyond the core of self-identified TOS fen
(contra John Ordover, who believes that only Trekkies
care about Trek characters). Just because something is
a convention in this sense doesn't mean we've been
suckered into it -- maybe we've built it out of our deepest
needs.

I will continue to argue, however, that the heroic Kirk
is not a purely rational construction of what we see on
the screen. There is no purely rational construction
except "Bill Shatner pretending" -- everything else
contains emotional or extrarational elements. But I
see nothing wrong or belittling about that -- quite the
contrary.

Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
http://www.eclipse.net/~mecurtin/goodbook
Now featuring: Good Book of the Millennium
- - - - - - - - -
Good Book of the 17th Century:
"Hamlet," by William Shakespeare

Mary Ellen Curtin

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

JK wrote:
>I watch Kirk and I see a hero. Others see a jerk. From my POV, Kirk in
>GB is A/U. It's difficult to say whether onscreen characterization is
>canon or reader assumptions or a combination of both. I believe that
>"canon Kirk" (if I can be allowed to use that term) is a good man and
>amazingly appealing and intriguing, and I also believe that was the
>intent of TPTB. To me, Spock is rarely a sexy character; to others,
>every time he appears, he's a hunka hunka burnin' Vulcan. I don't
>believe that was the intent of TPTB. Canon or interpretation?

Abso-fuckin-lutely! To my way of thinking, all four characters --
hero Kirk, jerk Kirk, not-sexy Spock, hunka hunka Spock --
are constructs. They're made of a mixture of what's onscreen,
what we know was intended to be onscreen, our varying
Personal Entertainment Agendas, our life experiences, and
for all I know there really is a collective unconscious and that's
in play, too. That's why I no longer say that a characterization
is "canonical" -- I only call actions canonical.

I agree with JK's advice, that when you move away from
what the readers are expecting, you need to lay down that
trail of breadcrumbs -- I've tended to say, lower the activation
energy, overcome their resistance. I don't talk about
distance from canon in the same way anymore, but I never
meant to enforce a certain terminology -- just to make sure
that I knew what I was talking about, and that I was
conveying it to other people.

Ned Fox

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

At 6:31 pm -0800 18/1/00, Jungle Kitty wrote:
>I was not trying to establish an authoritative definition of canon. I
>was presenting a definition that has worked for me when presented with a
>uncertainty about how much of a reference or fill-in is necessary when
>writing a story with reference to Trek ideas other than aired Trek. That
>was all.

Exactly, and can anyone establish an authoritative definition of
canon anyway? My guess is that it's not possible. I visualized
canon just now as a Venn diagram where everyone's idea of it crosses
over with most everyone else's *to a greater or lesser degree*.

Hence one valuable aspect of beta readers - pick one who doesn't have
exactly the same views on canon as you do, and you get a better idea
of what the reading audience at large will get out of your fic (JK's
quote of "You have to explain this" being a good illustration). Pick
two such beta readers and you get twice the effect. Pick three and
you're a freakish perfectionist... er, I mean "and so on". ;)

Ned
--
"You know you watch too much Daria when you see a scheme author's
page that lists 'Christmas' and 'Halloween', and you wonder where
'Guy Fawkes Day' is." - Abigail

Jungle Kitty

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Duny...@aol.com wrote:

> In the course of this discussion, ASCEMites have made some truly heroic
> efforts to establish an authoritative definition of canon as the lodestar for
> aired Trek.

To which I must reply by quoting my original post that I think started
this whole thing:

***

(BTW, I'm not holding my breath for everyone
or anyone to accept my ideas about canon. But they might prove helpful
to some.)

***

I also said:

If you don't agree with my definition of canon, no prob. But for me,
it's been useful. When I get outside of canon, I'm very grateful when my
betas tell me "You have to explain this." It's very easy to get caught
up in our own fantasies, and it can be quite a shock to learn that you
haven't fleshed it out enough for anyone else to share it. And sharing
our fantasies is one of the main reasons we write fanfic, isn't it? :-D

So whether you want to call it canon or not, I think it's good idea for
a writer to understand where the common ground is. When you go outside
that, you should realize that you've done so and leave a trail of
breadcrumbs for the readers. <g>

***

I was not trying to establish an authoritative definition of canon. I
was presenting a definition that has worked for me when presented with a
uncertainty about how much of a reference or fill-in is necessary when
writing a story with reference to Trek ideas other than aired Trek. That
was all.

