Timeliner Reclamation Projects

[Cicero]

Oh, they're profoundly different. The book's Cochrane is a hugely different character. The history of Earth is drastically different. In the book, Cochrane goes to Vulcan to make first contact, not the other way around. It's not just "a few dates." As with real history, the dates are merely a superficial aspect of a much deeper, more complex process. The whole flow of 21st-century history in the novel is fundamentally different from what the screen has given us.

Perhaps a few additional minor details, then.

Federation - Cochrane makes first warpflight BEFORE World War III

First Contact - Cochrane makes first warpflight AFTER World War III

Or before the final nuclear exchange, if you prefer.

Federation - World War III doesn't happen untill a considerable amount of time until Cochrane has moved to Alpha Centarui.

First Contact - World War III has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Again, this could easily be explained as the final nuclear exchange, not the war itself. In many ways, the world Cochrane inhabits for much of Federation is already post-apocalyptic.

Federation - Green ruled a good chunck of the Earth before World War III and this contributed to the war.

TV Trek - Green didn't show up until the aftermath of WWW III

I don't remember the latter at all. When was that referenced?

(I don't even remember Cochrane's meeting with the Vulcans.) I

Federation in one of it's last 21st century flashbacks has and elderly Cochrane holding I Vulcan artifact which implies that first contact with the Vulcans had occured between Cochrane's Eurpoean run in with the crazy Optimal Movement guy and then.

First Contact and Enterprise show that Vulcan had been on Earth way before that would have occured.

Alternatively, full interaction with the Vulcans occurred during that time, our initial contact with them having taken time to develop. This isn't unreasonable given the cautious attitude characteristic of Vulcan dealings with Earth and other primitive worlds in Enterprise.

I disagree that the book's Cochrane is a notably different character from the one we saw in First Contact (or the one seen on TOS). I first read the book after the movie was released, and they seemed entirely consistent to me (if one accepts that many of Cochrane's problems in the movie were the result of his fear of first, testing his creation, and second, his suddenly revealed future as a great man.

Or the First Contact novelization explaination the Cochrane was bitter and cynical due to World War III leaving most of the world in ruins.

That's possible, though it fits poorly with Federation (and, less relevantly, with my impressions of the character).

 

[Cicero]

Perhaps a few additional minor details, then.

More like, every single detail, ever. In Federation, Cochrane invents warp drive long before World War III and freely distributes the design throughout Earth and its colony worlds; he is a prominent citizen who is targeted by the international Optimum movement, which itself is responsible for World War III.

In First Contact, Cochrane is a brilliant but cynical alcoholic motivated by self-interest who doesn't invent warp drive until long after World War III was fought between the United States & its allies and something called the Eastern Coalition (which screenwriter Brannon Braga noted in the FC commentary was originally going to just be called China, and which the novel The Sundered later established to include most of Asia in accordance with Braga's comment) and reduced most of the United States to an anarchic landscape. Earth has no presence outside Earth orbit, if that.

Of what you stated, nothing was established in First Contact (or elsewhere in filmed Star Trek, so far as I can recall). What was established is that the United States fought the Eastern Coalition at some point, that Cochrane made his first warp flight shortly after World War III, and that he was cynical (or reacting poorly to his situation) at time time of his flight, that he was drinking a lot immediately before the flight day, and that he was a very poor drunk. (Many other things, of course, were also established, but none of them address the issues you mentioned.)

I disagree that the book's Cochrane is a notably different character from the one we saw in First Contact (or the one seen on TOS). I first read the book after the movie was released, and they seemed entirely consistent to me (if one accepts that many of Cochrane's problems in the movie were the result of his fear of first, testing his creation, and second, his suddenly revealed future as a great man.

But there's no evidence that Cochrane's problems in the film were the result of his fear of flying the Phoenix; it's very clear that Cochrane was a hard-drinkin', womanizing, greedy cynic who later changed to become more optimistic after First Contact opened his eyes to, well, the wonder of the world and the potential of humanity. (I've always felt that Cochrane in First Contact was actually based on Gene Roddenberry, actually -- a man with many flaws who nonetheless came to achieve greatness and believe in a better world.)

I didn't see the character that way at all. If nothing else, it doesn't make very much sense, given his accomplishment.

