tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 19 16:47:14 2002
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
what is canon
- From: Andrew Strader <[email protected]>
- Subject: what is canon
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:46:17 +0000
- Organization: Decode
Voragh writes:
>Okrand's statements to Krankor are certainly canonical if Lawrence
>published them in KLI's journal "HolQeD" for the benefit of all
>Klingonists. If, however, Krankor merely mentioned them casually, say over
First of all, appearance in HolQeD has nothing to do with whether something
can be considered canon. The real issue is whether we can hold Krankor
accountable for accurately reporting what Okrand thinks? Hearsay has too
great a potential for corruption. How do we know that Krankor remembers
correctly what Okrand said? How do we know that what Okrand said doesn't have
a different interpretation from what Krankor gave us? If he had published a
transcript of what Okrand had told him, then of course there is grounds for
considering it canon. But there are just too many accountability problems in
considering such second-hand accounts to be canonical. At best they are
suggestive. Besides, Okrand is *supposed* to talk to Maltz first! :)
--
Andrew Strader