Summer 2010 catalogue details - Page 2

Admiral Buzzkill · January 7 2010, 09:57 PM

Sci wrote:

There's no restoring to be done. The attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin created a new timeline that exists alongside the original.

In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.

Lonemagpie · January 7 2010, 10:07 PM

Christopher wrote:

snakespeare wrote:

You wrote: "their solicitations are included in the Gallery Books catalogue", but I thought we were getting more than just this fake timeline Trek.

It's all fake, you know. They're just stories.

What?! It's not real? But Captain Picard just got knighted and everything - next you'll be saying there's no Santa Claus!

Therin of Andor · January 7 2010, 10:07 PM

snakespeare wrote:

It just takes older people longer to adjust to change.

It just takes some older people longer to adjust to change.

Sci · January 7 2010, 10:21 PM

Dennis wrote:

Sci wrote:

There's no restoring to be done. The attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin created a new timeline that exists alongside the original.

In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.

Maybe, but this is the TrekLit forum, where we get to have both timelines.

(And that's assuming that no one who makes future Trek productions decides to go back to the Prime Timeline. And Trek being Trek, it's probably best not to rule anything out.)

MNM · January 7 2010, 10:29 PM

DarkHorizon wrote:

^There are no other Trek releases this summer.

Which is disappointing. I said at the time the 2010 schedule was first announced, I think it would have been much better overal to mix up the books, have a TOS in january, nuTrek in feb, the first Typhon Pact book in march and then repeat etc...

Christopher · January 7 2010, 10:52 PM

Apparently series sell better when they come out sequentially, so splitting up The Typhon Pact wouldn't have happened. A similar logic presumably applies to the Abramsverse releases.

snakespeare · January 7 2010, 11:19 PM

Therin of Andor wrote:

snakespeare wrote:

It just takes older people longer to adjust to change.

It just takes some older people longer to adjust to change.

ALL older people have a special excuse we are permitted to use when we don't like something.

snakespeare · January 7 2010, 11:20 PM

Dennis wrote:

Sci wrote:

There's no restoring to be done. The attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin created a new timeline that exists alongside the original.

In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.

You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.

Dark Gilligan · January 7 2010, 11:25 PM

snakespeare wrote:

ALL older people have a special excuse we are permitted to use when we don't like something.

The only people who require excuses are those with frail constitutions regardless of age. And I'm 51, for what it's worth.

MNM · January 7 2010, 11:32 PM

Christopher wrote:

Apparently series sell better when they come out sequentially.

I suppose, I'm sure they have a business reason that they feel justifies this type of release pattern. Though I would be quite interested to see if a series of four Star Trek books really makes any noticable difference in profit if it is released every three months over the course of a year as opposed to a straight four month period at the end of it.

seigezunt · January 7 2010, 11:33 PM

snakespeare wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Sci wrote:

There's no restoring to be done. The attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin created a new timeline that exists alongside the original.

In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.

You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.

But won't, as it allows all involved to create new stories with new suspense, as we don't know how it will end.

JD · January 8 2010, 12:07 AM

snakespeare wrote:

Dennis wrote:

Sci wrote:

There's no restoring to be done. The attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin created a new timeline that exists alongside the original.

In practical terms - for TV and movies - the new timeline exists from here on out; the original timeline exists from 1964 to 2005.

You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.

Except, if I understand the science accurately, you can't destroy a timeline. It can split it off again into another alternate timeline, but whether we see it or not this one will continue to chug along in it's own little corner of the multiverse, just like the Prime Universe has been since the Kelvin attack

Lindley · January 8 2010, 12:18 AM

The description of Seek a Newer World is confusing and unfocused. Someone needs to do a rewrite on that.

I mean, as far as I can tell, Starfleet Command has assigned Kirk to keep an eye on himself, and the Klingons' stated motivation doesn't make any sense.

Christopher · January 8 2010, 12:21 AM

snakespeare wrote:

You can't know that, not unless you are J.J.Abrams. LOL! The "new timeline", which is technically an alternate timeline, can be destroyed as easily as it was created.

