For anyone who's read "Captain's Glory"...

[WarsTrek1993]

Is it me, or are there a couple of serious continuity issues in that book. I understand some of the Shatnerverse books aren't exactly following continuity, but this was strange:

The USS Sovereign- I thought that survived the Borg invasion of 2381. In fact, wasn't she in spacedock immediately afterwards? If that's the case, just how in the galaxy could she have blown up in this novel>

The Janeway senario-First off: when was she ever in command of the Sov. Anyone with common sense knows she commanded VOYAGER!

Furthermore-Janeway should've been dead in this book. (Before Dishonor...)

Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens' were GREAT with continuity in the books up until "Preserver." What happened??

I apologize for so much ranting, I just figured I'd bring this up since no one else mentioned it before.

 

[David cgc]

Captain's Glory was written well before Destiny and Before Dishonor. It's more a case of the other books ignoring Shatner's continuity than the other way around.

 

[WarsTrek1993]

Hmmm good point.

 

[Christopher]

Actually there are things about the Captain's... books (the Totality trilogy) that are inconsistent with earlier books in the main continuity. The first book in the trilogy had Bajor still as an independent world some time after the date it joined the Federation in the DS9 novels, and the second and third book had Titan's mission to Romulus last a whole year or more before they began their exploration tour, whereas the Titan novels portrayed a very different timeline.

The Shatner novels have pretty much always been in a separate continuity from the main novels. They've sometimes drawn elements from them, but the two lines pretty much went in their own independent directions from at least The Return onward, even if the overt contradictions didn't start to accumulate until the Totality trilogy.

 

[WarsTrek1993]

Hey, thanks for the explanation there, Mr. Bennet!

I suppose all of the shatnerverse books (aside from Ashes Of Eden) could very well be set in an alternate timeline/reality.

I excluded Ashes since events from that were referenced in Cast No Shadow, therefore, it should stay in continuity.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I suppose all of the shatnerverse books (aside from Ashes Of Eden) could very well be set in an alternate timeline/reality.

I excluded Ashes since events from that were referenced in Cast No Shadow, therefore, it should stay in continuity.

There was no talk of a separate Shatnerverse until "The Return". Prior to that, "The Ashes of Eden" was (and is) safely in the general continuity. Several ST novelists of the day were quoted in the media that they felt it was unnecessary for Kirk to be resurrected - and some (eg Peter David. IIRC) made a point of having a scene in a 24th century novel where characters mentioned that Kirk was still dead when the Shatner books had already brought him back.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I personally don't see the differences as being insurmountable. Bump the last book back to before Janeway's death, ignore Titan's being in the wrong place at the wrong time (they got back to the Frontier at Speed of Plot) and cough over the other stuff.

If blantantly discontinuous episodes ("True Q"/"The Q and the Grey", "Balance of Terror"/"Minefield, "First Contact"/"Broken Bow" etc) can fit into the same vague continuity, books where Kirk's alive (but no-one outside of his adventures dares speak of them) can too.

 

[Christopher]

It's not just about Titan being in the wrong place at a specific time. It's explicitly stated that the ship's inaugural first-contact mission takes place in early 2381, just about a year after Orion's Hounds, in which they had multiple first contacts. And I think a fair amount of the plot revolves around Titan's Romulus mission lasting a long time.

I suppose it might be possible to tweak the chronology of the Totality books to make them fit, but I don't see anything wrong with having them be separate. It's not like any of these books have any greater "reality" than any of the others, either in a canonical sense or a real-world sense, so it's not like a book is "demoted" somehow if it's apart from the main continuity. I often say that if ST canon is history, then ST tie-ins are historical fiction, things that could've happened. And there's nothing wrong with having different sets of books exploring different possible paths the universe could've taken. It's nice when books can be reconciled with each other, but sometimes it's just as nice when they can't, when they offer the reader multiple alternatives to explore.

Heck, if you do feel some need to treat them all as "real," just invoke alternate timelines. It's easier than trying to ignore or rewrite their content to force them to fit together like the pieces of two different jigsaw puzzles.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Gah. Unless it's part of the story, invoking alternate timelines is terribly unsatisfying. The way I see it, little details don't matter. One gigantic, ultra-deep Trek Lit universe, where bits here and there can be swapped out and ignored at will to serve whatever I'm reading at the time (because, ultimately, it doesn't matter if Kirk's cadet days were as depicted in "My Brother's Keeper" or "Collision Course" or the DC comics annual) somehow makes for a deeper reading experience. For me, at least.

 

[Christopher]

I used to try to mentally rewrite books or ignore large chunks of them to make them fit together, but I ultimately realized that by doing so, I wasn't letting myself appreciate them on their own terms. I realized that sometimes the idiosyncrasies of different books, different interpretations of the Trek universe that don't quite agree with one another, could be a feature rather than a bug. It gives them their own distinctive character, and I decided I'd rather celebrate that diversity, in the ST spirit, than try to assimilate it all into a homogeneous whole.

 

[bbailey861]

^ Exactly. I have been reading Trek from the very beginning and had to adjust my thinking and expectations long ago. When I was much younger I used to get wrapped up on the inconsistencies in continuity. Now, though, I don't really know why. In the end, it was far more rewarding to take each book and enjoy it for what it was (and still is) and if it fit in somewhere, great. If not, that was (and still is) fine as long as I enjoy the story.

 

[JD]

Heck, if you do feel some need to treat them all as "real," just invoke alternate timelines. It's easier than trying to ignore or rewrite their content to force them to fit together like the pieces of two different jigsaw puzzles.

This is the approach I always take in these situations. Honestly, I consider the main novel contiuity (Novelverse, Destinyverse, or whatever you want to call it) to be the true continuation of what we saw on screen, at least until it gets contradicted, and I just think of anything that doesn't match up with it as being in an alternate universe.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I loved Ashes of Eden, but I hated The Return. Ashes of Eden had plenty of potential, and I still feel it could have made a good movie. I would have liked if it could have continued in that direction, but the problem was that Generations pretty much forced them to take a different direction if they wanted to continue. The Return was pretty much all about inflating Shatner's ego by making Kirk superhuman. Despite that though, I still liked the first two trilogies, particularly the first as Spock's side of the story is well-written.

 

[WarsTrek1993]

I have to agree with you about Shatner's ego. I mean sheesh, he beats WORF up, for crying out loud!

Really did enjoy the little twist on Sarek's death in Avenger, though. That was well good.

 

[David cgc]

I have to agree with you about Shatner's ego. I mean sheesh, he beats WORF up, for crying out loud!

Everyone's beat up Worf.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Why shouldn't Kirk be able to beat Worf? He's beat plenty of Klingons in his time and ol' microbrain is hardly the invincible warrior some would like to think he is.

 

[Owain Taggart]

It isn't so much that Kirk beats up Worf, but how he does it, and how Worf is portrayed in the book. Like you say, Kirk's beaten up many Klingons, but in this case Worf isn't written as an equal like he should be, and Kirk beats him up precisely because he can. Worf should have gotten more respect than that, instead of just being another target for Kirk.

 

[Christopher]

There's also the fact that it's a 60-year-old Kirk outfighting a 31-year-old Worf.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Worf would have gone down like an Enterprise saucer with Troi at the helm under the might of Kirk's JUDO CHOP and FLYING LEG KICK. Kirk-Fu > all Klingon combat disciplines.

 

[Owain Taggart]

There's also the fact that it's a 60-year-old Kirk outfighting a 31-year-old Worf.

That too. I forgot about that one. Not to mention that Worf is from a race of warriors. Not saying he's infallible, but you'd think he'd have the upper hand.