 

[GHS]

In the timeline contained in Voyages of the Imagination, the timeliners made Federation fit in by:

* changing a 2061 date to 2065 (I believe that's the scene that introduces Cochrane and infodumps his accomplishments to date)

* Determining that the Thorson's war in Federation is not World War III

* Changing a 2117 date for Chapter 12, part 2, to 2119 (I think that was so that Cochrane doesn't leave Earth until after he's broadcast the message shown in "Broken Bow")

The scene between Cochrane and the Vulcans is more of a problem, since it's more than a passing reference. However, since the book does not specify the scene is presenting first contact between the two species, Cicero's explanation works (the Vulcan in First Contact probably returned home and reported that humans were a bunch of drunks to be avoided)

You could probably draw Roddenberry parallels with every 'noble drunk' character to ever appear in Trek, but I don't see much similarity between First Contact's Cochrance and Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Sci]

I'm really surprised at how much Cicero is fighting to reconcile Federation and First Contact, given that he apparently doesn't accurately remember either of their content....

Perhaps a few additional minor details, then.

Federation - Cochrane makes first warpflight BEFORE World War III

First Contact - Cochrane makes first warpflight AFTER World War III

Or before the final nuclear exchange, if you prefer.

No, Federation is very explicit: Cochrane invents warp drive long before World War III. Meanwhile, First Contact is very explicit: Cochrane invents warp drive long after World War III.

Federation - World War III doesn't happen untill a considerable amount of time until Cochrane has moved to Alpha Centarui.

First Contact - World War III has ALREADY HAPPENED.

Again, this could easily be explained as the final nuclear exchange, not the war itself.

No. The novel is, again, very explicit: World War III did not break out until well after Cochrane had invented warp drive and moved to Alpha Centauri.

Federation - Green ruled a good chunck of the Earth before World War III and this contributed to the war.

TV Trek - Green didn't show up until the aftermath of WWW III

I don't remember the latter at all. When was that referenced?

ENT's "Terra Prime" established that Colonel Green became famous after World War III but before First Contact, when he led a genocidal campaign to murder any and all individuals suffering from the effects of radiation poisoning, especially those displaying mutations.

Federation in one of it's last 21st century flashbacks has and elderly Cochrane holding I Vulcan artifact which implies that first contact with the Vulcans had occured between Cochrane's Eurpoean run in with the crazy Optimal Movement guy and then.

First Contact and Enterprise show that Vulcan had been on Earth way before that would have occured.

Alternatively, full interaction with the Vulcans occurred during that time, our initial contact with them having taken time to develop. This isn't unreasonable given the cautious attitude characteristic of Vulcan dealings with Earth and other primitive worlds in Enterprise.

But that clearly goes against what Federation was trying to establish.

I disagree that the book's Cochrane is a notably different character from the one we saw in First Contact (or the one seen on TOS). I first read the book after the movie was released, and they seemed entirely consistent to me (if one accepts that many of Cochrane's problems in the movie were the result of his fear of first, testing his creation, and second, his suddenly revealed future as a great man.

Or the First Contact novelization explaination the Cochrane was bitter and cynical due to World War III leaving most of the world in ruins.

That's possible, though it fits poorly with Federation (and, less relevantly, with my impressions of the character).[/QUOTE]

More like, every single detail, ever. In Federation, Cochrane invents warp drive long before World War III and freely distributes the design throughout Earth and its colony worlds; he is a prominent citizen who is targeted by the international Optimum movement, which itself is responsible for World War III.

In First Contact, Cochrane is a brilliant but cynical alcoholic motivated by self-interest who doesn't invent warp drive until long after World War III was fought between the United States & its allies and something called the Eastern Coalition (which screenwriter Brannon Braga noted in the FC commentary was originally going to just be called China, and which the novel The Sundered later established to include most of Asia in accordance with Braga's comment) and reduced most of the United States to an anarchic landscape. Earth has no presence outside Earth orbit, if that.

Of what you stated, nothing was established in First Contact (or elsewhere in filmed Star Trek, so far as I can recall).

Then you can't recall jack shit.

Star Trek: First Contact established that World War III occurred ten years prior to First Contact. First Contact itself occurred on 5 April 2063. The ENT episode "In A Mirror, Darkly, Part I" later established that the community Cochrane was living in was Bozeman, Montana, where the Vulcans landed.

In ST:FC, we know that the United States government has collapsed. How do we know this? From the combination of two facts: We know it from Riker's comment that World War III led to the deaths of 600 million people and that most of the major governments had collapsed, and we know it from the fact that Cochrane was operating out of a United States Air Force missile silo that had no actual Air Force officers operating it -- the guy took a U.S. missile and turned it into a warp ship, using Lily as his supplier (when she was clearly not a government contractor). It's not stated outright, but it's pretty clear that the U.S. government no longer functions.

