you forgot "in recent history" in that last sentence.
It didn't get named Beijing until the Ming dynasty.
Countdown/Novels
- Thread starter phrog
- Start date
you forgot "in recent history" in that last sentence.
It didn't get named Beijing until the Ming dynasty.
^I said "over the generations." A generation is maybe 20-30 years. The name Beijing was first established 588 years ago. I think I'm covered.
nope. it's Chinese history, 600 years is recent.
You're the one who brought the word "recent" into the discussion, not me.
We call Japan Japan, even though its true name is Nippon.
Istanbul was Constantinople.
Now it's Istanbul not Constantinople.
Been a long time gone, Constantinople.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks'.
Now it's Istanbul not Constantinople.
Been a long time gone, Constantinople.
Why did Constantinople get the works?
That's nobody's business but the Turks'.
Last edited:
when was the Polish capital moved to Gdansk from Warsaw? i didn't get that memo!!
In case you aren't taking the piss: it wasn't. Gdansk is 'only' a provincial capital.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Heh. Mad About You is a favorite of mine and my wife's, the earlier seasons in particular; something we enjoyed together when we were newly married.
We now return you to our topic, already in progress....
Same goes for my wife and me. We got married at about the time the first season ended, and we've always thought the first season or two were the best. Our all-time favourite is the second episode (the one about going shopping for a couch/love seat), because it just was our life at that point.
And um, yeah...back to the topic.
I may have brought this up in the thread before, but if one wishes to look at an example of a firm tying in more than just on-screen depictions into its setting, it would be Hasbro/TakaraTomy regarding the Transformers franchise.
In their case, pretty much anything produced by an officially licenced source is canon - indeed, there is a set of 'Universal Stream' designators used to refer to which kind of source the work has.
However, the Transformers setting is a multiverse, with millions of parallel timelines - more than enough for (most, but not quite all) contradictory material to co-exist in a broad multiverse.
That is not to say, however, that it is not possible to pick just one timeline, and hammer it out for all it's worth.
In theory, if Trek followed a similar model, one could create similar designators, and specify which timeline was which - not just for fics introducing a given timeline, but those intended to extrapolate upon it.
Thus, there'd be room enough for a highly-developed 'core' timeline, and several other realities out there in the wide Trek multiverse.
(As an aside, I wonder what kind of designator the Star Fleet Universe would have...)
In their case, pretty much anything produced by an officially licenced source is canon - indeed, there is a set of 'Universal Stream' designators used to refer to which kind of source the work has.
However, the Transformers setting is a multiverse, with millions of parallel timelines - more than enough for (most, but not quite all) contradictory material to co-exist in a broad multiverse.
That is not to say, however, that it is not possible to pick just one timeline, and hammer it out for all it's worth.
In theory, if Trek followed a similar model, one could create similar designators, and specify which timeline was which - not just for fics introducing a given timeline, but those intended to extrapolate upon it.
Thus, there'd be room enough for a highly-developed 'core' timeline, and several other realities out there in the wide Trek multiverse.
(As an aside, I wonder what kind of designator the Star Fleet Universe would have...)
The reason it's called 'canon' is because talk like this is considered heresy among fans! It's not fiction- it's future history!
Yeah, but we're hardly likely to be getting an alternate telling of the events surrounding Spock's journey into the past that contradicts the story written by the authors of the movie, are we? That'd be like writing a Voyager novel that contradicts what's laid out in Pathways or Tapestry. Sure it's possible, but it's a bit presumptive to overwrite what the original authors envisioned. I'm not trying to say that non-canon works needs to be a self-supporting structure, I think that has been admirably proven to be false throughout this thread. But if the creators of the film made the effort to create a system whereby the existing continuity of Star Trek can be maintained intact, then, knowing Trek Lit as I do, it's highly unlikely that the various reboot novels will take it apon themselves to write an alternate history leading up to the movie- it's much more likely that those events will be complemented and supported. I'm not saying you are obligated to do this, just that, as you say, the authors themselves like to maintain internovel continuity.
Then just call me Mr. Presumptive, because the Voyager part of The Brave and the Bold didn't entirely track with Pathways. (BTW, the other one is Mosaic, not Tapestry...) I didn't feel too bad about it, because there were two contradictory explanations (both brief and virtually "off-camera") as to how Tuvok found himself infiltrating the Maquis (one as part of B'Elanna's story, one as part of Chakotay's), and neither of them suited the needs of my story.
And the only "original author" Star Trek has ever had is Gene Roddenberry, and he contradicted his own vision whenever it suited him. But even so, Star Trek has always been the work of a collective, not a singular vision -- the original series was shaped by Gene L. Coon, John D.F. Black, D.C. Fontana, and others as much as Roddenberry, and all the spinoffs had their own cooks in the pie (including TNG, whose original development was as much the work of Fontana, Robert H. Justman, and David Gerrold as Roddenberry).
