what is canon

[Andrew Strader <strader@decode.is>]

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