----------------------------------------------
"Literature is not a Rorschach blot."

- Jane Thompson
----------------------------------------------


jat (Jane)

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:24:40 Dunyazad9 wrote:
><lots of insightful stuff snipped>

>In the course of this discussion, ASCEMites have made some truly heroic
>efforts to establish an authoritative definition of canon as the lodestar for

>aired Trek. Respectfully, I will say that I believe those efforts have
>failed, not because of lack of ability and effort on the part of the
>proponents of this effort, but because of the nature of the task itself. I do
>not think it is possible to define and establish what is "canon" in a way
>that is more valid or more scientific than any other definition. That is
>because by any definition, "canon" can only be a construction--a construction
>in which meaning and the phenomenal referent cannot squarely be distinguished.
>
>Judith
>

I've been following the discussion though it's been a while since I posted to
it. In fact, I've saved several of these messages to read again and think
about--and all of yours, Judith. Thank you for all your comments, and
especially for this one, which I think is true.

Some time ago, reading general literary criticism of science fiction, I tried to
figure out why the definitions of SF there are all so unsatisfying, and I think
the situation is the same. There are so many of these terms which really only
have meaning *until* we define them, and isn't that strange and interesting?

Jane
---
jat (Jane)
jat_sa...@my-deja.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said, "It's certain there is no fine thing
Since Adam's fall but needs much laboring...."
--W. B. Yeats
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Duny...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Mary Ellen explained that

> When I said Kirk is a "cultural icon" I
> mean he is symbolically & emotionally important to a lot

> of people beyond the core of self-identified TOS fen.

I understand that, and I don't object at all to Kirk's being labelled a
cultural icon <g>. I was much more concerned by Mary Ellen's apparent
relegation of the concept of Kirk-as-hero to the category of [mere] "fanon."
In her earlier posts, Mary Ellen seemed to define "fanon" as fannish
convention that is unsupported by what we see on the screen. Examples would
include the concept of "bonding," which was never even mentioned in aired
Trek, or mind-melding during sex, which also was never shown or alluded to.

Thus, if Kirk's heroism is mere "fanon," then by definition it is not
supported by aired Trek but is a quality originating only in the minds and
fantasies of fans (and perhaps other viewers). If it is not supported by
aired Trek, i.e. it is not "canon," then plainly, the view of Kirk-as-hero is
less authentic, less valid, less legitimate, less defensible, less *correct*
than a reading that *does* arise from "canon." The "heroic" reading is thus
an inferior reading, an unscientific reading.

Continuing in this vein, Mary Ellen wrote,

> I will continue to argue, however, that the heroic Kirk
> is not a purely rational construction of what we see on
> the screen. There is no purely rational construction
> except "Bill Shatner pretending"

Hmmm ... are we on the planet Genesis during a protomatter outbreak or
something? Because I think the ground has shifted again <g>. In an earlier
post, Mary Ellen argued that the only true "screen canon" is <<a set of
pictures and sounds>>. Her argument now seems to be that the only true canon
is the process of producing the series'-- something you have to go outside
the "pictures and sounds" of the shown as broadcast on TV to analyze (apart
from the credits on the screen, of course; those include Shatner's name but I
do not think they actually state which character he played).

Of course, if you follow this argument -- that the only true canon is the
process of manufacturing the series -- to its logical conclusion, you would
have to look at what the producers purported to manufacture. What kind of
character did the scriptwriters intend to write? When Shatner pretended to be
Kirk, what kind of Kirk did he pretend to be? What was that "look of eagles"
all about? The answers to these questions may (or may not) be intensely
interesting to fans; at times, they may even influence our fan fiction. But
locating canon in the relations of production takes us down a very different
primrose path from the one I think we've treaded so far.

