Charting the Novel-verse

[bok2384]

Could someone tell me what kind of enemy species and ships appear in Stargazer Gauntlet.

i might read it, but memory-beta is silent about the matter.

It depends how deep you want to go into spoiler territory really. In this first novel, the Stargazer is ordered to track down the enigmatic pirate known simply as the "White Wolf". Starship wise, the Stargazer and several of her Constellation-class sister ships (notably the USS Cochise) are featured as well as the "White Wolf"'s ship (shown on the cover) is featured.

As for aliens, I believe there was several aliens among the "White Wolf"'s crew, including a Nausicaan I believe. Of course, their are also the aliens aboard Stargazer such as Simenon and Jitterica, but they aren't who you're after.

The rest of the Stargazer series was more replete with aliens throughout the rest of its run.

 

[Yevetha]

Thanks i am liking it so far.

 

[JWolf]

Could someone tell me what kind of enemy species and ships appear in Stargazer Gauntlet.

i might read it, but memory-beta is silent about the matter.

It depends how deep you want to go into spoiler territory really.

Go back and edit your message and put in spoiler codes. Not everyone has read these books and you are spoiling them.

 

[Christopher]

Go back and edit your message and put in spoiler codes. Not everyone has read these books and you are spoiling them.

"There is a word. Among us there is no corresponding meaning, but it seems to mean something to you humans."

"And what is that word?"

"Please."

 

[JWolf]

Go back and edit your message and put in spoiler codes. Not everyone has read these books and you are spoiling them.

"There is a word. Among us there is no corresponding meaning, but it seems to mean something to you humans."

"And what is that word?"

"Please."

It's rude to assume everyone who is reading this thread has read the books. So what's been done is by reading that post, you do spoil some of the book. Spoilers left out in the open in a non-spoiler OK thread doesn't deserve a please.

 

[Thrawn]

Those are some pretty damn mild spoilers. I now know there's a ship - pictured on the cover - that has a Nausicaan on it. Whooooa shit! Guess I better not read it now.

 

[LightningStorm]

JWolf, knock off the mini-modding. This is the 2nd time in recent memory that you've done that. If you do it again you will receive an infraction for it.

As for the alleged spoiler. 1. Thrawn is right it's not really a spoiler. and 2. Even if it were this thread's very nature insinuates that it will be spoiling pretty much the whole of the novel-verse. Now, had the spoiler been about more recent books, sure a spoiler warning/coding could be warranted, but for Stargazer?? No. not necessary.

 

[bok2384]

Those are some pretty damn mild spoilers. I now know there's a ship - pictured on the cover - that has a Nausicaan on it. Whooooa shit! Guess I better not read it now.

I couldn't put it better myself! Spoilers!! WTF!!! I was going to include a spoiler tag (hence the opening line) as I was going to include...

Spoiler: Gauntlet

That the "White Wolf" was indeed the Cochise's captain, Denton Greenbriar.

But I decided not to. In the meantime, I suggest you read up on what the definition of a spoiler is, JWolf, really. I just reiterated what the plot of the story was which is that Stargazer was sent to track down a pirate. I think you can find similar information somewhere... such as the back cover of the novel or any site which sells the book and features said blurb.

 

[Christopher]

^Right. It's nonsense to say that any information about the content of a story is a spoiler. A spoiler is something that spoils, i.e. ruins, the satisfaction of the reading/viewing experience, say, by giving away the ending or the big shocking twist on whose concealment the whole narrative depends. It doesn't ruin the story just to know what it's generally about and who's in it.

(Although I read that somebody did a study recently and found that, on the average, people who'd been spoiled on the endings of stories tended to enjoy them more than people who hadn't been. Maybe because their overall comprehension of the story was better, or something.)

 

[Yevetha]

I actually like being spoiled.

 

[captcalhoun]

titanic: the ship sinks.

Downfall: Hitler dies.

Soylent Green: it's people.

Empire Strikes Back: Vader is Luke's dad.

 

[Relayer1]

I'm wondering if there are any other book series or authors that follow David's style of writing and fairly good respect to the ST canon?

Well, we've all got our own writing styles, but we're all obligated to respect the canon -- just part of the rules of writing tie-ins -- and a lot of us work tons of continuity references into our books. However, the majority of the novels published in the past decade have had a shared continuity that Crucible is not a part of, because the decision was made to ground that trilogy solely in the original (and animated) series.

What are the 'out of continuity' elements of the Crucible books ? They are on my to be read pile at the moment.

And why would a a decision be made for a recent novel to deliberately violate continuity ?

 

[Christopher]

What are the 'out of continuity' elements of the Crucible books ? They are on my to be read pile at the moment.

And why would a a decision be made for a recent novel to deliberately violate continuity ?

Let me be clear: Crucible, like all tie-in novels, is consistent with the continuity of canonical, onscreen Star Trek. It was simply decided to take it in a different direction than other novels have taken when it comes to things beyond established screen continuity. For instance, its version of the events in the years following Star Trek: The Motion Picture is incompatible with what my novel Ex Machina established, and its version of the elderly Admiral McCoy's life in the 24th century differs from what various other novels and short stories have established. This is because Crucible was meant to be a celebration of TOS itself, one that would be accessible to readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the broader prose continuity.

