Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Tom Riker, Oct 30, 2012.
Yup. The whole thing is being ignored.
Oh well, its still the best Trek novel i've read for years, the editors can go fly!
I'm glad that lots of people liked (and hopefully will continue to like) it, and touched that even those who didn't are sympathetic.
That's BS, then, because it means that parts of DRGIII's triumphant resurrection of DS9 - Plagues of Night and Raise the Dawn - are suddenly inaccurate and apocryphal too. Whoever made the decision that IFM didn't happen really didn't think things through.
Looks like I'll have to ignore this new trilogy and hope that future books don't screw over the wider novel continuity any further.
Not necessarily. It could be that some elements from the book happened similarly in the main novelverse -- kind of like how Lucasfilm handles its tie-ins when elements of them don't quite fit together.
Really, there's always been stuff about ST that doesn't quite fit together, even within any single series. See the links in KingDaniel's signature for examples. And there are a fair number of contradictions between novels in the main Pocket continuity as well. Is Boreth a lifeless ice world or a jungle world? Did Keiko really surprise O'Brien with the same news twice in Aftermath and Unity? And so on. We do our best, but some things slip under the radar.
So it's generally best to accept that what we see or read in Trek is an interpretation of events and is subject to imprecision, and not get too concerned about every last detail.
^ Based on the answer I got to my question, it sounds like the TNG ongoing narrative goes directly from PoD to TPoM, though, which does screw over PoN and RtD.
And the same thing can be said of the filmed material anyway. They mess up a little no less than you guys. It happens, no big deal.
What? That's not true at all. Paths of Disharmony ends in late October 2382. The main story of The Persistence of Memory begins in January 2384! That's a gap of fourteen months! Which, by the way, includes the events of The Struggle Within as well. The bulk of PoN/RtD fills in that gap, with RtD ending in October '83.
The answer you were given, as I recall it, was that PoD and TPoM were consistent with one another in terms of Geordi's character progression. Nothing was said about them immediately following one another.
Christopher: The intent of my question was to find out if TPoM just doesn't mention anything that happened in IFM or if the book puts Geordi back exactly where he was at the end of PoD (chronological in-universe interval aside), which is why I phrased it the way I did. I used PoD as my reference because I haven't read your book. The answer I got indicates that the latter scenario is what happened, which does have a ripple effect on PoN/RtD.
^You're reading too much into it. Remember, in PoN/RtD, Geordi was back where he'd been at the end of PoD. His stint on the Challenger was referenced, but he was still back at commander's rank aboard the Enterprise. And there's exactly zero mention of Leah Brahms in PoN/RtD. So there isn't any major conflict between that duology and Dave's trilogy, except that one makes a passing reference to the events of IFM and the other doesn't.
Ok. That sounds like the first scenario rather than the second, which changes my perception of things considerably.
Well, it's both. Geordi is back where he was before, but that was established in Plagues of Night already.
That's your choice of course, but I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice. First, because the first book was a great read; second, because I think it's more likely that future novels will follow on Cold Equations than disregard other continuity (or restore IfM, for that matter).
I absolutely loved Indistinguishable from Magic, and I hate to see that chapter of the "ongoing" Trek story disregarded as well, but sadly that's the risk that comes with tie-in stories. And really, it's not like the story of Cold Equations is all about ignoring or undoing Indistinguishable from Magic; it tells a great story about about something completely different, it's just that the elements concerning Geordi don't match.
Read it and decide for yourself.
It may not be explicitly stated, but Geordi's stint on the Challenger and promotion to Captain of Engineering, replacing Captain of Engineering Scotty infers that that part of the story took place too.
What we are left with is :
Some of it did happen.
Some of it might have happened.
Only a small part of it definitely didn't happen.
Chucking it out of continuity hardly seems worth the effort !
^ ^ You're over-thinking this.
Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that apparently the differences in continuity between IFM and the other novels are apparently enough that new books are not making an effort to stay consistent or justify inconsistencies, but I also think we the fans don't have to worry about that editorial directive. There's really nothing stopping us from saying, "As far as I'm concerned, it happened, or at least the gist of it happened."
If Leah ever turns up again in a new TNG book, there might be some 'xplaining to do.
True - I suppose I'm currently at 'it didn't work out with Leah, Nog was on temporary secondment, Scotty pulled off one of his miracles (unless he doesn't turn up again), Reg is probably back in the Voyager fleet and Guinan - who knows'. However, this could all change depending on future novels.
Surely S & S could have done that though...
Yeah. It DOES bug the hell out of me that IFM could have been kept in continuity with the addition of MAYBE a paragraph or two explaination in the new trilogy It just seems stupid.
As a side note I DO urge people to read Mack's new trillogy. It is quite good, even if I'm PO'ed over the editorial decisions.
I think the things I find most frustrating about all of this is the treatment of Geordi, and David McIntee. Geordi has been one of my favorite characters in TNG for a long time and I was really happy when I heard that IFM was Geordi-centric and actually gave him some real development. Now with no warning they've just decided to ignore the book because they apparently didn't like some of the stuff that they approved of at the time. It just seems to me like there could have been a better way to handle this just ignore the book. Then there's the way they've treated Mr. McIntee, it just seems kind of rude to me to make all of these new decisions about his book without informing him, or seeking some kind of input from him.
It's not just stuff that they approved. They ASKED FOR most of it.
Separate names with a comma.