A Trek-lit equivalent of TF-style Universal Stream designators?

[Nerroth]

Hi.


This is something I tried to mention before, but was somewhat lost in the crowd elsewhere.


With the likes of the Mirror Universe, the Myriad Universes, the divergence sparked by the new movie, and the differences between the fiction works created by IDW in comparison to Pocket Books, there are a number of alternate timelines and realities out there in Trek literature.


In order to quantify this, I was wondering if there could be scope for working out an equivalent of the Universal Stream designator that is used to help determine the identities of various timelines in another multiverse-predicated franchise - that of the Transformers.


In that setting, there are designators for which 'continuity family' a universal stream belongs to, as well as data correlating to 'real-world' origins of certain timelines. So, a stream get in what is considered to be a 'Generation 1' timeline is given the designation Primax, while ones linked to the live-action movie are classified Tyran. Further, additional data is given depending on the medium through which the timeline is presented - Delta for live-action and/or motion picture media, Gamma for comic books, Alpha for animated series, and so on and so forth.

To give an example, the timeline portrayed in the 2007 movie is known as Tyran 707.04 Delta - while an (unconfirmed) description of the Transformers: Animated series would be Malgus 1207.26 Alpha.


In theory, one could devise a similar means of classifying Trek-related stories - and use the designators derived in order to set various related series of fictional works in their correct context.

(So, for example, if one created a designation for one of the Myriad Universes timelines, a later author could reference that designation should he or she wish to add to it through a later work.)


Does this sound like it might be a workable idea, or is it a step too far to take?


EDIT: One caveat might be that for the TF multiverse, pretty much all forms of fiction, and just about all potential timelines presented by officially-licenced sources, are equally canon - a far more liberal stance than Trek has traditionally taken.

 

[JD]

I do like this idea myslef, but I think for starters as least MU, Myr, and so on work pretty well for the Mirror Universe and Myriad Universes stories, but as for seperating each of them, the we can just pick something related to the universe. Like MU Omega for the current MU stories based around Memory Omega.

 

[DimesDan]

Hi.


This is something I tried to mention before, but was somewhat lost in the crowd elsewhere.

SNIP


Does this sound like it might be a workable idea, or is it a step too far to take?


EDIT: One caveat might be that for the TF multiverse, pretty much all forms of fiction, and just about all potential timelines presented by officially-licenced sources, are equally canon - a far more liberal stance than Trek has traditionally taken.

Yeah I saw your original post somewhere and I think the actual reason that it didn't really get commented on then and it's taken twenty four hours for two replies is because it's not a very good idea to be perfectly blunt and the words horse, dead and flogging came to mind when I read your original post in this thread.

 

[lawman]

Yeah I saw your original post somewhere and I think the actual reason that it didn't really get commented on then and it's taken twenty four hours for two replies is because it's not a very good idea to be perfectly blunt and the words horse, dead and flogging came to mind when I read your original post in this thread.

Well, that's a bit harsh, don't you think?

Some people like to catalog continuity. If you're not one of them, that's hardly a basis for looking down your nose at those who are.

Having separate designations to indicate which continuity track a story occurs in and which medium it's presented in is, IMHO, fairly clever. The real trick would be getting a critical mass of fans (even the continuity-conscious ones) to buy into a single consistent approach to the taxonomy, however.

 

[JoeZhang]

I like "new film", "that old TV show" and "the cartoon thing they did".

 

[Stevil2001]

Some people like to catalog continuity. If you're not one of them, that's hardly a basis for looking down your nose at those who are.

Having separate designations to indicate which continuity track a story occurs in and which medium it's presented in is, IMHO, fairly clever. The real trick would be getting a critical mass of fans (even the continuity-conscious ones) to buy into a single consistent approach to the taxonomy, however.

I like to keep track of continuity, too, but I think that declaring that the Deep Space Nine relaunch happens in stream Bravo Romeo Bravo 47, while The Tears of Eridanus occupies Lima Oscar Lima π, and the new film Whisky Tango Foxtrot i, doesn't actually help anyone do anything.

 

[Christopher]

That Transformers scheme seems absurdly complicated to me, creating more confusion than it resolves. It's the kind of scheme that may work well for people who are already intimately immersed in the fandom, but it's forbidding for outsiders, making the whole thing seem like some intricate arcane structure that they'd need extensive study to comprehend.

I don't think Trek tie-ins should be asked to function like Star Wars tie-ins or Transformers tie-ins or any of these latecomers. Trek fiction has its own approach that's served it well for decades. Instead of imposing some rigid continuity scheme from on high and demanding that its fans obey it slavishly, we just tell stories and give the readers the freedom to decide for themselves how they want to define the larger continuity. It's interactive on the readers' part, not passive. Yes, there's a continuity among many of the books, but a lot of the decision-making is still up to the reader. If you think it's possible to reconcile the primary novelverse with IDW comics or with novels from decades ago, you can do so. If you like the post-finale DS9 and TNG books but can't stand New Frontier, for example, you can assume that NF is apocryphal, since the references to it in the other series are minimal. One fan may feel that two different works contradict each other irreconcilably, while another may feel that it's feasible to gloss over their differences and treat them as part of the same reality. It's not a rigid scheme; you can customize it to suit yourself. I like it that way.