And differing from that prose continuity isn't "violating" anything, because that continuity is optional, not obligatory. It's something that various writers and editors have chosen to build between them, but it was never intended to prevent alternative paths from being taken. As it stands, it's just one of several alternative continuities in the books, alongside the Shatner novels, Crucible, and Diane Duane's concluding Rihannsu novels, plus assorted standalone novels and stories. Not to mention the distinct continuities of other tie-ins like the IDW and TokyoPop comics and Star Trek Online.

 

[Relayer1]

What are the 'out of continuity' elements of the Crucible books ? They are on my to be read pile at the moment.

And why would a a decision be made for a recent novel to deliberately violate continuity ?

Let me be clear: Crucible, like all tie-in novels, is consistent with the continuity of canonical, onscreen Star Trek. It was simply decided to take it in a different direction than other novels have taken when it comes to things beyond established screen continuity. For instance, its version of the events in the years following Star Trek: The Motion Picture is incompatible with what my novel Ex Machina established, and its version of the elderly Admiral McCoy's life in the 24th century differs from what various other novels and short stories have established. This is because Crucible was meant to be a celebration of TOS itself, one that would be accessible to readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the broader prose continuity.

And differing from that prose continuity isn't "violating" anything, because that continuity is optional, not obligatory. It's something that various writers and editors have chosen to build between them, but it was never intended to prevent alternative paths from being taken. As it stands, it's just one of several alternative continuities in the books, alongside the Shatner novels, Crucible, and Diane Duane's concluding Rihannsu novels, plus assorted standalone novels and stories. Not to mention the distinct continuities of other tie-ins like the IDW and TokyoPop comics and Star Trek Online.

Fair point, and thanks for the answer.

I just find it odd that novels are being released that deliberately ignore the current novel continuity (note I don't say canon !) when they could easily be written to 'fit in'.

Obviously contradictory 'old' novels are unavoidable, and presumably can be filed as 'Myriad Universes'.

My problem with it is probably just symptomatic of my anally retentive fanboy mentality...

 

[Christopher]

I just find it odd that novels are being released that deliberately ignore the current novel continuity (note I don't say canon !) when they could easily be written to 'fit in'.

Because continuity isn't the reason we tell stories. We tell stories to explore interesting ideas. It can be interesting to explore an evolving, interconnected continuity, but the continuity is a means to that end, not an end in itself. If someone has a great idea for a story that can't fit with that continuity, they shouldn't be forbidden to tell it.

And Crucible could not have been written to fit the main novel continuity. Its storyline contains elements that take the characters and their lives in very different directions than what the other novels have done. It's a huge, epic, sweeping story, and its author and editor decided that it needed the freedom to strike its own course -- grounded in canon, of course, but otherwise not held back by anything else. It's what the story needed, and that's the priority.

 

[Relayer1]

Because continuity isn't the reason we tell stories. We tell stories to explore interesting ideas. It can be interesting to explore an evolving, interconnected continuity, but the continuity is a means to that end, not an end in itself. If someone has a great idea for a story that can't fit with that continuity, they shouldn't be forbidden to tell it.

And Crucible could not have been written to fit the main novel continuity. Its storyline contains elements that take the characters and their lives in very different directions than what the other novels have done.

...is a pretty compelling reason !

Not having read it yet it is hard to judge if it could have been made to fit continuity and still told an equally good story.

 

[Stevil2001]

The way Provenance of Shadows ends, at least, definitely couldn't work and would be much less powerful if it fit in with "the novel continuity."

 

[Yevetha]

Chrisptopher posted:

Because continuity isn't the reason we tell stories. We tell stories to explore interesting ideas. It can be interesting to explore an evolving, interconnected continuity, but the continuity is a means to that end, not an end in itself. If someone has a great idea for a story that can't fit with that continuity, they shouldn't be forbidden to tell it.

There is always a way to make the idea, you might just need a diferent sctor of space or a different era, thats all.

 

[Christopher]

Chrisptopher posted:

Because continuity isn't the reason we tell stories. We tell stories to explore interesting ideas. It can be interesting to explore an evolving, interconnected continuity, but the continuity is a means to that end, not an end in itself. If someone has a great idea for a story that can't fit with that continuity, they shouldn't be forbidden to tell it.

There is always a way to make the idea, you might just need a diferent sctor of space or a different era, thats all.

There are so many things wrong with that assumption that it would take all morning to go into it. But did you miss the part where I said continuity is not an end in itself? It is not something that writers should be required to obey. That's an arbitrary limitation that has nothing to do with quality. Saying that all stories need to be kept slavishly consistent with each other is like saying that all stories need to be musicals or that all stories need explicit sex scenes. Continuity is a stylistic option. It's a technique that works well in some contexts but absolutely should not be the only permitted approach.

The writers and editors developed the interconnected Trek novel continuity because it was fun and interesting, and because we wanted to pay tribute to other authors' works we respected and play with their ideas and characters further. But if the best way to tell a story is to move in a separate direction from that continuity, then it would be wrong to force that story into a mold it doesn't belong in.

 

[Yevetha]

But did you miss the part where I said continuity is not an end in itself?

Its not, but it keeps things straight.

It is not something that writers should be required to obey.

I dont have that expectation unless they are working for a franchise.

Saying that all stories need to be kept slavishly consistent with each other is like saying that all stories need to be musicals or that all stories need explicit sex scenes.

Not slavishly, i belive in retcons.

But if the best way to tell a story is to move in a separate direction from that continuity, then it would be wrong to force that story into a mold it doesn't belong in.
__________________

Unless you want to do it with certain charcters or planets continuity is not an issue.