Countdown/Novels

[Christopher]

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.

Key word: "can." Not "has to."

Besides, why even try to "handwave?" Why not just accept that a story isn't part of the same "reality" as another story and doesn't have to be forced into consistency? When I watch Batman: The Animated Series, I don't try to force it into consistency with the Batman comic books, because I know it's not meant to be in the same reality and I can just enjoy it as an independent, alternative take on Batman. Consistency is good when there's supposed to be consistency, but there's no reason why every story based on a certain franchise has to be in the exact same continuity. There can be one set of works that are consistent with one another, and other works that aren't consistent with those. I'm all in favor of consistency, but there's room for other approaches as well.

 

[Sci]

(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.)

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.

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.

It's like this:

Every time I read Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I get mildly irritated. Why? Because when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recalls the first time he met the Minister for Magic, Cornelius Fudge, he remembers Fudge telling him that his male predecessor had tried to throw Fudge out of the window, thinking Fudge to be a hoax from the Opposition.

Why does this bother me? It bothers me because Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince takes place in 1996. In 1996, John Major was Prime Minister. His predecessor was Margaret Thatcher.

Ergo, every time I read Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I get irritated, because that detail interferes with my suspension of disbelief. That is to say: I like, when I'm reading Harry Potter, to pretend to myself that it's all absolutely real, that the events of the series occurred simultaneously with real history as it actually unfolded between 1991 and 1998, and that if we could only get past that darned Ministry of Magic, by jove, we'd get to visit Hogwarts, too. And when I see a detail in the Harry Potter world that contradicts real life, that interferes with my ability to pretend that it's real.

For a lot of people, apparently, any inconsistency within the Trekverse interferes with their ability to pretend that it's real.

Now, I know full well that my reaction is not particularly rational, and that I shouldn't let it get in the way of enjoying -- or telling -- a good story. And in point of fact, that's how I try to regard things like the Arthurian legend. But I do at least understand the impulse to put everything into a giant box. I think it's bad and arbitrary and limits creativity -- but I'd be lying to say I don't sometimes have that urge, too.

 

[Stevil2001]

Besides, why even try to "handwave?" Why not just accept that a story isn't part of the same "reality" as another story and doesn't have to be forced into consistency? When I watch Batman: The Animated Series, I don't try to force it into consistency with the Batman comic books, because I know it's not meant to be in the same reality and I can just enjoy it as an independent, alternative take on Batman.

I think the difference there is that Batman: The Animated Series makes no pretense to being set in the same continuity as anything other than Batman: The Animated Series. Pocket's novels, however, are in continuity with the television shows and movies. Therefore, they are set in the same "fictional reality" as the television shows and movies. IDW's comics are also in continuity with the television shows and movies. Therefore, they are set in the "fictional reality" as the television shows and movies. It seems pretty reasonable to me that a reader would expect that if A and B connect, and B and C connect, then A and C would also connect.

 

[William Leisner]

Ergo, every time I read Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I get irritated, because that detail interferes with my suspension of disbelief. That is to say: I like, when I'm reading Harry Potter, to pretend to myself that it's all absolutely real, that the events of the series occurred simultaneously with real history as it actually unfolded between 1991 and 1998, and that if we could only get past that darned Ministry of Magic, by jove, we'd get to visit Hogwarts, too. And when I see a detail in the Harry Potter world that contradicts real life, that interferes with my ability to pretend that it's real.

So, a world full of wizards, dragons, giants, phoenixes, etc. -- no problem. But a world in which an unnamed past politician had a penis instead of a vagina -- that's where you throw up your hands and say, "Whoa! How am I supposed to believe that nonsense!"?

 

[LightningStorm]

It seems pretty reasonable to me that a reader would expect that if A and B connect, and A and C connect, then A and C would also connect.

Yes if A&C connect I'd expect A&C to continue to connect

lol...

..I knew what you meant, just thought it was a funny typo.