What was established is that the United States fought the Eastern Coalition at some point, that Cochrane made his first warp flight shortly after World War III,

Ten years after World War III.

and that he was cynical (or reacting poorly to his situation) at time time of his flight, that he was drinking a lot immediately before the flight day, and that he was a very poor drunk.

No, it established that he was a very good drunk. He was on his feet doing just fine while Troi was literally passing out from her tequila. The guy was obviously a hard drinker and a womanizer (and a bit of a partier). And Cochrane himself says that he created the ship because he wanted to make money, not for any noble reasons.

I didn't see the character that way at all. If nothing else, it doesn't make very much sense, given his accomplishment.

It makes plenty of sense. Accomplishing something doesn't lend you greatness; that's a very American, worship-our-forefathers-as-perfect-people attitude that bears no relationship to real life.

 

[captcalhoun]

Final Frontier and Best Destiny are inconsistent with canon up to the point when they were written, never mind after. they talk about the 1701 as the first starship, yet Kirk clearly refers to the Archon and the Horizon in TOS as being starships and both were lost around a century previous. so if Diane Carey couldn't even get her facts right then, i don't see any point in twisting them to fit into a post-TNG/DS9/VGR era of tie ins like we're in now.

 

[Cicero]

I'm really surprised at how much Cicero is fighting to reconcile Federation and First Contact, given that he apparently doesn't accurately remember either of their content....

Federation - Cochrane makes first warpflight BEFORE World War III

First Contact - Cochrane makes first warpflight AFTER World War III

Or before the final nuclear exchange, if you prefer.

No, Federation is very explicit: Cochrane invents warp drive long before World War III. Meanwhile, First Contact is very explicit: Cochrane invents warp drive long after World War III.



No. The novel is, again, very explicit: World War III did not break out until well after Cochrane had invented warp drive and moved to Alpha Centauri.

I know the novel is explicit. I'm suggesting that those particular time placements are changeable.

ENT's "Terra Prime" established that Colonel Green became famous after World War III but before First Contact, when he led a genocidal campaign to murder any and all individuals suffering from the effects of radiation poisoning, especially those displaying mutations.

That's not what I recall, and not what Memory Alpha supports. Moreover, TOS explicitly named him as a leader "a genocidal war early in the Twenty-First Century on Earth." The post-World War III period would seem to fall in the latter part of the century. Enterprise did established that Green survived WWIII. Picard noted on TNG that "chaos" continued into the 22nd Century, and the "post-atomic horror" courtroom of 2079 seems indicative of barbaric conditions in places at least at that date.

But that clearly goes against what Federation was trying to establish.

Viewed from after the fact (moving the dates), it doesn't read that way.

Then you can't recall jack shit.

Was that called for?

Star Trek: First Contact

established that World War III occurred ten years prior to First Contact. First Contact itself occurred on 5 April 2063. The ENT episode "In A Mirror, Darkly, Part I" later established that the community Cochrane was living in was Bozeman, Montana, where the Vulcans landed.

Yes, that's all accurate. But I wouldn't consider "about ten years" "long before."

In ST:FC, we know that the United States government has collapsed. How do we know this? From the combination of two facts: We know it from Riker's comment that World War III led to the deaths of 600 million people and that most of the major governments had collapsed, and we know it from the fact that Cochrane was operating out of a United States Air Force missile silo that had no actual Air Force officers operating it -- the guy took a U.S. missile and turned it into a warp ship, using Lily as his supplier (when she was clearly not a government contractor). It's not stated outright, but it's pretty clear that the U.S. government no longer functions.

Or perhaps the government had no use for an empty silo and a defective/obsolete/etc. rocket after the ceasefire? There are indications in most of the later series that the United States endured (indeed, it existed in some form as late as the 24th Century, though Britain had apparently ceased to exist as a country by the 23rd Century). Riker's comment that the mission in The Royale must have been launched between (2030-something) and 2079 based on the number of stars on the American flag would indicate that we continued to launch space missions after the end of World War III.

and that he was cynical (or reacting poorly to his situation) at time time of his flight, that he was drinking a lot immediately before the flight day, and that he was a very poor drunk.

No, it established that he was a very good drunk. He was on his feet doing just fine while Troi was literally passing out from her tequila. The guy was obviously a hard drinker and a womanizer (and a bit of a partier). And Cochrane himself says that he created the ship because he wanted to make money, not for any noble reasons.

