After a long, long wait, fans of the Star Trek animated series will be happy to learn that all 22 episodes of the 1973-74 production will be released on DVD by Paramount Home Entertainment on November 21, 2006.

This is great news, of course, to completionists and Star Trek fans in general. Many of us have our own fond memories or perceptions of this show, and it's no wonder that the animated installment has been hotly contested for years as to its status within the Trek oeuvre. Are the people, places and things contained therein part of what we call "Star Trek"? It's a big question, perhaps not answerable here, but it's not without historical precedent: Just what is this "canon" that they speak of?

From the time that mankind could print religious texts, the question was asked: What is "canon," or texts accepted as genuine when it comes to documenting official history? The bible, with one standard set by the King James Version, originally contained the books that were deemed non-canon, or "apocryphal" ("The Book of Judith," anyone?). But this section, the "Apocrypha," was placed in between the Old and New Testaments to set the books apart from what were considered divine texts. Although the Apocrypha was removed from the King James Bible, you can still find some editions that include it. But for the Bible in general, total agreement on all the books and all the translations simply does not exist.

In Star Trek, canon is also an issue. When the question of what is or isn't canon first raised its head is unclear, but it is probably in connection with the content of the original novels as opposed to the TV shows, and later the movies. At the time, there was only one television show, and a series of various novelizations, original novels and comic books. The question was a natural one: What exactly is considered part of Star Trek lore, and what isn't? (And if it isn't, why not?) Perhaps the simple answer is that the books are numerous and detailed; to hold all those facts and stardates and who did what to whom when is just too much to ask any single fan to retain.

To make things easy, Gene Roddenberry stated that if it appears on screen it's canon. But in time, even Gene's theory would come under fire by his own standards. There were certain movies and shows that he felt didn't meet Trek standards. Roddenberry certainly had his own issues with the animation of the Saturday morning spin-off show and didn't consider it canon — even though the show avoided being the "Archies in Space" as he had feared.

For fans, the animated show (known simply by its on-screen name as Star Trek, but referred to now by names such as "The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek," or even abbreviated as ST: TAS or TAA) hailed the beginning of a resurgence of Trek. Supporters argue that its legacy is manifest: It featured some of the top writers of the day in Larry Niven, David Gerrold, Samuel A. Peeples, D.C. Fontana, Stephen Kandel and even Walter Koenig; it featured new characters, places and aliens; it had recurring guest stars such as Roger C. Carmel and Mark Lenard and follow-up stories to the "Tribbles" and "Harry Mudd" sagas; it came with a bona fide Star Trek stamp of approval with Gene's name attached, as well as D.C. Fontana's; and, bottom line, it was a Saturday morning show that didn't insult one's intelligence. One reviewer at the time even suggested that the animated series was too good for Saturday mornings ("a Mercedes in a soapbox derby") and should be moved to prime time! (Los Angeles Times, 1973)

Detractors have a different take on the series. They argue that the show's animation was rudimentary at best, with repeated sets and one standard overhead shot of the Bridge used endlessly. Also, a main character was scrubbed (Chekov) for budget reasons and replaced by a couple of aliens that could be voiced by Majel Barrett and James Doohan, who did the lion's share of the voices anyway. And, just as a matter of taste, some see the animated series as silly and inconsequential.

On the other hand, principal characters in the show were voiced, sans Koenig, by the original actors. Sure, you had new characters with wings and tails and three legs, and you had other imagery inconsistent with the style of the Original Series, but that was simply a part of the broader visual scope available through animation. In fact, one of the things that sold Gene on the concept of an animated series was the fact that budgets were not an issue. Also, the animated show introduced concepts that would be seized upon in future Star Trek incarnations such as the holodeck ("The Practical Joker"). And fans seem to hold as "factual" that Robert April ("The Counter-Clock Incident") was the first captain of the Enterprise NCC-1701, preceding Christopher Pike.

So the question remains, is Star Trek: The Animated Series (or Animated Adventures) canon, or not? We would like to think so, if only so we can make more work for ourselves and all future historians! At some point, we would like to start adding more information to our site gleaned from this show and have it form part of the overall collective consciousness of Star Trek. Or, do we simply leave the whole issue ambiguous and let the fans decide in their own mind what they consider canon? Put to a recent vote on the site, fans favored the canonization of the animated series by a margin of more than 2-1. Let the white smoke billow!