AU or Not AU?

[WarpGirl]

Unfortunately some people don't pay attention to the lables and the author gets a that's not "canon" message. That's why from now on I leave a note so every chapter gets labled AU. But really read the lables and then it won't be a shock.

[Asso]

Back on topic, I believe it's okay to add things that are not specifically addressed in canon, or even enhance things that are vaguely defined, without being relegated to AU. So, for example, you can write a story in the 'twilight' setting where Trip and T'pol are a couple, without violating canon, since the episode is silent on what T'pol does or who she sees when she's not playing ground-hog day with Archer. I've seen fan fic to that effect, and I would not call it AU. Feel free to take what's NOT stated and run with it.

The only time you venture into AU territory is when you contradict canon. My 'Commissioning' story is definitely AU, since the events I show did not happen in the series, and if they HAD happened, everything in season four would have unfolded VERY differently. Hence AU.

And then there is canon that contradicts other canon. A story that picks one source over the other and uses it can remain canon. For example, pon farr in female Vulcans is canon, according to ENT, but not according to a ST movie. I would say a story could have either interpretation without being AU.

And then there is canon that is AU, as in 'it never happened', as in the ENT series finale.

This is the most logical and the most level-headed reasoning I have ever read about AU and not AU.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

If a fic doesn't contradict canon, I wouldn't call it AU. Missing scenes and expanded stories and things like that aren't AU per se. If they were then all fanfic is AU and the concept becomes meaningless for the purpose of labelling. If you don't like, say, ANIS for example, you can still write stories that ignores it without contradicting it, and it wouldn't necessarily be AU.

Heck, even Trek writers did that and even went further. Was Sybok ever mentioned again? Or VOY's Threshold? Or that silly warp speed limit from TNG?

To me an AU is when you deviate from canon in some way or at some point of divergence. Many fics made prior to the show's cancellation have become AUs.

But what do you call fics that takes place after Terra Prime (see, I'm ignoring ANIS) and continues the show? I wouldn't call them AUs, but what would they be called? VUs (for virtual universe)? What?

[WarpGirl]

Didn't Gene Rodenberry want to get rid of certain things that were once "canon" it's sometimes confusing. I mean the entire animated series isn't canon. So what is it? It's not identified as an AU.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Canon = what was shown in live action on screen

[WarpGirl]

Um then why is it that the animated series isn't canon? Why aren't certain movies canon? Here's my definition on canon whatever TPTB want to own up too and makes them the most money. It doesn't matter what the franchise is canon is about money. Nothing more nothing less.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Um then why is it that the animated series isn't canon?

Because it's animated, not live action.

Why aren't certain movies canon?

Um, they all are.

[WarpGirl]

No not all the movies are. Gene Rodenberry decided Sybok and that whole mess was NOT canon. Basically, canon is entirely at the discretion of TPTB. They can keep or toss anything they want, not matter what it contradicts. They do it for money, and why not? The whole point is to entertain people yes, but the main objective is to make a profit. It isn't just Trek, it's all franchises. Comics, TV, Movies, Books... They all do this. And I'm sorry animated or not, ST Animated Series was a TV show, live action? Please that is the the most wet noodle reasons I've ever heard. Which exec came up with that? It's hysterical!

[Aquarius]

No not all the movies are. Gene Rodenberry decided Sybok and that whole mess was NOT canon.

This is the first I've heard of this, other than certain execs jokingly and self-deprecatingly disavowing ST V because, face it, it was dumb as hell and they knew it. Do you have a source to cite?

[WarpGirl]

Yes but I have to dig for it again and it's late where I am. Dishes beckon, so I'll find it later OK.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Sigh! Here we go again...

It doesn't matter what Gene said at certain points. For all the franchise's history, the owners (Paramount, not Gene) have decreed that all live action seen on screen -small and big - is by definition canon. That's so that future writers knew what limits they had when writing. I didn't make this up. The franchise owners did as a reasonable way of limiting what writers had to know and stick with. And Gene was mostly out of the loop during the TOS movie era. Others were calling the shots.

Sybok may never have been mentioned again and ST-TFF may have been a whole mess, but he's still canon, and so is the movie, no matter what you or I or even the Great Bird of the Galaxy thought about it.

So everything created before Abrams Trek was created under those premises. And Abrams Trek exists in its very own "universe" and will have its own "canon" for as long as it lasts.

[Aquarius]

To help us further discuss what canon is or isn't, I visited my buddy Merriam-Webster:

From Merriam-Webster online:

c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4 a : an accepted principle or rule

So, an exec does not have to sanction something as canon or not canon; the general consensus among the fandom can be the most influential in making that determination. And, as far as I know, since the animated series was A) animated and B) for kids and not adults like TOS, few fans accept it as "canon," though profic and fanfic writers have been known to borrow from it if there were aspects they liked (ie, T'Khut) or if something existed there that filled a need and the author didn't want to reinvent the wheel...but then we all know that such borrowing doesn't make these aspects or the series itself canon.

Simply put, because it was animated and made for kids, an apparent plurality of fans agree that it doesn't need to be adhered to as canon.

[WarpGirl]

So does anyone want the link or not? I don't want to fight, really the whole thing is stupid, not for here but for ANY FRANCHISE! SW's fans holler, X-Man fans holler, any franchise has fights over this stuff and it is so stupid. The only issue that I care about is when I start writing a story and what lables I need to slap on there to keep the peace. And I freely admit that I write AU.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

So, an exec does not have to sanction something as canon or not canon

Maybe not in those general terms, but for all intents and purposes he does if he's acting on behalf of the franchise holders when it comes to Trek. It was a matter of practicality. Perceived quality isn't an issue.

All that meant that after ST-TFF was made, it wouldn't be canon to state that Spock didn't have a half-brother. But since very few liked the idea Sybok was just never mentioned again.

And again, I'm not making this up! I didn't make the rules. I'm just re-telling things that has been valid from TOS-ENT. If fans want to discard canon willy-nilly for whatever reason, then go ahead. But that's when the AU label gets slapped on.

[Aquarius]

WG--Who said we didn't want the link? Personally I'd like to see it, if you're presenting the ST V isn't canon thing as a fact. I would be curious to see any evidence you have supporting that fact. No one's hollering--all I've done is ask you to substantiate this.

KTR--I know and agree with what you're saying, but in terms of TAS, fans were disavowing it as canon even in the 70s while it was going on. As far as I knew Gene was pretty involved in getting it made, at least at first, and the suits didn't care abut ST as much as they do now, but what I know about how fans perceived it just comes from talking to people who were old enough to go to cons while I was learning my alphabet.