• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

TOS: The Weight of Worlds by Greg Cox Review Thread (Spoilers!)

Rate The Weight of Worlds.

  • Outstanding

    Votes: 8 18.2%

  • Above Average

    Votes: 24 54.5%

  • Average

    Votes: 9 20.5%

  • Below Average

    Votes: 3 6.8%

  • Poor

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    44
But it is the kind of issue that the books are perfect for explaining away. And canonacity really has nothing to do with it.
 
The consistancy and continuity of the novels are not canon but suggesting that TOS was inconsistant in this case was not accurate, er, flat out wrong, which is what I was commenting on in this case.

Changing the intent of TOS is dangerous even when it's in conflict with itself. The writers job should be to make TOS jibe with their own work, not the other way around. Their job is to defend and do justice to Canon, not reinterpret it or change it and declare it in error. The game master is never wrong.
 
You know, I puckishly considered having the Crusaders worship a sacred text known as the Canon, but decided that might be biting the hand that feeds me . . . :)
 
Greg Cox said:
You know, I puckishly considered having the Crusaders worship a sacred text known as the Canon, but decided that might be biting the hand that feeds me . . . :)
Click to expand...

I know people throw around the phrase "LOL" far too haphazardly these days, but I literally laughed out loud at that one.
 
Kertrats47 said:
Greg Cox said:
You know, I puckishly considered having the Crusaders worship a sacred text known as the Canon, but decided that might be biting the hand that feeds me . . . :)
Click to expand...

I know people throw around the phrase "LOL" far too haphazardly these days, but I literally laughed out loud at that one.
Click to expand...

Agreed! LOL

I do like that Trek fans, on a whole are much more flexible on canon than Star Wars fans.

On the religious issues in the book Greg, I am a religious person, and I was not offended at all. Conversion by the sword is never the answer because it is not true. Any time, any religion tried to do that, it has lost it's way (I say that as a Christian and take into account all the times "Christians" have been guilty of such heresy.) Religious extremism is always dangerous
 
xortex said:
The consistancy and continuity of the novels are not canon but suggesting that TOS was inconsistant in this case was not accurate, er, flat out wrong, which is what I was commenting on in this case.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but even if it isn't an "inconsistency" it's still a gap that is perfect for the novels to fill it.
From what's been said it sounds like Kirk went from having three nephews to only one between episodes, so it's perfectly reasonable for the novels to explain what happened to the two who weren't around anymore.
 
The consistancy of canon is not open to debate. It is up to the writers to uphold the continuity of TOS even if they they have to stand on their head to do so or why not avoid the inherant conflict to begin with. just because the writer can't explain it doesn't mean that there is no explaination or it is or has to be an inconsistancy and therefore feel the need to correct TOS in any way or unless you feel a need to touch up the mona Lisa, I say get your own universe and leave TOS alone.
 
:brickwall:Gaaaaaaahhhh! I already agreed it wasn't an inconsistency, all I'm saying now is it's the perfect example of the kind of things the books are good at explaining away. It doesn't have to be explained and could be ignored, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an unexplained change, and one of the things the books have done a lot over the years is explain those kinds of things.
 
The authors should have better things to do than contradict TOS. The concensus is that Star Trek is written by authors and not that authors are writing Star Trek as if they created the thing.
 
What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about contradicting TOS, all I said was that they could explain what happened to Kirk's nephews who disappeared. It's can't contradict the show if no explanation was given during the episode.
 
xortex said:
Christopher said:
E-DUB said:
I believe it has been established that JTK has only one nephew. If I'm wrong, I'll be sure to hear about it.
Click to expand...

That's ambiguous. "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" stated that George Samuel "Sam" Kirk had three sons. "Operation -- Annihilate!" later claimed that Peter Kirk was Captain Kirk's only surviving relative. Some fans have resolved the contradiction by assuming the other two nephews died sometime in the few months between those episodes, or that they died in the parasite attack but somehow went unmentioned. But several previous tie-ins have ignored the line from OA and depicted Kirk's three nephews. Bottom line, it's a continuity error and there's no consensus on how to resolve it.
Click to expand...

Um, first off, wrong, because the novels are not canon. so they died somehow.

I like the irony in the statement 'Only siths speak in absolutes'
Click to expand...


Why don't you try reading what Chris said again and concentrate on what I'm saying, not on what you're saying.
 
I didn't want to tell people my identity here, but, I'm a da pope. Pope Jorge Frances. I'm also with CBS liscencing of all star Trek tie-in media products and the ghost of richard Arnold.
 
Reading it now and loving it. Starting chapter four and will finish it today hopefully. So far it's got a little of everything. Trek was always replete with surprise endings, not as twisted as TZ but enough of a bang for the buck payoff that revealed the writer's metaphysical leanings. TOS climaxed at every break usually with a sharp minor chord in a first inversion. Like Prokofiev's ending to the second movement of his fifth symphony.
 
Glad you're enjoying the book so far!

Just to celebrate a bit: I delivered the next book to Pocket Thursday night--so I have the weekend off!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top