View Single Post
Old July 6 2009, 12:33 PM   #1
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Do continuity errors/contradictions in TrekLit bother you?

I was reading the trekmovie.com article about the forthcoming Star Trek: Refugees novel (the first novel set in the STXI universe, by ADF).

Someone asked if the new universe novels would be considered ‘canon’ Trek, and if a new era of Stuff-Fitting-Together was about to begin. Bob Orci said he has “no idea what the book will be”, which led to a mini outpouring of woe and predictions that Star Trek XII: The Re-Wrath of Khan will invalidate it with a throwaway contradictory line.

What I want to know is: Do all the contradictions in TrekLit (and TV/film Trek too, I guess) really bother anyone? Has anyone’s reading actually been ruined because Novel A said so-and-so about Kirk (or whatever) and Novel/Film/Episode B said otherwise?

Did the fact that Federation and First Contact are totally incompatible really ruin either for anyone? The various George Kirks? Early Federation history and tech vs, the entire Enterprise series? John M. Ford’s Klingons? Kirk’s knowledge of Vampires? The new, huge Enterprise in STXI? The Romulans and the Rihannsu? The Animated Series being ignored repeatedly? None of these bothered me – in fact I get a kick out of nit-picking (the casual fans nit-picking, not the creepy obsessive kind. I sometimes wonder if some scary canon freaks might arrange a book-burning one day…)

The worst I’ve experienced is a (very) mild annoyance over a contradiction, and that was because it was a modern book (where references are allowed) and the contradiction made Spock look like a dick (it was that he hadn’t spoken to Scotty since the latter’s resurrection). My annoyance lasted about 120 seconds and didn’t ruin the book at all.

Anyone else?
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote