What happened to the timeline of post Nemesis novels?

[Angry Fanboy]

I think Stargate, Rockford Files, Gilligan's Island is likely an analogy too far, since those are obviously not intended to mesh together in the same way as the Star Trek books are clearly intended to mesh with the Star Trek TV shows.

The novels can be and are enjoyed regardless of whether they line up exactly with what's seen on TV, but I think the majority of readers are looking for the books to remain consistent wherever possible.

 

[Christopher]

I think Stargate, Rockford Files, Gilligan's Island is likely an analogy too far, since those are obviously not intended to mesh together in the same way as the Star Trek books are clearly intended to mesh with the Star Trek TV shows.

Define "too far." When experiencing fiction, we answer to no one but ourselves. We're free to choose how we interpret things; it's 100% up to us. So there are no limits preventing you from keeping different interpretations of a fictional franchise separate in your mind. For me, treating DC's Trek continuity, Pocket's novelverse, and other Trek sub-continuities separate is no harder than keeping Batman: The Animated Series and Batman '66 separate. It's all equally fictional. It's all just pretending. Pretending is something we all do instinctively as children. It's when we grow up and get obsessed with imposing inflexible rules on everything that we forget how naturally it came to us.

The novels can be and are enjoyed regardless of whether they line up exactly with what's seen on TV, but I think the majority of readers are looking for the books to remain consistent wherever possible.

Sure, and so do I -- whenever possible. But that doesn't mean it has to be hard to turn it off otherwise. It's just a question of adapting your approach to different situations as needed. Which is true of everything in life.

 

[Angry Fanboy]

Define "too far." When experiencing fiction, we answer to no one but ourselves. We're free to choose how we interpret things; it's 100% up to us. So there are no limits preventing you from keeping different interpretations of a fictional franchise separate in your mind. For me, treating DC's Trek continuity, Pocket's novelverse, and other Trek sub-continuities separate is no harder than keeping Batman: The Animated Series and Batman '66 separate. It's all equally fictional. It's all just pretending. Pretending is something we all do instinctively as children. It's when we grow up and get obsessed with imposing inflexible rules on everything that we forget how naturally it came to us.




Sure, and so do I -- whenever possible. But that doesn't mean it has to be hard to turn it off otherwise. It's just a question of adapting your approach to different situations as needed. Which is true of everything in life.

I'm simply of the opinion that the majority of the Star Trek book-buying public, myself included, are looking for the stories they read to remain consistent wherever possible. Where a story does become contradicted by a newer iteration of the show, while the story can still be enjoyed it does (again in my opinion) rob the story of some it's relevancy.

Broadly speaking I think we can all agree that what we see on screen is what DID happen (as far as that takes us in a fictional universe).

This isn't to say people can't still enjoy the various relaunch and late 24th century novels for what they are - who'd ever have thought these TNG and VOY characters would return to the screen twenty years after their last appearances and start contradicting the books?

 

[jaime]

Define "too far." When experiencing fiction, we answer to no one but ourselves. We're free to choose how we interpret things; it's 100% up to us. So there are no limits preventing you from keeping different interpretations of a fictional franchise separate in your mind. For me, treating DC's Trek continuity, Pocket's novelverse, and other Trek sub-continuities separate is no harder than keeping Batman: The Animated Series and Batman '66 separate. It's all equally fictional. It's all just pretending. Pretending is something we all do instinctively as children. It's when we grow up and get obsessed with imposing inflexible rules on everything that we forget how naturally it came to us.




Sure, and so do I -- whenever possible. But that doesn't mean it has to be hard to turn it off otherwise. It's just a question of adapting your approach to different situations as needed. Which is true of everything in life.

I’m very good at pretending. First I was asked to pretend continuity mattered to follow the novels, now I have to pretend my own ending, and pretend continuity doesn’t matter after all. I will now pretend to read the novels, as for some reason I can’t use pretend money to pay for them.