 

[shanejayell]

I like "new film", "that old TV show" and "the cartoon thing they did".

Seconded.

 

[KRAD]

I like "new film", "that old TV show" and "the cartoon thing they did".

Seconded.

Thirded!

 

[DimesDan]

I like "new film", "that old TV show" and "the cartoon thing they did".

Seconded.

Thirded!

Then does that me the motion is passed?

Well, that's a bit harsh, don't you think?

Which is why I said "to be perfectly blunt",I knew it would come across as harsh, but guess what, the truth often rarely isn't.

Some people like to catalog continuity. If you're not one of them, that's hardly a basis for looking down your nose at those who are.

Who said I am looking down my nose at anyone, I made a comment on something, if you don't like the comment fine, but don't assume things as often you'd be wrong.

Having separate designations to indicate which continuity track a story occurs in and which medium it's presented in is, IMHO, fairly clever. The real trick would be getting a critical mass of fans (even the continuity-conscious ones) to buy into a single consistent approach to the taxonomy, however.

It's not though is it, have you given it much thought or just seen what the OP said and then had a knee jerk reaction over it - It dosn't need doing as all but one or two of the Alt universe stories have been a stand alone adventure and it's just really really pointless and would confuse the hell out of new Trek fans or just those who have a passing interest in it.

 

[William Leisner]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that The Transformers universe is so rich and narratively complex as to need this kind of system.

 

[DimesDan]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that The Transformers universe is so rich and narratively complex as to need this kind of system.

I doubt it is, it's probably just the really hardcore of the hardcore Transformers fans who do it - like the guy from Clerks II I'd guess.

 

[captcalhoun]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that The Transformers universe is so rich and narratively complex as to need this kind of system.

well, there's G1-continuity (Generation 1, 2 Beast Wars and Beast Machines), RiD-continuity (Robots in Disguise), The Unicron trilogy (Armada, Energon, Cybertron), Animated and the Live-Action movie. there's 12 different toylines after all (all the above plus the G1-esque 'Universe' and the licensed scale model 'Alternators' line)

and then, the comics and cartoons don't always match up. and then there's the wacky Japanese stuff that the West never got like BW2 BW Neo, Kiss Players and so on...and 'micro-continuities' like the 'read and listen' Ladybird books...

for a toyline about two factions of giant transforming robots beating the shit out of each other, it's actually quite complex.

 

[William Leisner]

for a toyline about two factions of giant transforming robots beating the shit out of each other, it's actually quite complex.

I was gonna say...

 

[Thrawn]

That Transformers scheme seems absurdly complicated to me, creating more confusion than it resolves. It's the kind of scheme that may work well for people who are already intimately immersed in the fandom, but it's forbidding for outsiders, making the whole thing seem like some intricate arcane structure that they'd need extensive study to comprehend.

I don't think Trek tie-ins should be asked to function like Star Wars tie-ins or Transformers tie-ins or any of these latecomers. Trek fiction has its own approach that's served it well for decades. Instead of imposing some rigid continuity scheme from on high and demanding that its fans obey it slavishly, we just tell stories and give the readers the freedom to decide for themselves how they want to define the larger continuity. It's interactive on the readers' part, not passive. Yes, there's a continuity among many of the books, but a lot of the decision-making is still up to the reader. If you think it's possible to reconcile the primary novelverse with IDW comics or with novels from decades ago, you can do so. If you like the post-finale DS9 and TNG books but can't stand New Frontier, for example, you can assume that NF is apocryphal, since the references to it in the other series are minimal. One fan may feel that two different works contradict each other irreconcilably, while another may feel that it's feasible to gloss over their differences and treat them as part of the same reality. It's not a rigid scheme; you can customize it to suit yourself. I like it that way.

I do too, the more I think about it. All other attempts I've seen to impose some kind of structure, particularly Star Wars, end up riddled with random failures and stupidities anyway, forcing the reader to gloss over them or figure them out not only in how they relate to the story but also in how they relate to the complex canon structure. All it does is exacerbate the problem.

I think it's the job of an author/editor to keep things as consistent as is reasonably (key word: reasonably) possible in the circumstances, and when difficulties inevitably arise, just not worry about it too much. We readers are smart people, we can figure it out.

 

[Nerroth]

The designators would not be intended to replace pre-existing ways to refer to x, y or z universe - merely complement them, if required.


The in-setting rationalisation for the TF designators is that a timeline exists in which a set of further-evolved Cybertronians, the self-styled Transcendant Technomorphs, both seek to catalogue various universal streams out in the multiverse (for which the designation system is applied) and permit various visitors from said universal streams to interact in the 'port city' of Axiom Nexus.

That they happen to use a system which coincides with real-world dates and forms of medium to do this might be a conceit, but it's not the worst thing to go by...


In a Trek context, one could perhaps imagine a future Starfleet in a given timeline going from the kind of temporal remit granted to crews of timeships such as Aeon and Relativity to a broader 'slider-remit' - and that said slideships' crews could have a system of classifying and categorising the many encountered realities which would be somewhat more evocative than merely listing the relevant quantum signature involved.