By poor drunk, I meant that his behavior was poor. Building the ship for monetary reasons fits nicely with his conversation with Micah Brach (sp?) early in the novel.

I didn't see the character that way at all. If nothing else, it doesn't make very much sense, given his accomplishment.

It makes plenty of sense. Accomplishing something doesn't lend you greatness; that's a very American, worship-our-forefathers-as-perfect-people attitude that bears no relationship to real life.[/quote]I meant that his behavior made him seem remarkably incompetent for someone whom all the people at Bozeman seemed to be following - nevermind that drunkard scientists seldom accomplish great things.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Rihannsu books I and II

These were already "fixed" for "Rihannsu: The Bloodwing Voyages" omnibus.

Final Frontier and Best Destiny are inconsistent with canon up to the point when they were written, never mind after. they talk about the 1701 as the first starship, yet Kirk clearly refers to the Archon and the Horizon in TOS as being starships

IIRC, numerous authors tended to use "starship" to mean "Constitution Class starship", so I don't see that as a problem.

 

[seigezunt]

Having just finished the Final Reflection, I feel it offers a better vision of the Klingons than what we eventually got onscreen. So, no, don't edit it. Sames goes for the Rihannsu novels.

 

[Christopher]

In the timeline contained in Voyages of the Imagination, the timeliners made Federation fit in by:

That's misinterpreting the purpose of the Timeline. It's not claiming that everything listed within it can fit into a single continuity (because that's clearly impossible with all the TOS stories that would collectively stretch the 5-year mission out to at least 10 years). Frankly I'm not even sure why it makes those "tweaks" -- it should just acknowledge the inconsistencies where they exist.

* changing a 2061 date to 2065 (I believe that's the scene that introduces Cochrane and infodumps his accomplishments to date)

* Determining that the Thorson's war in Federation is not World War III

* Changing a 2117 date for Chapter 12, part 2, to 2119 (I think that was so that Cochrane doesn't leave Earth until after he's broadcast the message shown in "Broken Bow")

As Sci explained very nicely, those minor tweaks are inadequate to reconcile the huge inconsistencies.

Rihannsu books I and II

These were already "fixed" for "Rihannsu: The Bloodwing Voyages" omnibus.

No. Again, that's misunderstanding the intent. The only "fixes" were made for the sake of internal consistency within the Rihannsu series itself. No attempt was made to force the earlier novels to conform to modern canon.

IIRC, numerous authors tended to use "starship" to mean "Constitution Class starship", so I don't see that as a problem.

That is very much not the way the word was used in Carey's novels. Final Frontier explicitly portrayed the word "starship" as a brand new coinage that George Kirk had never heard before.

 

[GHS]

In the timeline contained in Voyages of the Imagination, the timeliners made Federation fit in by:

That's misinterpreting the purpose of the Timeline. It's not claiming that everything listed within it can fit into a single continuity (because that's clearly impossible with all the TOS stories that would collectively stretch the 5-year mission out to at least 10 years). Frankly I'm not even sure why it makes those "tweaks" -- it should just acknowledge the inconsistencies where they exist..

Because then it wouldn't be a coherent timeline. I agree that's not the purpose of the timeline, though

In some cases, the timeliners changing one date is all that's required to make a novel jibe with established continuity, but I shouldn't have implied that that was necessarily the case with Federation.

* changing a 2061 date to 2065 (I believe that's the scene that introduces Cochrane and infodumps his accomplishments to date)

* Determining that the Thorson's war in Federation is not World War III

* Changing a 2117 date for Chapter 12, part 2, to 2119 (I think that was so that Cochrane doesn't leave Earth until after he's broadcast the message shown in "Broken Bow")

As Sci explained very nicely, those minor tweaks are inadequate to reconcile the huge inconsistencies..

I think it's fair to say there's always been great debate concerning whether Federation can be reconciled with First Contact. I personally don't think whether WWIII occurs before or after Federation has any bearing on the story it tells (since Thorson's war is something else and we don't see any scenes set in WWIII)

These were already "fixed" for "Rihannsu: The Bloodwing Voyages" omnibus.

No. Again, that's misunderstanding the intent. The only "fixes" were made for the sake of internal consistency within the Rihannsu series itself. No attempt was made to force the earlier novels to conform to modern canon.

Wasn't the time period for the first two books switched to post-TMP era to fit with the official chronology?

IIRC, numerous authors tended to use "starship" to mean "Constitution Class starship", so I don't see that as a problem.