The good news is, in my ending, the prophets use that machine thingy to reboot the timeline: control never existed, DS9 is still an old mining station, Ezri and Bashir are still a thing, Worfs genitals no longer convey the death curse, Data went back to Starfleet after he got better from being dead... All in all, I just saved a billion odd pretend lives.

If it helps, I will spend lots of pretend money pretending to buy all the new pretend books that come out, and will pretend I am intellectually invested in them all. God knows I was faking it by the end on some of those books anyway. Just a shame about the good ones.

 

[jaime]

I'm simply of the opinion that the majority of the Star Trek book-buying public, myself included, are looking for the stories they read to remain consistent wherever possible. Where a story does become contradicted by a newer iteration of the show, while the story can still be enjoyed it does (again in my opinion) rob the story of some it's relevancy.

Broadly speaking I think we can all agree that what we see on screen is what DID happen (as far as that takes us in a fictional universe).

This isn't to say people can't still enjoy the various relaunch and late 24th century novels for what they are - who'd ever have thought these TNG and VOY characters would return to the screen twenty years after their last appearances and start contradicting the books?

I just would have liked a bit of wrapping up in what they did have left. Some attempt, some effort.

I think I would have also preferred it if the TV iteration hadn’t slavishly followed the Star Wars fórmula by just mining the books and other media. I had already read or played some version of far too many things that turned up in the new series. (Both of them)

 

[F. King Daniel]

In the years prior to the release of Discovery I got through the Star Trek drought by reading the post nemesis novels of Star Trek Titan, TNG, DS9 etc. They told truly wonderful stories and they showed the evolvement of the Star Trek universe, the rise and fall of powers and alliances and federation presidents from 2379 to 2387. They developed the well known characters and introduced interesting new ones. But after watching Picard I was really stunned to learn that all this never happened. Or did I missunderstand something? The dissolvement of the borg collective in Star Trek Destiny - never happened. The resurrection of Data by taking over Noonien Soongs own android avatar - never happened. The unmasking and destruction of Section 31 and Picard's related court martial - never happened. Will Riker becoming admiral - never happened. I just don't understand why. They could have easily piggy bagged the Star Trek Picard story on that with a few minor modifications. Instead they wiped out this timeline in a heartbeat. And when I look into the planned releases of novels this year it seems that these stories won't be continued at all. Very sad and again. Why?
Again - did I miss something? Is there a third timeline beside the main one and the Kelvin timeline? Does someone has any explanation?

ME: Watches Picard

MY BOOKSHELF:

Seriously though, I love the Trek novelverse, but like the old Star Wars EU, and the old interconnected 80's Trek novels and comics, the canon has taken a very different direction. I'd really like it if the novelverse had it's unique plotlines and characters all tied up in some fashion before all novels adhere to the new Picard-continuity. But it remains to be seen if that's going to happen.

As others have said, canon has no bearing on enjoyment. I loved Data's novelverse resurrection and new life, but I really liked what Picard did with the character as well. Similarly, I loved what DC comics did with the TOS crew after Wrath of Khan and I liked the subsequent movies' version of events also. To me it's no different than different versions of the Batman mythology in TV and film.

 

[Christopher]

I'm simply of the opinion that the majority of the Star Trek book-buying public, myself included, are looking for the stories they read to remain consistent wherever possible.

And as I literally just said, I agree with that -- wherever possible. But we're talking about how we cope when it isn't. Better to adapt to it than just whine about things not being perfect. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

This isn't to say people can't still enjoy the various relaunch and late 24th century novels for what they are - who'd ever have thought these TNG and VOY characters would return to the screen twenty years after their last appearances and start contradicting the books?

I did. I've seen it happen before, when TNG came along and rendered the '80s books and comics obsolete. It's always a possibility in any ongoing franchise, and it should always be expected as a possibility.

Heck, obsolescence is inevitable in all science fiction, from new scientific developments or just from the calendar catching up.

 

[Vger23]

It's all fiction, so any strong feelings about continuity, canon, or "what universe" is just going to sap the joy out of the experience.