But what would be the point? It's not like you can go back to the old TOS cast. And let's face it, it'd be pretty silly to make new stories with 1960s sensibilities and technical limitations in the 2010s. (Sure, there are fan films that authentically recreate TOS's style, but they're not for profit and appeal to a niche audience. A tentpole motion picture franchise needs a broader appeal.) The new timeline is a license to modernize ST in its technology and storytelling while still acknowledging the continued existence of the Trek that came before.

Not to mention that the new movie was hugely successful and created a whole new audience for Star Trek. What possible reason would any sane filmmaker have for "destroying" something that's proven so successful?

JD wrote:

Except, if I understand the science accurately, you can't destroy a timeline. It can split it off again into another alternate timeline, but whether we see it or not this one will continue to chug along in it's own little corner of the multiverse, just like the Prime Universe has been since the Kelvin attack

Quite right. The filmmakers are using a model based in quantum physics, in which all alterations of history actually create parallel timelines rather than "destroying" or "overwriting" anything.

Lindley wrote:

The description of Seek a Newer World is confusing and unfocused. Someone needs to do a rewrite on that.

Someone already has.

I mean, as far as I can tell, Starfleet Command has assigned Kirk to keep an eye on himself, and the Klingons' stated motivation doesn't make any sense.

The version in the catalog is actually cut down from the draft cover blurb I saw, and apparently that sentence (the one about Kirk) was cut a bit too drastically.

snakespeare · January 8 2010, 12:39 AM

What!? Wait! Now, I'm totally cool with the something-for-everybody approach to life. So, whether or not I like it has nothing to do with whether it's true or false, good or bad, or anything like that. I really hope you guys sell a lot of books.

But TIME is not real. It is something we create in the macroscopic universe of daily experience to make it easy to guess at how things change. In reality, there is only the present.

Time travel is a science fiction writer's conceit. It exists for one purpose, to create a problem, and the problem, in fiction, is the impetus of the work. In time travel fiction, the goal is almost always to correct things that went wrong. One wrong-headed person, for good or ill, uses time travel to change the past or learn the future, and things go wrong. Then the hero(es) have a long or short adventure that eventually results in some sort of acceptable outcome.

But this is all, as Christopher was so quick to tell me, fake. There really aren't time machines. And you know what, there can never be time machines. Because there is no such thing as time.

By the way, Christopher, nice straw man there. Nobody here advocated going back to the old cast, or any such thing. Straw man, all the way. What would be the point? Why, to tell a story, of course.

January 7 2010, 10:52 PM	#21
Christopher Writer	Re: Summer 2010 catalogue details Apparently series sell better when they come out sequentially, so splitting up The Typhon Pact wouldn't have happened. A similar logic presumably applies to the Abramsverse releases. __________________ Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Includes purchasing links for Only Superhuman, on sale now! Updated 12/30/12 with annotations for the novel. Written Worlds -- My blog

January 8 2010, 12:18 AM	#28
Lindley Moderator with a Soul Location: Fairfax, VA	Re: Summer 2010 catalogue details The description of Seek a Newer World is confusing and unfocused. Someone needs to do a rewrite on that. I mean, as far as I can tell, Starfleet Command has assigned Kirk to keep an eye on himself, and the Klingons' stated motivation doesn't make any sense. __________________ Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly. "So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!" -Torg, Sluggy Freelance

January 8 2010, 12:39 AM	#30
snakespeare Commander Location: Northwestern USA	Re: Summer 2010 catalogue details What!? Wait! Now, I'm totally cool with the something-for-everybody approach to life. So, whether or not I like it has nothing to do with whether it's true or false, good or bad, or anything like that. I really hope you guys sell a lot of books. But TIME is not real. It is something we create in the macroscopic universe of daily experience to make it easy to guess at how things change. In reality, there is only the present. Time travel is a science fiction writer's conceit. It exists for one purpose, to create a problem, and the problem, in fiction, is the impetus of the work. In time travel fiction, the goal is almost always to correct things that went wrong. One wrong-headed person, for good or ill, uses time travel to change the past or learn the future, and things go wrong. Then the hero(es) have a long or short adventure that eventually results in some sort of acceptable outcome. But this is all, as Christopher was so quick to tell me, fake. There really aren't time machines. And you know what, there can never be time machines. Because there is no such thing as time. By the way, Christopher, nice straw man there. Nobody here advocated going back to the old cast, or any such thing. Straw man, all the way. What would be the point? Why, to tell a story, of course.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US