That is very much not the way the word was used in Carey's novels. Final Frontier explicitly portrayed the word "starship" as a brand new coinage that George Kirk had never heard before.

I agree in the case of Final Frontier. I don't recall "the first starship" aspect of Best Destiny being nearly the important point it was in Final Frontier (and thus, easily fixed).

 

[EmperorKalan]

Final Frontier and Best Destiny are inconsistent with canon up to the point when they were written, never mind after. they talk about the 1701 as the first starship, yet Kirk clearly refers to the Archon and the Horizon in TOS as being starships

IIRC, numerous authors tended to use "starship" to mean "Constitution Class starship", so I don't see that as a problem.

I think what Carey was going for stemmed from the Enterprise's original dedication plaque (calling it "Starship class"), and the way the word was emphasised in some episodes like "Court Martial" or "Bread and Circuses":
"You're a Starship commander, Jim"
"No Starship commander has ever been..."
"Not a spaceship, a Starship..."

I don't think that bit worked out too well, but it was definitely that theme that she was alluding to.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

(since Thorson's war is something else and we don't see any scenes set in WWIII)

Actually Thorson did not have a war as he was too busy obsessing over the non existant WMD he though he could get from Cochrane.

 

[Christopher]

I think it's fair to say there's always been great debate concerning whether Federation can be reconciled with First Contact. I personally don't think whether WWIII occurs before or after Federation has any bearing on the story it tells (since Thorson's war is something else and we don't see any scenes set in WWIII)

No, Thorson's war was explicitly identified throughout the text as World War III. Also, it's quite clear that the 2061 Earth depicted in Federation is not in the same devastated postwar state as the Earth would canonically have been at that point.

Wasn't the time period for the first two books switched to post-TMP era to fit with the official chronology?

No, to make the series consistent within itself. The various books in the series were inconsistent about what era they took place in, and Duane had to pick one, and she picked that one. The original books were much closer to post-TMP in every respect but the characters' ranks anyway, so it made more sense. Also, the underlying idea of the early Duane novels -- that there was a second 5-year mission between TOS & TMP -- was inconsistent with the canon even as it was known at the time the books were originally written, since TMP contained multiple references to Kirk's "five years out there" as opposed to ten.

True, making it fit with modern understandings of the chronology was probably a consideration, but it wasn't the goal behind the project. The revisions were done for the purpose of making the series internally consistent; anything beyond that was optional at most. There was no intention of stripping the Duaneverse of its idiosyncrasies, only of making it work as a self-consistent narrative whole.

I think what Carey was going for stemmed from the Enterprise's original dedication plaque (calling it "Starship class"), and the way the word was emphasised in some episodes like "Court Martial" or "Bread and Circuses":
"You're a Starship commander, Jim"
"No Starship commander has ever been..."
"Not a spaceship, a Starship..."

I don't think that bit worked out too well, but it was definitely that theme that she was alluding to.

Well, yes, it was always clear that a starship is a different type of ship than a mere spaceship; TOS seemed to use it as analogous with "capital ship" or "ship of the line." But just because "starship" is a different category doesn't mean it's a recent coinage. Carey's idea that the Enterprise was the first vessel ever to be called a starship is frankly bizarre (since the term would've been around for centuries in fiction anyway) and way too fannish (in the sense of making the Enterprise more special and unique than it needs to be).

 

[EmperorKalan]

If Pocket books (with the authors' consent) were to make an effort to revise some of the older classic Trek novels to make them consisent with the modern day Trek television series, which of these could be "corrected" with a few dozen wording changes, and which novels are too contradictory at their core to bother even attempting it?

I think the idea of "correcting" older novels is a bit silly, but your basic idea has more merit in terms of making a current adaptation of them for say, a graphic novel or "Phase II"-type fanfilm.
(I'm re-arranging some of the quotes for smoother grouping)

Final Reflection
---
Final Reflection would not work for a number of reasons (differing history of the transporter invention, length of contact between Federation and Klingons, plus the characters don't seem as much Klingon as Cardassian, by modern day standards)

I disagree. The differing technical history and length of contact are fairly minor details and could be reinterpreted through the lens of what's been developed since. As for the portrayal of the Klingons, there'd likely need to be some tweaking of details, but if you treat the Klingons as a complex society, there's not necessarily a contradiction with later portrayals. KRAD has made a point of folding many of TFR's concepts back into the "modern" concept of the Klingons. (I especially like the way he's recaptured the...interesting... relationship between the Klingon military and Imperial Intelligence.)