 

[Sci]

Ergo, every time I read Chapter 1 of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I get irritated, because that detail interferes with my suspension of disbelief. That is to say: I like, when I'm reading Harry Potter, to pretend to myself that it's all absolutely real, that the events of the series occurred simultaneously with real history as it actually unfolded between 1991 and 1998, and that if we could only get past that darned Ministry of Magic, by jove, we'd get to visit Hogwarts, too. And when I see a detail in the Harry Potter world that contradicts real life, that interferes with my ability to pretend that it's real.

So, a world full of wizards, dragons, giants, phoenixes, etc. -- no problem.

Of course not. The Ministry is just hiding them.

But a world in which an unnamed past politician had a penis instead of a vagina -- that's where you throw up your hands and say, "Whoa! How am I supposed to believe that nonsense!"?

Exactly!

Like I said, I know it's irrational, but I do understand the "put it into a box" mentality.

 

[Stevil2001]

It seems pretty reasonable to me that a reader would expect that if A and B connect, and A and C connect, then A and C would also connect.

Yes if A&C connect I'd expect A&C to continue to connect

lol...

..I knew what you meant, just thought it was a funny typo.

It's not a typo, actually. My train of thought got derailed; when I started the sentence it was going to be A/B & A/C = B/C, and then I changed my mind halfway through. I'm a genius like that.

 

[William Leisner]

So, a world full of wizards, dragons, giants, phoenixes, etc. -- no problem.

Of course not. The Ministry is just hiding them.

Well, then, just tell yourself the Ministry was hiding "Margaret's" penis. Problem solved!

 

[Trent Roman]

Thatcher was assassinated shortly after beginning her term by a dark wizard angry that she had reneged on a pact. To prevent the ensuing public relations scandal, the rest of her term was served out by Prince Charles chugging polyjuice potion.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[K-Star]

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!!!

I think I tried to say something similar either earlier in this thread or somewhere else... Why does there need to be such a big fight over who accepts what as fitting in with continuity? I, for one, will consider Countdown to fit with the overall continuity as I see it (and will have my dad read it too before we go see the movie, and I bet he'll feel the same way I do), and I do the same for any other novel or comic I enjoy, while generally ignoring the ones I dislike and pretending they never happened. I'm sure others do the same thing too. Really, y'all... it's all fiction! Why make such a big deal out of it?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I want a sequel to Countdown. Not the movie. A 24th-century sequel. Where the comic ends, there's a lot that can happen. Bad shit just happened to Worf. But even worse than that -- Romulus is gone. What effect does this have on the balance of power in the 24th-century?

If IDW doesn't chronicle what happens in the 24th-century after Spock destroys the Hobus supernova, I certainly hope that Pocket does.

 

[Stevil2001]

Thatcher was assassinated shortly after beginning her term by a dark wizard angry that she had reneged on a pact. To prevent the ensuing public relations scandal, the rest of her term was served out by Prince Charles chugging polyjuice potion.

Man, J. K. really missed a trick by not doing this, didn't she?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It seems pretty reasonable to me that a reader would expect that if A and B connect, and B and C connect, then A and C would also connect.

I dunno. I've long since given up trying to fit together the eighth Doctor audios, novels, and comics. That way lies madness.

 

[Stevil2001]

Oh, that's obvious!

- TV Movie
- novels phase 1 (The Eight Doctors through Interference)
- audios phase 1 (Storm Warning through The Girl Who Never Was)
- novels phase 2 (Interference through The Gallifrey Chronicles)
- DWM comics
- audios phase 2 (Blood of the Daleks through ???)

 

[Christopher]

I think the difference there is that Batman: The Animated Series makes no pretense to being set in the same continuity as anything other than Batman: The Animated Series. Pocket's novels, however, are in continuity with the television shows and movies. Therefore, they are set in the same "fictional reality" as the television shows and movies. IDW's comics are also in continuity with the television shows and movies. Therefore, they are set in the "fictional reality" as the television shows and movies. It seems pretty reasonable to me that a reader would expect that if A and B connect, and B and C connect, then A and C would also connect.