Good stories are good stories. Enjoy them where you can get them.

 

[Tuskin38]

Actually it's exactly the opposite reason. When Disney acquired SW, they decided they wanted everything to be a single consistent continuity

According to one of the members of the Story Group, the decision to do that was decided before the Disney bought the company. It just wasn't implemented until after.

 

[The Wormhole]

who'd ever have thought these TNG and VOY characters would return to the screen twenty years after their last appearances and start contradicting the books?

Regardless of whether or not specific characters returned or not, the minute Trek returned to the screen, it should have been expected the novels would be contradicted. Sure, things aligned nicely at first to keep the novels safe. When Star Trek returned to the movie screen in 2009 it was a newly created alternate timeline leaving the novels safe, and when it returned to the TV screens in 2017 it was in the 23rd century leaving the 24th century novel continuity relatively safe. But it was always known that if/when the 24th century, specifically the post-Nemesis time period was revisited on screen, the novels and their continuity would be abandoned. It's happened plenty of times before, most infamously with the Star Wars EU in 2014, but also the novel continuity Doctor Who built up during the show's "wilderness years" of the 90s was abandoned once that show came back in 2005, and as already mentioned Star Trek already abandoned its own novel continuity in the 1980s when TNG premiered. There was absolutely no reason to expect otherwise of the current novel continuity when Picard returned.

And then there's the fact no one else in the Trek franchise even follows the novel continuity. STO doesn't. IDW's comics don't. The "in-universe non-fiction" books by David Goodman (History of the Federation and the Kirk and Picard autobiographies) don't. Even Star Trek novels published by Pocket Books written by William Shatner didn't follow the main continuity. So why does every get worked up just because Picard the show didn't?

Honestly, the whole reaction to the nullification of the novel continuity makes me think there should be a version of the Dean Lewis song Be Alright to got with it. "I know you love them, but it's over, mate. Doesn't matter put the book away."

 

[Angry Fanboy]

Even Star Trek novels published by Pocket Books written by William Shatner didn't follow the main continuity.

The funny thing about the Shatnerverse books is that they're SO outlandish (other than The Ashes Of Eden) that they don't even register on my radar continuity-wise!

 

[Christopher]

And then there's the fact no one else in the Trek franchise even follows the novel continuity. STO doesn't. IDW's comics don't. The "in-universe non-fiction" books by David Goodman (History of the Federation and the Kirk and Picard autobiographies) don't. Even Star Trek novels published by Pocket Books written by William Shatner didn't follow the main continuity. So why does every get worked up just because Picard the show didn't?

Trek tie-ins tend to follow the principle of "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations." Overall, continuity has been the exception rather than the rule; there have been pockets (so to speak) of continuity here and there, consistent(ish) within themselves yet not with one another, and that consistency has been more of an option than a rigid mandate. In more than a decade and a half of writing Pocket Trek, nobody's ever told me "You have to stay consistent with what other novelists are doing." I just wanted to. Sharing a continuity is something the authors and editors have done because we enjoyed it, not because we were required to (aside from being required to stay consistent with screen canon, of course). So it's always been an option to do stories outside the novel continuity, like the Shatnerverse or the Crucible trilogy or various TOS novels and e-novellas over the past decade.

 

[fireproof78]

The novels can be and are enjoyed regardless of whether they line up exactly with what's seen on TV, but I think the majority of readers are looking for the books to remain consistent wherever possible.

The only consistency I'm looking for is consistency of characters and setting, not continuity maintained.

 

[Angry Fanboy]

The only consistency I'm looking for is consistency of characters and setting, not continuity maintained.

Absolutely. Everyone is looking for different things and that's fine.

 

[Arpy]

It’s kind of too bad there couldn’t be a final book in each series to cap it off in some way...an “All Good Things...” instead of the “Turnabout Intruders” they’ve all been made. But then I’ve still got part of my soul partitioned off for an Ascendents finale.