In the course of this discussion, ASCEMites have made some truly heroic
efforts to establish an authoritative definition of canon as the lodestar for
aired Trek. Respectfully, I will say that I believe those efforts have
failed, not because of lack of ability and effort on the part of the
proponents of this effort, but because of the nature of the task itself. I do
not think it is possible to define and establish what is "canon" in a way
that is more valid or more scientific than any other definition. That is
because by any definition, "canon" can only be a construction--a construction
in which meaning and the phenomenal referent cannot squarely be distinguished.

Judith

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Duny...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

jjat/Jane wrote,

> I've saved several of these messages to read again and think about

I am hoping you will share your thoughts, and looking forward to reading
them. Especially if you are in full Deconstruction mode.

Duny...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Mary Ellen wrote,

> I agree with JK's advice, that when you move away from
> what the readers are expecting, you need to lay down that
> trail of breadcrumbs -- I've tended to say, lower the activation
> energy, overcome their resistance.

As I've said in other posts, I am curious to know in what way "moving away
from what the readers are expecting" is a problem. Which writers fail to do
that, which stories suffered because the writer failed to do this? So far, no
one has identified the culprits for me. Sure, a story needs to make its own
premises and assumptions clear -- but that's nothing peculiar to fan fic,
it's just a rule of good writing.

There are almost as many interpretations and interpolations of the Star Trek
universe as there are authors-- not to mention the vast variety of A/Us,
alternate timelines and other variations on aired Trek. Truly, I do not
recall having difficulty understanding a piece of fan fic because it
contravened my expectations. I figure it's my job, when reading a story, to
be open to assumptions and interpretations of aired Trek that may differ from
my own.+ It's not the author's job to figure out what my expectations might
be. Hir job is to write a good story based on hir own vision of Trek. Part
of the excitement and joy of reading fan fiction is its willingness to
contravene our expectations, to take unexpected turns, to head in hitherto
unexplored directions.

I don't talk about
> distance from canon in the same way anymore, but I never
> meant to enforce a certain terminology -- just to make sure
> that I knew what I was talking about, and that I was
> conveying it to other people.

I'm glad to hear that.

Jungle Kitty

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Duny...@aol.com wrote:

> As I've said in other posts, I am curious to know in what way "moving away
> from what the readers are expecting" is a problem. Which writers fail to do
> that, which stories suffered because the writer failed to do this? So far, no
> one has identified the culprits for me. Sure, a story needs to make its own
> premises and assumptions clear -- but that's nothing peculiar to fan fic,
> it's just a rule of good writing.

I'm not going to name "culprits," other than myself. "The Uneasy
Dancers" contains a memory scene that takes place on the steps at the
Academy. Afterwards "viewing" this scene, Spock realizes that his love
for Jim is hopeless. In an early draft, Wildcat pointed out that there
was really nothing strong enough in the scene to make the case
completely hopeless. So I wrote the bit about Jim's friendship with a
boy who had a sexual interest in him. I was, as you say, trying to make
the premises and assumptions clear. Yes, it's a simple rule of good
writing, but it is still one that has to be learned and practiced. I
think some of the most interesting fanfic has come out of people really
looking at the "why" of "canon" or their own ideas and trying to explain
it. Some of the most forgettable have an interesting overall plot but
lack background. The actions feel superimposed b/c the writer hasn't
supplied the "why." These stories seem to rely on reader generosity. I
guess I'm too impatient or perhaps not generous enough, but every time
I'm thrown out of a story, it's harder and harder to put myself back
into it.

----------------------------------------------
"Literature is not a Rorschach blot."

- Jane Thompson
----------------------------------------------

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Jungle Kitty

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Duny...@aol.com wrote:

> In my experience reading and talking about fan fic with authors, I've found
> that clarity is less a problem when authors depart from canon, as it is when
> authors think they are simply following canon, and because they are merely
> following canon, they don't have to make their assumptions clear. They assume
> the reader can supply the background from hir knowledge of canon. The problem
> is, this often leads to stories that are incomplete, with critical pieces
> missing or "to be supplied by the reader."

I think we're saying the same thing. That's why, to me (and maybe me
alone), canon consists of aired Trek--events, actions, words the
characters say. But interpretation is something different. And the
incomplete stories with unclear assumptions to which Judith is referring
are the ones that I find myself dropping out of.