If the Klingons in TFR seem more like Cardassians, that's because the Cardies got the role the Klingons had in TOS: militaristic thugs.

Final Frontier
----
Final Frontier seems like it's out, since its central concept is starships being introduced for the first time.

I suspect an adaptation would de-emphasize that point. Whether doing so would be a fatal blow to the storyline, I can't say because I don't remember it well enough.

Best Destiny

Again, some details would likely need some airbrushing and a different coat of technobabble, and I don't really care for the framing story, but I don't see any major obstacles to adapting the core of the story.

 

[captcalhoun]

Carey was deliberately going on that the 1701 represented a huge leap forward in technology as the first 'starship', not a mere 'spaceship'. this is BS when you factor in the Archon, Horizon and even the Valiant from A Taste of Armageddon and the Valiant from WNMHGB with the AToA Valiant being lost 50 years previous and the WNMHGB one being over a century old as well.

 

[Desert Kris]

I don't think Federation would be hurt by altering a few dates, which, IIRC, were all that made it incompatible with First Contact.

Oh, they're profoundly different. The book's Cochrane is a hugely different character. The history of Earth is drastically different. In the book, Cochrane goes to Vulcan to make first contact, not the other way around. It's not just "a few dates." As with real history, the dates are merely a superficial aspect of a much deeper, more complex process. The whole flow of 21st-century history in the novel is fundamentally different from what the screen has given us.

And that's a good thing. Star Trek is a work of fiction, a creative exercise. It's good that different creators have gotten to imagine different versions of particular events. It gives us variety, a range of ideas. It would be less interesting if every event in Trek history were told in only one way, because then we would've been deprived of some imaginative, entertaining stories. It's good that we have multiple tellings of Batman's origin, of Spider-Man's origin, of Jason's quest for the Golden Fleece, of King Arthur's rise and fall, of Dr. Frankenstein's creation of a monster, etc. And it's good that we have multiple tellings of equally legendary events like Cochrane's creation of warp drive, Kirk's first mission aboard the Enterprise, and so on. Each one deserves to be appreciated as its own distinct whole, not treated as though there's something "wrong" with it that needs to be "fixed" just because it's different from something else.

I like the way you phrase that about retelling myths, I think I've said something similar; my examples have been the King Arthur legends and Robin Hood.

This isn't a bloody documentary. Every single bit of Star Trek is the creative expression of one author or another. The whole thing is an amalgam of various different creative expressions, and even the creative expressions that define the unwieldy beast called "canon" are often wildly inconsistent with one another. Star Trek is not and never will be a singular, monolithic thing. It's just been too many different things already.

And I'm not talking about anything metatextual. The qualities I'm talking about are integral parts of the texts themselves as they were written. Rewrite them to conform to modern continuity and you change the text into a very different text. It's just not the same story. Enjoying the spirit and flavor of the story as it's written is entirely, profoundly relevant to my experience as a reader. It's as a reader that I enjoy the diversity of these books, and I'd be less satisfied as a reader if they were bowdlerized and homogenized and stripped of the things that make them feel the way they do.

If anything, you're the one who's defining things in metatextual terms, because you're the one saying that texts should be altered to conform to the contents of entirely different texts.

Regarding works of fiction in alternative media, this has been the starting point for a number of things I've been collecting recently for reading. The goal is to try and project my thinking back into how these fictional realities might have been viewed and interpreted at the time they were written. It's the reason I've collected the reprinted series of Marvel Star Wars, because those comics reflect the enthusiasm and sense of adventure of the original Star Wars trilogy, rather than the gloomy tragedy and cursory soap opera aspects of the prequels.

The same goes for the DC Star Trek Volume 1 series. They are set between the movies, Star Trek II, III, and IV; and continue to chronicle adventures after The Voyage Home. I'm so glad for the CD of decades worth of Star Trek comics! People might complain that the continuity is unwieldy, and that especially true for how they set the stage for including the events of the fourth ST movie, but there are benefits to it. One of the problems fans have remarked on is how ST IV returns things to a status quo, too much (by that I mean putting the crew on a new Enterprise that looks exactly the same as the old one). The comics that are set between The Search For Spock and TVH play out Harve Bennett's intended scenario of relocating the crew onto the Excelsior. It's nice to know there's a version of ST history that develops that idea; a variation on the myth. I wouldn't try to fit the stories between the movies when I watch them, but when I'm reading the comics I let them exist as a forward moving story that shows the changes that were intended. The post-Wrath of Khan stories have the crew continuing their adventures with Savaak as Spock's replacement, again showing the changes that were originally meant to be more lasting.