My personal preference, for what it is worth, would be to allow the original Trek universe stuff to just move on as it may (save for whatever we may learn in the new film about the situation in that universe). I like both the tight continuity of the current TNG/DS9/VOY era material and the earlier TOS 'stand alone' stories. Just let it be, be creative, and do as one will.
On the flip-side, I would prefer a VERY tightly controlled Abrams-verse tie-in market, where any comics and books written in this universe are all canon and will influence the movies, etc. This model becomes totally untenable if a) anything major happens in the books, b) you produce too many books in a given time, so limit Abrams-verse books to 2 a year, c) CBS elects to produce a TV series set in the Abrams-verse, I think we would have to drop such an idea.
At the moment, my POV is that with a 2 hour film, 2 prequel comics (including the Wired Magazine 6 pager) already released, 1 prequel in the offing... that isn't much to have to keep track of. Even if the studio planned a new flick in summer 2011 and Pocket was to elect to jump into the fray, if they kept their main focus on the regular line and devoted a few 'specials' to Trek Abrams-verse, (no more than 2 a year), then I think absolute continuity would be possible. Go much further than that, though, and forget it... the licensing folks, the editors, and the writers all have real jobs that require real work - not just geeking out for hours on end catching every little continuity bug.
Just my $.02.
Rob+
On the flip-side, I would prefer a VERY tightly controlled Abrams-verse tie-in market, where any comics and books written in this universe are all canon and will influence the movies, etc. This model becomes totally untenable if a) anything major happens in the books, b) you produce too many books in a given time, so limit Abrams-verse books to 2 a year, c) CBS elects to produce a TV series set in the Abrams-verse, I think we would have to drop such an idea.
At the moment, my POV is that with a 2 hour film, 2 prequel comics (including the Wired Magazine 6 pager) already released, 1 prequel in the offing... that isn't much to have to keep track of. Even if the studio planned a new flick in summer 2011 and Pocket was to elect to jump into the fray, if they kept their main focus on the regular line and devoted a few 'specials' to Trek Abrams-verse, (no more than 2 a year), then I think absolute continuity would be possible. Go much further than that, though, and forget it... the licensing folks, the editors, and the writers all have real jobs that require real work - not just geeking out for hours on end catching every little continuity bug.
Just my $.02.
Rob+
I would think this will work as it's always worked -
1) between this movie and the next, tie-in novels and comics will appear
2) The second film will be released, the books and comics will not match it
3) Half of us will say "who cares? they were good stories" and the other half will come up with increasing complex diagrams that explain how those things could match up. An even smaller percentage will argue that the next film should be set in the future of the TNG time period even though it's nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
1) between this movie and the next, tie-in novels and comics will appear
2) The second film will be released, the books and comics will not match it
3) Half of us will say "who cares? they were good stories" and the other half will come up with increasing complex diagrams that explain how those things could match up. An even smaller percentage will argue that the next film should be set in the future of the TNG time period even though it's nothing to do with the conversation at hand.
The only story written by the authors of the movie is the movie itself. The comic was plotted by Kurtzman & Orci, but actually scripted by a couple of Bad Robot employees. And K&O themselves have declined to weigh in on the canonicity of the comic. They understand perfectly well that tie-ins are not canonical no matter who writes them.
I think you mean Mosaic, not Tapestry. As not only has Keith contradicted Pathways, as he said, but Voyager's own producers contradicted Pathways a number of times after Jeri Taylor left the show. It's not "presumptive" because Star Trek is a collaborative creation, the work of many different people with many different ideas. And it's happened many, many times, even within canonical, onscreen productions, that different producers have chosen to take things in different directions than their predecessors intended, or to contradict what was written in the series bible, or to scuttle storylines that their predecessors were developing, or whatever. What prior authors "envisioned" doesn't count unless it actually reaches the screen. If it's offscreen in any form, even as a tie-in novel or comic, it's just a suggestion. It's a possibility that can be considered and either utilized or rejected. That's true regardless of who writes it. (I'm sure if Jeri Taylor had a VGR episode idea that required contradicting her own VGR novels, she would've gone ahead and done it with no regrets.)
As a rule, yes, but that doesn't mean we forbid ourselves from disregarding an earlier work if our own storytelling needs conflict with it or if maintaining continuity with it would generate more problems than benefits. What's best depends on the specific situation.
Countdown rather casually asserts a lot of things that would be seismic game-changers for the TNG novels: Data's resurrection and captaincy of the Enterprise, Picard's and Geordi's retirement from Starfleet, Worf's transfer to the Klingon fleet. If those things happen, I have to wonder, could there even be any more TNG novels? Would it still be TNG if Data were the only TNG character still serving aboard the Enterprise (since presumably Beverly would leave along with Picard)? If the TNG novels followed what Countdown established, I think that would pretty much be the end of TNG novels as an ongoing series.