The other thing I was trying to get at can be illustrated by an example.
In Wildcat's "A Woman's Touch," I believe she included an introductory
statement saying she had based certain parts of the story on the profic
novel, "The Pandora Principle." (I see profic as outside of canon, i.e.,
not "aired Trek.") Wildcat wisely realized that many readers may not
have read that novel or may not remember it clearly, so within the
story, she recapped enough of it for us to understand Spock's
relationship to young Saavik. Without it, one of the basic premises of
the story is lost on the reader.

Duny...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Jungle Kitty wrote,

> "The Uneasy
> Dancers" contains a memory scene that takes place on the steps at the
> Academy. Afterwards "viewing" this scene, Spock realizes that his love
> for Jim is hopeless. In an early draft, Wildcat pointed out that there
> was really nothing strong enough in the scene to make the case
> completely hopeless. So I wrote the bit about Jim's friendship with a
> boy who had a sexual interest in him. I was, as you say, trying to make
> the premises and assumptions clear. Yes, it's a simple rule of good
> writing, but it is still one that has to be learned and practiced.

I agree that it has to be learned and practiced. However, I don't really
think this has to do with canon or what happens when you depart from canon.
Your example reminds me of many scenes I've read in fan fic in half-fleshed
out form. I think if I were reading your scene in its early form, I might
have reacted, "Hmm, I gather from this scene that in Jungle Kitty's canon,
Kirk is hopelessly heterosexual. But she needs to develop this concept more
and *show* him doing something that shows how hopelessly heterosexual he is."

In my experience reading and talking about fan fic with authors, I've found
that clarity is less a problem when authors depart from canon, as it is when
authors think they are simply following canon, and because they are merely
following canon, they don't have to make their assumptions clear. They assume
the reader can supply the background from hir knowledge of canon. The problem
is, this often leads to stories that are incomplete, with critical pieces
missing or "to be supplied by the reader."

I certainly agree with Jungle Kitty on this point:

> I
> think some of the most interesting fanfic has come out of people really
> looking at the "why" of "canon" or their own ideas and trying to explain
> it.

And I think that rather than reacting negatively when people say of their
stories, "this is my canon," we should commend them because to reach this
point, they have seriously thought through the "whys" or Trek and what they
find valuable in it.

Judith

Jungle Kitty

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

Ista...@aol.com wrote:

> I do not see each Brandt installment saying I have decided that Lori Ciani
> never existed.

Er, actually, she does. But anyhoo...I think it's a little different
when writing a series of stories, but you've raised a valid point. In
the first Brandt story, I tried to establish who she was and what her
prior relationship to Kirk was. I didn't know I was starting a series.
In the subsequent early stories, I believe I did try to re-establish who
she was in each and I also tried to reference the previous stories. As
time went by, she seemed to take on a life of her own, and from NG
discussion and private feedback, I got the impression that she had
become fairly recognizable. Now, since I write out of order, I
concentrate on establishing where we are in the timeline with each
story. I think/hope many of the stories can be read as stand-alone, but
there are some that are grounded in previous stories, and if a reader
just jumps into those, I think it would be like starting a book in the
middle. I try to leave as many breadcrumbs as I can without becoming
insulting to the people who have been following regularly, and when all
else fails, I put in an introductory comment. If I have failed in these
efforts, I hope the readers will tell me so. The only way I can gauge
the accuracy of my assumptions about their assumptions is through what I
hear from them.

----------------------------------------------
"Literature is not a Rorschach blot."

- Jane Thompson
----------------------------------------------

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Ista...@aol.com

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

In a message dated 1/19/00 8:35:19 PM Central Standard Time,
jki...@accesscom.com writes:

<<
The other thing I was trying to get at can be illustrated by an example.
In Wildcat's "A Woman's Touch," I believe she included an introductory
statement saying she had based certain parts of the story on the profic
novel, "The Pandora Principle." (I see profic as outside of canon, i.e.,
not "aired Trek.") Wildcat wisely realized that many readers may not
have read that novel or may not remember it clearly, so within the
story, she recapped enough of it for us to understand Spock's
relationship to young Saavik. Without it, one of the basic premises of
the story is lost on the reader. >>

So in every installment of Wildcat's or anyone else's storyline, should a
writer have to recap that same thing again and again? When I read Wildcat, or
Brandt, or Durant stories I already know what I am getting into. I either
like the universe built or I don't. I walk with my mouse.