I discovered, while looking through the comics on the disk that one of the annuals is the story of the crew's first adventure, under the command of Captain Kirk. Which means there are three stories about this that I have come across: the 2009 Star Trek movie, Enterprise: The First Adventure, and that annual which I will eventually get around to. It doesn't matter that there isn't an explanation for why the latter two are going to be different; they are different interpretations in different mediums, of their time.

I look forward to reading The Final Reflection as a window onto how the ST universe might have been perceived at the time it was written.

These were already "fixed" for "Rihannsu: The Bloodwing Voyages" omnibus.

No. Again, that's misunderstanding the intent. The only "fixes" were made for the sake of internal consistency within the Rihannsu series itself. No attempt was made to force the earlier novels to conform to modern canon.

Wasn't the time period for the first two books switched to post-TMP era to fit with the official chronology?

No, to make the series consistent within itself. The various books in the series were inconsistent about what era they took place in, and Duane had to pick one, and she picked that one. The original books were much closer to post-TMP in every respect but the characters' ranks anyway, so it made more sense. Also, the underlying idea of the early Duane novels -- that there was a second 5-year mission between TOS & TMP -- was inconsistent with the canon even as it was known at the time the books were originally written, since TMP contained multiple references to Kirk's "five years out there" as opposed to ten.

True, making it fit with modern understandings of the chronology was probably a consideration, but it wasn't the goal behind the project. The revisions were done for the purpose of making the series internally consistent; anything beyond that was optional at most. There was no intention of stripping the Duaneverse of its idiosyncrasies, only of making it work as a self-consistent narrative whole.

Hmmm, what can I say; I still felt compelled to hunt down, specifically, earlier copies of My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way. The later books, well, if I like those first two enough, maybe I'll keep going. I'll regard the later volumes as having their own internal consistency that draws from events of the earlier books, but beyond that, I'm not too concerned about the accuracy of their place on the timeline. Besides, I'd like to see how Diane Duane interpreted the trappings of a second 5-year mission, prior to Star Trek The Motion Picture. It will be more fun for me that way, just another variation on the myth.

 

[seigezunt]

I look forward to reading The Final Reflection as a window onto how the ST universe might have been perceived at the time it was written.

Wasn't the time period for the first two books switched to post-TMP era to fit with the official chronology?

No, to make the series consistent within itself. The various books in the series were inconsistent about what era they took place in, and Duane had to pick one, and she picked that one. The original books were much closer to post-TMP in every respect but the characters' ranks anyway, so it made more sense. Also, the underlying idea of the early Duane novels -- that there was a second 5-year mission between TOS & TMP -- was inconsistent with the canon even as it was known at the time the books were originally written, since TMP contained multiple references to Kirk's "five years out there" as opposed to ten.

True, making it fit with modern understandings of the chronology was probably a consideration, but it wasn't the goal behind the project. The revisions were done for the purpose of making the series internally consistent; anything beyond that was optional at most. There was no intention of stripping the Duaneverse of its idiosyncrasies, only of making it work as a self-consistent narrative whole.

Hmmm, what can I say; I still felt compelled to hunt down, specifically, earlier copies of My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way. The later books, well, if I like those first two enough, maybe I'll keep going. I'll regard the later volumes as having their own internal consistency that draws from events of the earlier books, but beyond that, I'm not too concerned about the accuracy of their place on the timeline. Besides, I'd like to see how Diane Duane interpreted the trappings of a second 5-year mission, prior to Star Trek The Motion Picture. It will be more fun for me that way, just another variation on the myth.

I just finished the Final Reflection. I think you will enjoy it.

I'm doing much the same thing you are, viewing Trek as a mythos, not canon, and going through the early books (many for the first time) with that in mind.

BTW, there was a Sci Fi Book Club edition of the Rihannsu novels which was not updated, I believe. I have it, but would need to double-check. I found it on amazon.

Also check out The Wounded Sky for that apocryphal second 5-year mission.

 

[Christopher]

Regarding works of fiction in alternative media, this has been the starting point for a number of things I've been collecting recently for reading. The goal is to try and project my thinking back into how these fictional realities might have been viewed and interpreted at the time they were written. It's the reason I've collected the reprinted series of Marvel Star Wars, because those comics reflect the enthusiasm and sense of adventure of the original Star Wars trilogy, rather than the gloomy tragedy and cursory soap opera aspects of the prequels.