As Greg Cox said a couple of days ago in another thread, if the screen canon did choose to count what happened in the books, then we wouldn't be allowed to do anything remotely interesting in the books, because they wouldn't want us cramping their style. It's good that our stuff doesn't count, because that gives us more leeway to tell interesting stories. (And I for one will never understand the attitude of some fans that being consistent is more important for a work of fiction than being entertaining.)
The best we can do is try to avoid doing anything too radical, use our best judgment to tell stories that are unlikely to be contradicted. But the filmmakers are the ones guiding the franchise and we're just guests in their sandbox, so if they want to contradict our stuff anyway, they have every right in the world to do so. Sure, they're welcome to acknowledge it too; nobody's stopping them, and as you say, at this point there's little enough material to create a problem. But it's their property now, and if they disagree with the way a novelist interprets something in it, then nobody should stop them from superseding that interpretation with their own.
I suppose it depends on how 'into' the universe you get. I remember being a kid and just being completely addicted to the books, and finding so many ways to nitpick them... incessantly! I wanted them to be in genuine continuity.
Today, I'd like it... I think the general continuity of the current crop of TNG-era books is an outstanding attribute of the series, and while I hope that it would gel with any (highly unlikely) plans to revisit this era in TV or other media, I am not going to hold my breath.
Admittedly, it's just a personal preference... and a pipe-dream at that... at the moment, it's also purely hypothetical. Until some official announcement of Abrams-verse Trek-in-books is made, everything is speculation...
As far as when Abrams-verse Trek will get the lit treatment (aside from ADF's adaptation)... well, anyone's guess is as good as mine, but I'd bet on several years down the line, not just because of lead time but because of wanting to get two movies in the can (which would be my preference if I was a writer and not a critic) to get a definite feel for the universe, people, etc., as well as to resolve any loose ends in the first flick in the second to give some parameters to a book... of course, there's my Continuity Monster attitude rearing it's ugly head! LOL!
Rob+
I'm the same way, but I wouldn't want to settle for a mediocre story just so I could fit it into continuity, and I think a brilliant story is still a brilliant story even if it doesn't fit into continuity. I like consistency, but I don't understand why anyone would define as the single overriding determinant of a story's worth or right to exist.
This is such an interesting thread. I haven't been keeping up with Trek lately but when I saw Countdown in the bookstore and saw what they did, I imagined a thread like this would pop up here. I think there is validity to both sides of the argument. Part of me wants trek lit to match up with what I saw in Countdown (especially Captain Data) and part of me understands if the writers don't feel compelled to do this since it's unlikely there will be anything onscreen to confirm Countdown (obviously, they aren't going to start the film off with Captain Data and Ambassador Picard) and who's to say that the next film or anyother future Trek project will observe the events of Countdown anyway?
For what it's worth, I liked what Countdown did with the TNG characters except for Worf (first he was an ambassador, then he was back in Starfleet for Nemesis and now he's a General in teh Klingon forces - make up your mind, Worf!!!!)
Let's face it. We're not likely to see TNG reunite anywhere other than Family Guy so I'm happy that they took liberties with them and that Data is back. If I choose to accept what Countdown did with TNG, that's up to me. If someone else chooses not to accept it, that's up to them. It's all a fantasy anyway. I think some entertaining stories can be told to line up the TNG characters with Countdown and when that happens, I think I might pick them up.
Long live Captain Data!!!
For what it's worth, I liked what Countdown did with the TNG characters except for Worf (first he was an ambassador, then he was back in Starfleet for Nemesis and now he's a General in teh Klingon forces - make up your mind, Worf!!!!)
Let's face it. We're not likely to see TNG reunite anywhere other than Family Guy so I'm happy that they took liberties with them and that Data is back. If I choose to accept what Countdown did with TNG, that's up to me. If someone else chooses not to accept it, that's up to them. It's all a fantasy anyway. I think some entertaining stories can be told to line up the TNG characters with Countdown and when that happens, I think I might pick them up.
Long live Captain Data!!!
I hate telling someone how to do their job, but I have to point out that it's consistency that can make things more enjoyable quite simply because you're not busy "handwaving" things away, and you can just concentrate on the story. It's easy for some people to say "just ignore it", but some of us can't (even if we wish we sometimes could).
To look at the opposite of that, I'm not alone in Trek reader-dom in enjoying seeing minor characters used throughout the years, even by different authors. They help create "anchors" if you will, a baseline for the reader to settle upon, so that the specific story events of the novel can throw them around as needed.
I'm fully aware that once something like Trek has grown to such a large size, it's hard to put the beast back in it's cage, but I do like the idea someone posted about keeping this new timeline in a stricter continuity.
Similar threads