I do not see each Brandt installment saying I have decided that Lori Ciani

never existed. Most begin by telling me nothing other than this is my ship,
my canon, my character, or my AU. I also do not see a need for anything else
than a disclaimer other than the coding: K/B or K/f or S/f or S/U, or yummy
K/S, and a good story. Those are the biggest clues you need that this is
outside of the official line of TPTB. That means suspend your preconceptions,
all ye who enter here.

I am one of those who have a problem with stories that have Kirk being a
severely abused or neglected young adult or child, mostly because I can't
really see how that Kirk becomes the Kirk seen later. But...if I think it was
a well-written story, I tell the author that it was well written and my
reservations have nothing to do with their world they are creating. Some
stories require me to completely suspend belief and view it as someone I do
not know becoming someone I don't believe in. I don't mind doing that if the
quality of the writing pulls me over the wall of disbelief.

As someone who says MY canon and will continue to use the term unabashedly, I
hope everyone will take a part of Trek and make it theirs. That way I have
more to read. ;-D I am sooooo greedy!

That's my 2 credits and I'm outta here.

It is rare that I have seen anything on this NG that is true to Pocket or
Paramount. Why? Because, thankfully, we write as adults about adult
situations and we are willing to address issues that could not be addressed
on TV in 1967. Thank goodness for change and maturity.

Wildcat

unread,
Mar 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM3/25/00
to

> Jungle Kitty wrote:
>
> > The other thing I was trying to get at can be
> > illustrated by an example.
> > In Wildcat's "A Woman's Touch," I believe she
> > included an introductory
> > statement saying she had based certain parts of
the
> > story on the profic
> > novel, "The Pandora Principle."

Thanks, JK, for using me as an example!

Then, Istannor responded:

> So in every installment of Wildcat's or anyone
> else's storyline, should a
> writer have to recap that same thing again and
> again? When I read Wildcat, or
> Brandt, or Durant stories I already know what I am
> getting into. I either
> like the universe built or I don't. I walk with my
> mouse.

Actually, I *do* sneak certain basic facts into every
single S/U story. (If I missed one, it was an
accident.) I don't assume that every reader coming in
to the series has read the preceding stories, so I'm
always conscious of establishing 1) the timeframe of
the story, and 2) what sort of relationship Spock and
Uhura have, whether "dating," on the rocks, married,
or not an item at all.

As an aside, I'm always amused when a reader finds a
way around my most sincere efforts at leaving a trail
of breadcrumbs. One person who is now a very good
friend managed to pick up a story in the middle, at a
scene where Spock and Uhura are hiking up a hillside
with Saavik and some friends. It's innocuous enough
at first, but then Spock and Uhura are left alone, and
Spock helps Uhura up a steep incline by putting his
hands on her rear end. You can imagine the reader's
surprise, not even knowing they were an item!

But anyway, the upshot of this is that I don't like to
leave the reader guessing. Some writers do that
deliberately, and many people find it effective. It's
simply a matter of taste, and no one way is the
"right" way as long as the story is well-written.

> As someone who says MY canon and will continue to
> use the term unabashedly, I
> hope everyone will take a part of Trek and make it
> theirs. That way I have
> more to read. ;-D I am sooooo greedy!

I guess that I should repeat that I have no problem
with people accepting, rejecting, and adding to what I
would call canon. I, myself, choose not to reject
anything shown on screen, but that's my simply my
approach and I've never presented it as anything else.
(Or at least, I haven't intended to. I actually have
no idea at this point who has said what, including
me.)

It's interesting that the term I use in place of "my
canon" is "my universe" (or as a variation, "my
Trekiverse"), which more than one person has stated
they don't like. So, it's obviously just a matter of
semantics, because I don't think that ANYONE is saying
we shouldn't adapt Trek to suit ourselves.

Wildcat


=====
http://members.tripod.com/~TSU_Campus/Wildcat.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages