Spoilers ENT: Rise of the Federation: Uncertain Logic by C. L. Bennett Review Thread

That's what I figured. Makes sense.

I also forgot to mention that the stuff with Trip is still working well. He was the best thing about the post-series ENT novels, and I've liked how his character has changed since the TV series. I never cared much for him on the show, but the novels have successfully given him some nuance that was lacking previously. Having him around as the somewhat jaded 'Spy Who Knew too Much' provides a welcome departure from most of the other characters being regular Starfleet.

 

I always liked Trip, and it really is a well made change. But the gradual change back is even better, especially that big part of it comes from complete strangers, not his best friends, not the love of his life. I find it interesting.

Also, Christopher, I just encountered a TNG novel with the title The Haunted Ship. I don't know that you heard of it or not, but it has some element that are relevant to this era. Just to let you know.

 

Are you referring to the Starfleet Academy novel The Haunted Starship?

 

^Apparently he is. I looked it up on Memory Alpha, though, and its references are to a ship from the 2170s, about a decade later than the Rise of the Federation setting. And it doesn't sound like those references are necessarily compatible with what Enterprise later established about the 22nd century.

 

Just finished it before I left for the holiday weekend. A stellar effort from Mr. Bennett.

 

While a wonderful book as usual, I have just noticed some issues that seem to continue through out the "Rise of the Federation" novel series.

1. European Alliance
During the 22nd century, and possibly even during the early 23rd century the state in Europe was the European Hegemony and the dialog in "Up the Long Ladder" seem to exclude the possibility that the Alliance and the Hegemony were contemporaries or that one is a direct evolution of the other.

2. Sarek's birthday
Is it not too late? If I use the default years for "Journey to Babel" - 2267, age 102.437 and "Sarek" - 2366, age 202, I come to the idea that Sarek was born in the later half of 2164. While the 202 could be rounded upwards (I don't see why), the 18(Memory Beta)/16(my take) June 2165 could be valid, but it is cutting awfully close - as we used the year start and end dates.
If we use the date gained from the stardate then the birthday is a big no-go.

I look forward to being enlightened.

 

I wasn't aware of this issue. The dialogue we have is a bit ambiguous. Technically, the computer in "Up the Long Ladder" says, first, that the distress beacon was used by the European Hegemony, and second, that it was used from 2123 to 2190. That implies that the EH lasted until 2190, but it does not strictly exclude the possibility that the distress beacon outlived the EH. After all, a lot of the starships on that graphic in UTLL were DY-class low-warp vessels, which could've spent many years in transit between launch and destination. So it's possible that ships launched by the Hegemony were still active in space well after the Hegemony ceased to exist on Earth.

According to Vanguard: Precipice, "Journey to Babel" is in mid-November 2267. My own chrono has it in November 24-28, '67. Taking off 102 years and 5.24 months gives about June 18, 2165.

I'm aware of no remotely credible scheme for converting TOS stardates into Gregorian dates.

That was meant to be a geographical designation from the 31st century, one that wouldn't yet have existed in the 24th or earlier.

 

Of course the beacon was in use longer, here we have the 24th century and it is still in use. But as Picard asks for all Earth deep space launches from 2123 until 2190, with a destination in or near the Ficus sector, it seems to indicate to me that 2190 was the last time the beacon was in use on Earth, which would point to the fact that the EH still existed. (Notice how he asked for all launches, rather then only those made by the EH.)

This gives rise to the question of when did the EH exist.
According to "Sundred" in 2031 there was still the EU. While according to "The First 150 years" we have the EH in existence in 2063.
Also the 2190 seem to round to be a coincidence, but then why not wait till 2200. Is there an connection with the money-less society?

Right, I have to brush up on the TOS time placing schema. I take it that thread and site are the most current?

No, no. I meant the episode "Sarek". With the TNG stardate 43917.4 - 1.12.2366. According to Picard, Sarek is 202 years old. But he would be only 201.4 - still could have been just a figure of speech.

 

The computer only said the beacon was used by the EH. It never said it was used exclusively by the EH. Sure, if it were used by others, you'd think the computer would give a more thorough listing; but technically, it does not exclude the possibility that the European Alliance used the beacon as well.

Ultimately, this boils down to Trek itself not having consistent worldbuilding. In cases like that, it comes down to which bits you're going to favor and which bits you're going to ignore. And Markonian made a good case for why "European Hegemony" makes no sense as a label anyway.

The Federation did not become moneyless until after TOS. I can't understand why people don't remember that. I mean, TOS had Harry Mudd and Cyrano Jones. Obviously the pursuit of profit was still a thing.

And it's not like historical events stop happening in years that end in zero. For instance, things that happened in 1990 include the reunification of Germany, the start of the first Gulf War, the beginning of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the release of Nelson Mandela, and the launch of the Hubble Telescope.

 

Alright I am leaving it be, it just does not make sense to me that the European Alliance would be in existence in the mid-22nd century (I have nothing against it being established in late 23rd century/early 24th century), but not only is it too late to change it, but also to change your mind. Please note that this is just my opinion.

Also, I have to say that Markonian actually does not make a good case, please note it is just a name and I can come up with three explanations just from the top of my head why it would be used - but I do not want create story idea problems.

I let myself be lead by a misconception again. But we are talking about an artificial year after all.

Everybody knows that the money still rules the Federation, but there was still that stupid statement by Paris that "when the new world economy took shape in the late twenty second century and money went the way of the dinosaur". He made the statement and there was the mentioning of the late 22nd century. And we are still getting bound by it.


Nevertheless, thank you for explaining.

 

And he's not a historian, so maybe he was just wrong. It's a lot easier to resolve continuity tangles by keeping in mind that sometimes people misspeak and make mistakes, so what they say isn't necessarily true.

Maybe I was in error about the European Alliance, but I probably got the impression somewhere that it was around in the 22nd century, maybe in some earlier book. I really don't know.

Is it really necessary to assume the states couldn't have coexisted? All we know about the Hegemony is that it included the Mariposa passengers and therefore presumably encompassed Ireland, and all we know about the 22nd-century Alliance is that it encompassed Paris and thus presumably France. Is it possible that 22nd-century Europe was split between the Alliance and the Hegemony?

For that matter, Picard described the Hegemony as "a loose alliance." Maybe they're two names for the same thing. (Although using "Hegemony" for a loose alliance seems like a contradiction in terms.)

 

Russell T. Davies commented on this phenomenon! He said that when he wrote for drama and someone said something that contradicted a previously established fact, the audience would instantly assume they were mistaken or lying. But as soon as he moved into sci-fi, the moment anyone said anything that was a contradiction, the audience started tangling itself into knots trying to explain the contradiction, under the assumption that anything anyone said must be the truth, when the simplest explanation was just to assume they were mistaken or lying.

 

Well, to be fair, in SF, the things the characters say about their world are usually our only source of information about it, and is generally intended to serve just that purpose. So usually we expect it to be accurate.

Sometimes in my writing, I've been tempted to have characters say things that were inaccurate, just for the sake of realism, but I often decide against it, either because the audience has no way of knowing it's inaccurate (short of an awkward narratorial insertion) or because they'd think I'd made a mistake.

 

Just pre-ordered the ePub for book 4. Can't wait to read it.

A few years ago I never would have believed that one day I would be eagerly awaiting the release of an Enterprise book!!!!

 

No new posts in a while.
Wellwell, I just finished this.
A great read. I'm really looking forward to RotF 4!

 

Why do I interpret RotF as roll on the floor?

 

We'll discover the answer to that question in Rise of the Federation: Lizards, Machines, and Orions, Ronald.

 

That's going to keep me grinning all morning, a nice start to my Thursday

 

I certainly did not expect that answer. Not certain Christopher will ever use that title.