In defense of canon

See my earlier posts on the new Star Trek films here and here. I wanted to write a response so something Leonard Nimoy recently said in this article.

But changing the "canon" -- events and characters that shape "Star Trek" lore -- could leave legions of old "Trekkies" thinking Abrams had done something "highly illogical," as Spock might have once said. Old Spock Leonard Nimoy begs to differ.

"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae," Nimoy told Reuters. "Open your mind! Be a 'Star Trek' fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

Thank you for your arm chair, psychoanalysis, Mr. Nimoy. You got me pegged. We get bitter, cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like us or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment or our knowledge of the minutiae as a way to explain our frustrations.


Here is why canon matters. To start, let's define it. There are many definitions, I'm going with this one.

can⋅on [kan-uh n] –noun

a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy

Canon is basically a set of rules. I am sure someone out there has written volumes on this, but rules can enhance your enjoyment of certain activities. Every sport, card game, etc, has rules. As a participant in any of these, you have to work within the rules to win. Poker would not be much fun, if halfway through your hand, the casino told you they have a royal fizbin, thus winning your $$$. That may not be a good example, here is another one. Poetry is is a form of art, which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to its meaning. What do you think of my haiku:

Nimoy is lame
He was once good
They should have left him dead after the wrath of Khan

What's that? That's a horrible haiku? Why? Because it doesn't follow the 5-7-5 pattern? Well, maybe you should not get so fixated on your knowledge of the minutiae. The same thing is true in a lot of other art forms. Poetry should have to work within some scheme (perhaps rhyming perhaps iambic pentameter) otherwise it is simply prose, even if it's about gay cowboys eating pudding.

Should we mention music too? There is a reason very few people listen to modern composers; not because they cannot appreciate music, but because a lot of it is, well, not easy to listen to. Compare George Crumb to any little known composer from the 1700s and I bet you would appreciate the latter more. Perhaps the work of Richard Tuttle is what you like?

My point is, art requires certain boundaries, not to limit, but to enhance people enjoyment of it. This is not universal, but one of the main things we expect when reading a work of fiction is that the universe is understandable; it takes place in a universe with it's own set of rules which must be obeyed. It's one of the reasons I (and others) like Tolkien; he created a universe which is "complete." If you start to mess with things like, oh, an entire species characteristics (hey, who knew Vulcans now wear emotion on their sleeves) it leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.

Your feedback will be appreciated.