tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Feb 07 16:43:50 2000
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Canonical Klingon
- From: "Dr. Lawrence M. Schoen" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Canonical Klingon
- Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2000 19:44:16 -0500
ghItlh qurgh:
> Is the Klingon Hamlet considered canon?
Here we go again. :) That depends on the definition you're using of
"canon." Ironically, just this morning I've been asked to write an article
on canonical Klingon for STAR TREK MAGAZINE so it's a topic that I'm going
to be giving a lot of thought to in the next few days.
The interpretation of "canon" (as it applies to the Klingon language) that
the KLI goes with is simple and conservative: If Marc Okrand wrote it, said
it, or scribbled it in purple crayon, it's canonical. This has led to
distinctions between "tlhIngan Hol" (Okrand's language) and "Paramount Hol"
(Klingon dialogue from television episodes which in other venues would be
considered "canonical" sources for Star Trek matters.
Thus, the majority of the text in Hamlet is probably canonical, though some
might point to some (ahem) *creative* neologisms that Nicholas and Strader
generated in the name of poetic license. Of course, if qurgh is asking if
the other material in the book is canonical, such as the introduction or my
own "lecture" in the appendix, this then is not a question about canon as
it applies to the language, but the larger, more general, and more frequent
question of canon as it applies to Star Trek. In that case I think it's
been established that the fiction published by Pocket Books is *not*
canonical, though some people view references work like STAR TREK
ENCYCLOPEDIA as canonical, which makes this a muddy area again.
> I noticed in the copyright stuff at the front of the book that it said
> that the Klingon was copyrighted to Paramount, does that mean the text is
> Paramount's or just the words that make up the text?
There are two questions there really. The first is the larger and vaguer
question of whether or not Paramount can lay claim of ownership to a
language (and by extension anything in it). That's something for lawyers to
argue about, if anyone with deep enough pockets ever wants to contest their
claim.
The simpler question is what the copyright means. It means the same thing
as any other copyright of a book would. The KLI transferred certain (but by
no means all) rights to Pocket Books in exchange for certain other
considerations. I think we did the right thing, as we could only afford to
print a thousand copies and have no real distribution available to us.
Pocket printed thousands of copies and put the book in hundreds (maybe
thousands?) of stores in the country. We can't buy that kind of publicity.
On the other hand, we were willing to let Pocket *pay* us for that kind of
publicity. It's the same logic behind my writing articles for the popular
magazines: the KLI simply cannot afford advertising space in them. I know,
I've inquired. A display ad in a magazine like STAR TREK COMMUNICATOR would
cost more than we spend to publish a year's worth of HolQeD. And yet, the
upcoming issue of STC should include a 2500 word article about THE KLINGON
HAMLET, complete with photographs of Klingons acting out the final scene.
Similarly, the issue of STAR TREK MAGAZINE coming out in two weeks features
a lengthy interview with me discussing the new book.
The result of all these things, the articles, the interviews, should be
greater exposure for the language and for the KLI. I think we've done good.
Lawrence