(Indeed, giving the designators a Starfleet origin would make it more likely that certain groups that might seem logical to those of us on Earth - say, a group listing timelines featuring the Terran Empire and/or Klingon-Cardassian Alliance - would end up classed as such by those drawing up the system.)

 

[DimesDan]

Yep. Horse. Flogging and Dead still come to mind when I read this idea.

Just accept it mate, it ain't gonna happen as if it ain't broke, there is no need to introduce some mind numbing way to explain the different AUs.

 

[JoeZhang]

The designators would not be intended to replace pre-existing ways to refer to x, y or z universe - merely complement them, if required.


The in-setting rationalisation for the TF designators is that a timeline exists in which a set of further-evolved Cybertronians, the self-styled Transcendant Technomorphs, both seek to catalogue various universal streams out in the multiverse (for which the designation system is applied) and permit various visitors from said universal streams to interact in the 'port city' of Axiom Nexus.

That they happen to use a system which coincides with real-world dates and forms of medium to do this might be a conceit, but it's not the worst thing to go by...


In a Trek context, one could perhaps imagine a future Starfleet in a given timeline going from the kind of temporal remit granted to crews of timeships such as Aeon and Relativity to a broader 'slider-remit' - and that said slideships' crews could have a system of classifying and categorising the many encountered realities which would be somewhat more evocative than merely listing the relevant quantum signature involved.

(Indeed, giving the designators a Starfleet origin would make it more likely that certain groups that might seem logical to those of us on Earth - say, a group listing timelines featuring the Terran Empire and/or Klingon-Cardassian Alliance - would end up classed as such by those drawing up the system.)

I did a PhD in really boring stuff and I'm sorry but that's too boring even for me.

 

[lawman]

That Transformers scheme seems absurdly complicated to me, creating more confusion than it resolves. It's the kind of scheme that may work well for people who are already intimately immersed in the fandom, but it's forbidding for outsiders, making the whole thing seem like some intricate arcane structure that they'd need extensive study to comprehend.

I don't think Trek tie-ins should be asked to function like Star Wars tie-ins or Transformers tie-ins or any of these latecomers. Trek fiction has its own approach that's served it well for decades. Instead of imposing some rigid continuity scheme from on high and demanding that its fans obey it slavishly, we just tell stories and give the readers the freedom to decide for themselves how they want to define the larger continuity... It's not a rigid scheme; you can customize it to suit yourself. I like it that way.

I certainly agree with you about that, but I don't think the OP was proposing any set of rules that would actually constrain storytelling or anyone's sense of "personal canon." It struck me merely as an approach to taxonomy. I don't ever expect to see Trek fandom adopt such an approach (and I'm curious how Transformers fandom came to do so), but I can see how it could be useful just for keeping things sorted out.

You obviously respect Trek continuity: it's clear from your books, never mind the annotations you've posted. The only debate here is about how one refers to the details, not about which details one finds relevant. I hadn't run across a schema like this before, but I admit I found the concept intriguing.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that The Transformers universe is so rich and narratively complex as to need this kind of system.

Word. I have trouble wrapping my mind around the concept of "Transformers fandom," myself. But everyone is entitled to his/her own enthusiasms!...

 

[Christopher]

I certainly agree with you about that, but I don't think the OP was proposing any set of rules that would actually constrain storytelling or anyone's sense of "personal canon." It struck me merely as an approach to taxonomy. I don't ever expect to see Trek fandom adopt such an approach (and I'm curious how Transformers fandom came to do so), but I can see how it could be useful just for keeping things sorted out.

But that's just it. The problem with labeling is that it tends to impose a rigid set of assumptions about definitions. If there's a systematic labeling scheme for Trek timelines, it presupposes that there's one specific way of assigning different stories to different realities. And lots of fans would assume that was the definitive word on the issue and they had to follow it, and that would take away the flexibility of the system, the freedom people have to make their own decisions about how to assign and interconnect the stories.

The way I sort out Trek fiction is my own. It's a system that works for me. Other people have different systems that work for them. I think that's the way it should be.

Sure, you could assign labels to the obvious things like the main current novel continuity, the Shatnerverse, the Crucible books, the Abrams timeline, the Star Trek Online continuity, etc. But what about older books and comics? There are so many different interpretations of the Trek universe in those, sometimes overlapping, sometimes clashing, that I can't see any way of creating a coherent and universally acceptable taxonomy for them. There are some subcategories you could create, like the universe of the Diane Duane books, and maybe you could say they fit together with books like The Final Reflection and other books that referenced Ford's Klingons and/or Duane's Rihannsu. But different people have different theories about where the Duane books fit; I think there are some who even consider them part of the main novel continuity. And there are inconsistencies among those books that reference Duane and Ford; heck, Duane's books have inconsistencies with one another. And what about the overlap with the DC comics Duane wrote, and that universe overall? Altogether, it's just too much of a mess to come up with a systematic scheme for anyway, and you'd never get any general consensus on what belonged where. It's best left to the individual's discretion.