The Marvel Star Wars comics are my favorite iteration of the SW universe -- and that's including the movies. I remember when I was first getting into them back in the '90s, how I read that fans had a low opinion of them because they had so little relation to the events and concepts of the films. And this was before there was a significant body of SW prose literature for the comics to clash with; it was purely a complaint about the absence of material from the films themselves. But I didn't see that as a problem; after all, there had to be more to the universe than just what happened in the films, and I enjoyed seeing the comics build that broader universe. They did a good job creating an interesting and reasonably consistent world.

The same goes for the DC Star Trek Volume 1 series. They are set between the movies, Star Trek II, III, and IV; and continue to chronicle adventures after The Voyage Home. I'm so glad for the CD of decades worth of Star Trek comics! People might complain that the continuity is unwieldy, and that especially true for how they set the stage for including the events of the fourth ST movie, but there are benefits to it. One of the problems fans have remarked on is how ST IV returns things to a status quo, too much (by that I mean putting the crew on a new Enterprise that looks exactly the same as the old one). The comics that are set between The Search For Spock and TVH play out Harve Bennett's intended scenario of relocating the crew onto the Excelsior. It's nice to know there's a version of ST history that develops that idea; a variation on the myth. I wouldn't try to fit the stories between the movies when I watch them, but when I'm reading the comics I let them exist as a forward moving story that shows the changes that were intended. The post-Wrath of Khan stories have the crew continuing their adventures with Savaak as Spock's replacement, again showing the changes that were originally meant to be more lasting.

Exactly. That's how I always saw the comics and the novels -- as interpretations of possibilities. Naturally different creators came up with different interpretations.

I discovered, while looking through the comics on the disk that one of the annuals is the story of the crew's first adventure, under the command of Captain Kirk. Which means there are three stories about this that I have come across: the 2009 Star Trek movie, Enterprise: The First Adventure, and that annual which I will eventually get around to. It doesn't matter that there isn't an explanation for why the latter two are going to be different; they are different interpretations in different mediums, of their time.

Definitely read the comic. It's my favorite version of Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise.

I look forward to reading The Final Reflection as a window onto how the ST universe might have been perceived at the time it was written.

Even for its time, it was a rather distinctive take on the universe. Well, its version of Federation history was based heavily on the Spaceflight Chronology by Stan and Fred Goldstein, which was a very influential book in its day, though completely superseded by later canon. But its take on the Klingons was rather unprecedented. It was more a book that shaped and redefined perceptions than one that reflected them.

Hmmm, what can I say; I still felt compelled to hunt down, specifically, earlier copies of My Enemy, My Ally and The Romulan Way. The later books, well, if I like those first two enough, maybe I'll keep going. I'll regard the later volumes as having their own internal consistency that draws from events of the earlier books, but beyond that, I'm not too concerned about the accuracy of their place on the timeline. Besides, I'd like to see how Diane Duane interpreted the trappings of a second 5-year mission, prior to Star Trek The Motion Picture. It will be more fun for me that way, just another variation on the myth.

I still consider the original editions of ME,MA and TRW to be my preferred versions. I'm not crazy about some of the textual changes in the omnibus edition (which made plenty of unnecessary changes, missed several errors, and introduced some new ones). However, I prefer the omnibus edition of Swordhunt to the original 2-volume edition, which oddly retconned the series timeframe to pre-TMP.

 

[Desert Kris]

I just finished the Final Reflection. I think you will enjoy it.

I'm doing much the same thing you are, viewing Trek as a mythos, not canon, and going through the early books (many for the first time) with that in mind.

BTW, there was a Sci Fi Book Club edition of the Rihannsu novels which was not updated, I believe. I have it, but would need to double-check. I found it on amazon.

Also check out The Wounded Sky for that apocryphal second 5-year mission.

Oooooh! I've been curious about that book since reading about it's relationship to an early ST:TNG episode. But this made my interest level go through the roof! Thanks, that's very helpful!

 

[JD]

I discovered, while looking through the comics on the disk that one of the annuals is the story of the crew's first adventure, under the command of Captain Kirk. Which means there are three stories about this that I have come across: the 2009 Star Trek movie, Enterprise: The First Adventure, and that annual which I will eventually get around to. It doesn't matter that there isn't an explanation for why the latter two are going to be different; they are different interpretations in different mediums, of their time.

Definitely read the comic. It's my favorite version of Kirk's first mission on the Enterprise.

I just read that one a couple weeks ago, and I also really enjoyed it. If you've been thinking about reading it, then I say go for it.