captainjack23
Cosmic Mongoose
I thought that I'd post this here, rather than in the treads that inspired it, as sort of a one sided FAQ for newcomers encountering the recent spate of posts, and invective, about the subject.
The overall issue is this: people like traveller, like its history and scope, and want sequels and explanation. When obliged, there are often inconsistencies, often that have arisen simply as the result of another topic being pondered at length by a fan of the subject. So the question arises, in a fictional world, how does one determine what is and isn't real for the setting.
One way is to badger and pester the Author for details about one of the many projects that he or she has created, to the exclusion of all the others, generally until he becomes either reclusive or kills the character in question -or the storyline.
The other is compare what is written and try to determine a synthesis; but to do so, one must have some kind of calibration point (as it were): what is true, and isn't true as a final court of appeal.
This isn't new to traveller - in fact its a well developed field in several areas of study, of which two are useful here: History & Literature.
The short version is this, especially with regard to literature: There are three types of information, classed by their basic reliability: Primary and Secondary Sources, and general discussion (my term). Primary sources are from the horses mouth: what the author wrote, what he wrote about it, and what he feels the background is, as quoted directly. Secondary sources are derivatives of that: reports of discussion, summaries, direct analysis of the primary material by non-authoritative (thus the word) sources. general discussion is all else. Discussion of discussion, speculation, etc.
In literature, primary sources trump secondary sources, and general discussion. Period. The only recourse is to prove falsification: I.e "Tolkien never said that", or "he said that, but it was about his neighbor, not Bilbo, you nitwit. "
Secondary sources can be deemed authoritative if it can be shown that there is no contradiction in primary. Discussion is trumped by both, except, when a consensus (generally peer reviewed publication) raises it to secondary.
Note that secondary is by no means perjorative; it mainly measn, not written by the authoritative source, but deemed to be considered authoritaive. Its just vulnerable to contradition by overlooked (or, in the case of a living author) or new canon.
Note: In general, the works of dead authors make the best topic for analysis -they don't keep peskily adding to canon, or resurrecting things, or stating things about ones conclusion to the effect that one is wrong, damnit. And also, you can't easily slander the dead...
History adds another layer: that actual evidence can trump primary sources; and that primary sources can be downgraded if proven to be in error. We don't have the first luxury, and until MWM no longer is with us, the second will always be subject to revision.
So what does all of this mean here ?
The Authoritative source is the author: he has defined a set of works about traveller to be "correct" and thus cannon. These are pretty much the GDW publications, plus some add ons by the author, or direct quotes from related sources.
General discussion is ....well, all of this, fanfic, ATAU stuff, home brews, etc. fun but not to superceed canon, or take out secondary sources lightly. What is a secondary source then ? The best answer is this: published and approved of, but perhaps with caveats by the author. 1248 is canon, despite not being written by MWM -it is (AFAIK) completely appoved of by MWM; the gurps sources ? Honestly my taxonomy makes them secondary sources, and generally good ones at that (<-personal opinion; not for flame lighting). They are published and authoritatively approved -but with the caveat that they can't superceed the canon materials. Classic secondary source material: taken as true unless shown to be otherwise by explicit canon statement. But not Canon, per se.
So what's the deal ? Well, surprise surprise, there are cases where Canon in fiction and literature can contradict itself. And, the elevation to secondary source may be more contentious than realized, or less well considered than later study will indicate.
Resolving those is the issue here...it's fun for some, but contentious for others.*
My call here, and my taxonomy: If a secondary source explains an omission, it's good, and can be called canon as a general term, when I'm being sloppy. If it plugs a contradiction or error, without creating another it's good; and thus "true". If non-author based item can meet the above criteria -such as Spinward states, it is good. (Marc approved, I assume; and in any case MJM, author of 1248 (and MWM approved )certainly did. And published it, I may add)
It's not to say that there aren't massive emotive and ego driven arguments in Lit or History...far from it. But it at least gives a structure for the reader, or student to base the discussion on...which is after all, the point of any public opinion -elsewise, why worry about the rest of the world when you know you're right ?
My discussion of jump drive is/was trying to take this approach. The interstellar war books are secontdary, and largely can be regarded as canonical -except in their addion of the mass based jump effects. I say it causes more problems than it solves -others disagree. Thats the structure I intended, anyway..
* note that published errata may or may not be taken as primary -and that is a BIG can o' worms in Traveller. It's primary if an author corrects a misspelling, but not always (ref: Andory, for those i the know); if he changes his mind**, is it primary, or just another secondary statement ? or just general discusssion by him of his own work ?