Well, if I write a novel set in New Orleans the year after Hurricane Katrina and depict a certain set of events, and then someone else writes an unrelated novel set in New Orleans the year after Hurricane Katrina and depicts a completely contradictory set of events, they both branch off from the same reality, but obviously represent different fictional extrapolations from that reality. Onscreen Trek is presumed to be a consistent "reality," but tie-in novels and comics are essentially speculative fiction about events in that "reality." They're things that might happen in the Trek universe, not things that definitively do happen. You wouldn't demand that every novel written about the aftermath of Katrina be forced into some uniform continuity, would you?

Besides, the "reality" of Star Trek is one that explicitly includes alternate timelines. If you're determined to treat the novels and comics as "real," why not just see the incompatible ones as existing in alternate time tracks? Just treat them retroactively as Myriad Universes tales.

 

[K-Star]

If you're determined to treat the novels and comics as "real," why not just see the incompatible ones as existing in alternate time tracks?

Exactly!!!!

 

[Stevil2001]

Well, if I write a novel set in New Orleans the year after Hurricane Katrina and depict a certain set of events, and then someone else writes an unrelated novel set in New Orleans the year after Hurricane Katrina and depicts a completely contradictory set of events, they both branch off from the same reality, but obviously represent different fictional extrapolations from that reality. Onscreen Trek is presumed to be a consistent "reality," but tie-in novels and comics are essentially speculative fiction about events in that "reality." They're things that might happen in the Trek universe, not things that definitively do happen. You wouldn't demand that every novel written about the aftermath of Katrina be forced into some uniform continuity, would you?

No, and that's because reality is a different thing from Star Trek.

 

[Christopher]

No, and that's because reality is a different thing from Star Trek.

Exactly. ST isn't real. It's all completely made up. So what difference does it make if one made-up story contradicts another made-up story? People who get preoccupied with Trek continuity, who demand that it all be consistent, do so because they want to think of it as "real." So if they're able to see the Trek TV shows as real, why is it so impossible to think of Trek novels and comics as fiction based on that "reality," the same way we'd think of ordinary works of fiction extrapolated from our reality?

There are many ways to adapt one's mind to the idea of different works of tie-in fiction being inconsistent with one another. It's just a matter of being willing to adapt to that reality. And that's the one thing in this discussion that is unambiguously real: the fact that all ST tie-in fiction never has been completely consistent and never will.

 

[DimesDan]

So, a world full of wizards, dragons, giants, phoenixes, etc. -- no problem.

Of course not. The Ministry is just hiding them.

Well, then, just tell yourself the Ministry was hiding "Margaret's" penis. Problem solved!

Oh I'm sure there are plenty of Lefties (including myself) who could buy that given the way she was throughout her region.

As for when the opening chapter of Half Blood Prince is, I thought it was mid 1997 and thus Tony Blair not 1996 and the cricket loving numpty John Major.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

- TV Movie
- novels phase 1 (The Eight Doctors through Interference)
- audios phase 1 (Storm Warning through The Girl Who Never Was)
- novels phase 2 (Interference through The Gallifrey Chronicles)
- DWM comics
- audios phase 2 (Blood of the Daleks through ???)

Isn't that roughly Andrew Kearley's suggested order?

I have a few objections to putting the DWM comics after GalliChron. The eighth Doctor isn't traumatized in the early DWM comics; if anything, I think the DWM eighth Doctor is probably the most innocent version of the character. Oh, and the nuking of the gothic cathedral control room in GalliChron poses problems with Eight/Izzy using it if those stories come after.

I can sort of see how a bunch of stories can happen in the middle of Interference, though. It's the way the framing sequence for the book is set up. But I don't see the Doctor ditching the "new" Fitz and Compassion for an extended period of time to joyride around with Charlie.

And I'm not really a fan of stuffing things into the three year gap inside Vampire Science.

I could see the Doctor having an extended series of adventures during the "Search for Sam" sequence. Maybe around the time of Legacy of the Daleks. And much of The Flood (collection, not the storyline specifically) can come at any point late in the eighth Doctor's life. I like the idea that The Flood comes late, just because it was intended as the Eight-to-Nine regeneration story.

I wonder if The Company of Friends is going to codify the order in which the eighth Doctor travelled with Izzy, Fitz, and Mary Shelley. I actually hope it's vague. I also hope there's UST with Benny.