Honestly, I don’t see why we can’t just have each book be it’s own universe in the multiverse. Maybe some books tue into each other, maybe they don’t...just present it in an interesting way (no cheating), and nuts to the rest of it.

Or, heck, maybe it would have been interesting to see the different abandoned continuities intersect in a multiverse special of some kind.

 

[Christopher]

Honestly, I don’t see why we can’t just have each book be it’s own universe in the multiverse. Maybe some books tue into each other, maybe they don’t...just present it in an interesting way (no cheating), and nuts to the rest of it.

Tie-ins have to consider the general audience. Any new Trek series will bring in new viewers who've never read the tie-ins before but are curious about the ones that connect to the new show. So the tie-ins need to be recognizable to them, to connect to the version of the series that drew them in to begin with. If they find that the books are set in a version of the reality they don't recognize, one that directly contradicts what they see onscreen, that will just be confusing and off-putting to them.

Some years back, we did the Myriad Universes series that was expressly depicting alternate continuities, but they were ones that branched off from changes to recognizable events in the screen continuity. And that series didn't last as long as we hoped it would, suggesting that the market for it was limited.

 

[Ketrick]

Tie-ins have to consider the general audience. Any new Trek series will bring in new viewers who've never read the tie-ins before but are curious about the ones that connect to the new show. So the tie-ins need to be recognizable to them, to connect to the version of the series that drew them in to begin with. If they find that the books are set in a version of the reality they don't recognize, one that directly contradicts what they see onscreen, that will just be confusing and off-putting to them.

Some years back, we did the Myriad Universes series that was expressly depicting alternate continuities, but they were ones that branched off from changes to recognizable events in the screen continuity. And that series didn't last as long as we hoped it would, suggesting that the market for it was limited.

Those are good points. However, couldn't there be some crossover event that ends the novels' continuity and rewrites reality to fit canon or perhaps a Crisis on Infinite Earths-like event that was cross media with the same goal in mind?

 

[Christopher]

Those are good points. However, couldn't there be some crossover event that ends the novels' continuity and rewrites reality to fit canon?

There theoretically could be, but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. I don't think there's any precedent for such a thing in any past tie-ins. It didn't happen with Star Wars, even though the supposed "canon" status of its tie-ins was made such a big deal of until it wasn't. And Trek tie-ins, as discussed already, have never had any overall consistency to begin with, and no attempt has ever been made to reconcile or justify the numerous different continuities.

Frankly, fandom today has become unhealthily obsessed with continuity. It's not the overriding priority of fiction. It's an option. It's nice when you have it, and personally I love it, but the modern preoccupation with it as some absolute requirement has gotten totally out of hand. It's like dessert. It's a nice bonus to have, but you can have a complete and satisfying experience without it.

 

[Kor]

In the years prior to the release of Discovery I got through the Star Trek drought by reading the post nemesis novels of Star Trek Titan, TNG, DS9 etc. They told truly wonderful stories and they showed the evolvement of the Star Trek universe, the rise and fall of powers and alliances and federation presidents from 2379 to 2387. They developed the well known characters and introduced interesting new ones. But after watching Picard I was really stunned to learn that all this never happened. Or did I missunderstand something? The dissolvement of the borg collective in Star Trek Destiny - never happened. The resurrection of Data by taking over Noonien Soongs own android avatar - never happened. The unmasking and destruction of Section 31 and Picard's related court martial - never happened. Will Riker becoming admiral - never happened. I just don't understand why. They could have easily piggy bagged the Star Trek Picard story on that with a few minor modifications. Instead they wiped out this timeline in a heartbeat. And when I look into the planned releases of novels this year it seems that these stories won't be continued at all. Very sad and again. Why?
Again - did I miss something? Is there a third timeline beside the main one and the Kelvin timeline? Does someone has any explanation?

The books are not canon, so nothing in them ever really happened anyway.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

The books are not canon, so nothing in them ever really happened anyway.

The canon didn't "really happen" either! IT'S FICTION!!!!!!!