**By the way -it has to be an explicit quoted change -the "clearly he means to say" argument don't fly as primary, OR secondary; and has been know to provoke lawsuits (re Oscar Wilde)
The overall issue is this: people like traveller, like its history and scope, and want sequels and explanation. When obliged, there are often inconsistencies, often that have arisen simply as the result of another topic being pondered at length by a fan of the subject. So the question arises, in a fictional world, how does one determine what is and isn't real for the setting.
One way is to badger and pester the Author for details about one of the many projects that he or she has created, to the exclusion of all the others, generally until he becomes either reclusive or kills the character in question -or the storyline.
The other is compare what is written and try to determine a synthesis; but to do so, one must have some kind of calibration point (as it were): what is true, and isn't true as a final court of appeal.
This isn't new to traveller - in fact its a well developed field in several areas of study, of which two are useful here: History & Literature.
The short version is this, especially with regard to literature: There are three types of information, classed by their basic reliability: Primary and Secondary Sources, and general discussion (my term). Primary sources are from the horses mouth: what the author wrote, what he wrote about it, and what he feels the background is, as quoted directly. Secondary sources are derivatives of that: reports of discussion, summaries, direct analysis of the primary material by non-authoritative (thus the word) sources. general discussion is all else. Discussion of discussion, speculation, etc.
In literature, primary sources trump secondary sources, and general discussion. Period. The only recourse is to prove falsification: I.e "Tolkien never said that", or "he said that, but it was about his neighbor, not Bilbo, you nitwit. "
Secondary sources can be deemed authoritative if it can be shown that there is no contradiction in primary. Discussion is trumped by both, except, when a consensus (generally peer reviewed publication) raises it to secondary.
Note that secondary is by no means perjorative; it mainly measn, not written by the authoritative source, but deemed to be considered authoritaive. Its just vulnerable to contradition by overlooked (or, in the case of a living author) or new canon.
Note: In general, the works of dead authors make the best topic for analysis -they don't keep peskily adding to canon, or resurrecting things, or stating things about ones conclusion to the effect that one is wrong, damnit. And also, you can't easily slander the dead...
History adds another layer: that actual evidence can trump primary sources; and that primary sources can be downgraded if proven to be in error. We don't have the first luxury, and until MWM no longer is with us, the second will always be subject to revision.
So what does all of this mean here ?
The Authoritative source is the author: he has defined a set of works about traveller to be "correct" and thus cannon. These are pretty much the GDW publications, plus some add ons by the author, or direct quotes from related sources.
General discussion is ....well, all of this, fanfic, ATAU stuff, home brews, etc. fun but not to superceed canon, or take out secondary sources lightly. What is a secondary source then ? The best answer is this: published and approved of, but perhaps with caveats by the author. 1248 is canon, despite not being written by MWM -it is (AFAIK) completely appoved of by MWM; the gurps sources ? Honestly my taxonomy makes them secondary sources, and generally good ones at that (<-personal opinion; not for flame lighting). They are published and authoritatively approved -but with the caveat that they can't superceed the canon materials. Classic secondary source material: taken as true unless shown to be otherwise by explicit canon statement. But not Canon, per se.
So what's the deal ? Well, surprise surprise, there are cases where Canon in fiction and literature can contradict itself. And, the elevation to secondary source may be more contentious than realized, or less well considered than later study will indicate.
Resolving those is the issue here...it's fun for some, but contentious for others.*
My call here, and my taxonomy: If a secondary source explains an omission, it's good, and can be called canon as a general term, when I'm being sloppy. If it plugs a contradiction or error, without creating another it's good; and thus "true". If non-author based item can meet the above criteria -such as Spinward states, it is good. (Marc approved, I assume; and in any case MJM, author of 1248 (and MWM approved )certainly did. And published it, I may add)
It's not to say that there aren't massive emotive and ego driven arguments in Lit or History...far from it. But it at least gives a structure for the reader, or student to base the discussion on...which is after all, the point of any public opinion -elsewise, why worry about the rest of the world when you know you're right ?
My discussion of jump drive is/was trying to take this approach. The interstellar war books are secontdary, and largely can be regarded as canonical -except in their addion of the mass based jump effects. I say it causes more problems than it solves -others disagree. Thats the structure I intended, anyway..
* note that published errata may or may not be taken as primary -and that is a BIG can o' worms in Traveller. It's primary if an author corrects a misspelling, but not always (ref: Andory, for those i the know); if he changes his mind**, is it primary, or just another secondary statement ? or just general discusssion by him of his own work ?
**By the way -it has to be an explicit quoted change -the "clearly he means to say" argument don't fly as primary, OR secondary; and has been know to provoke lawsuits (re Oscar Wilde)
