[Kerry Malone]

Should Star Trek Novels be considered Canon?

With novels like the "Destiny" series, the "Typhon Pact" series and "The Fall" series significantly redefining the Star Trek Universe - should the events in these mainstream books be considered "canon" for the purposes of the Star Trek Universe?

Discuss and vote!

[Mark Okuda]

I initially voted Yes but then gave it some thought and it became more of a grey area. One of the first Star Trek books I read was "Metamorphosis". It was a story about Data visiting a planet and during his trials there was transformed into a human and the latter part of the book dealt with him trying to adjust to his new body and then another trip back to the planet and transformed back to his android self. This book was written during the TNG series and could you only imagine how that would affected the show.

Speaking about canon in books is the Star Wars Expanded Universe and how Disney dealt with it. Before the sale of Star Wars to Disney, there were well over 40 books in the expanded universe dealing with the events after ROTJ. For the most part they all followed a timeline and events in one book were seen of talked about in future books down the timeline. Because of what happened in the somewhat 40 years after the Battle of Yavin, i can see why Disney decided to scrap that canon and put forth thier version.

[Avenger]

I say no, for continuity issues TV and film is the only way of making canon for me - however they should be considered for TV and Movie plots!!

[Adster94]

I voted yes, purely because some of the stories that were outside the jurisdiction of the series and films would be an ideal way to expand the canon, but that all really depends on the story. Some books would fit in, but others, such as the Destiny series wouldn't fit in at all, in my opinion. Purely because anything based after it would have to be along the lines of the Federation being devastated by the Borg.

Overall, I agree with Avenger, but I voted yes for those stories that could fit in the timeline and provide more Star Trek for us all to enjoy, and expand the universe that we have all come to love.

[Three of Seven]

The one problem with the books being considered canon is that it excludes some people from the story, unless they make them all audiobooks aswell! I can't enjoy a Star Trek story from the books, since I have problems reading, so I'd need it in a more accessible format to really know how to answer. I do look on Memory Beta to look at some of the things that have happened in the books, the additional story is good, but it all has to fit together with all mediums, and the more mediums you have, the more chance for error.

[Adster94]

Yeah, I do agree with that. That's he main issue with considering them to be canon, might not be possible to fit into everything.

[merTYol]

There are alot of contradictionary stories in between some book series. conflicting timelines. completely different events. its hard to do it without some kind of official standardization of the extended ST Universe. which at this point is not really possible.

[Stormy]

While I voted "No" on this, I would have preferred an option for "Some could be, others should not" or something like that. Obviously, some writers strive to stay within canonized knowledge (even when creating new concepts/ships/etc) and others use literary license to tell the story they want regardless of accepted facts concerning Star Trek. The former should be considered canon while the later could simply be recycled into new books.

[darthnovawave]

I voted no on this one. Not as familiar with the Star Trek novels, but the Star Wars attempt to make all their books part of canon was a bit of a mess over time. As more and more books were written, characters started backtracking on their character development arcs, major events had to be retconned into the continuity as new books were written at different points in that timeline like nobody mentioning superweapons, crises, etc. that happened maybe weeks or months before in the timeline. Keeping "canon" locked down to a few "authorized" sources like tv, films, etc. makes it easier to keep this under control, plus it frees up authors to not have to be overly focused on how to integrate dozens or even hundreds of other writers' ideas into their own writings. Disney's taking the nuclear option on the Star Wars EU and selectively reintroducing the best ideas on their own terms back into canon was the best thing they could do with the monster that was created over the past few decades.

[Bridger]

I also voted for no because it would create chaos.

[McGillicuddy]

I would say that any material not signed off on by Roddenberry or a direct designee is non-canon. While expanded material such as books and fan-made material is interesting, we have to look at Roddenberry's work as the only true "canon" material.

[War_Adm1ral]

While I can't say I have read any books; like some alluded too.. It appears some author or books were meant to be spin off that didn't contribute to much conflict against a characters story line. Then there are those that practically alter the reality of what the universe it. Overall I'd say no it shouldn't but some may be considered to have menial impact.

[Allan Hood]

There should be a criteria-based rubric to be met to be considered canon, then approved by ST producers that would take this seriously.

[Spaceland]

My take on this is book are like other universe of Star Trek and sometimes they can meet at some points where they have the same action happening and sometimes not.

I go with TV and Film to be Prime time and the books to be other version like the JJ universe.

But TV and Film are limited in what it can tell you about the universe. TV series can explorer more on the universe but the book can do so much to expend on the universe that the option of the maybe should be added.

[Allan Hood]

What does it take to be considered canon anyway?