2018 Releases

Both the trilogies you mention were written by David Mack and he would be perfect for this.

Pity he’s probably not going to be available for the next couple of years.

 

You never know. Dayton Ward mentioned earlier that he's just a phone call away. Maybe the same goes for David Mack. Maybe he has no Star Trek novels planned simply because he wasn't asked yet. And yes, a Romulus destruction story would be right up his alley. His books are always action packed adventures with wide ranging implications. The end of the Borg, Data's return, the fate of Section 31...I can see the end of Romulus fitting right in

 

I feel like a multi-author mega-event would be the way to go for Countdown to Novels, a la "The Fall." Five, six books.

 

The majority of the second DC Comics TOS series takes place between The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country.

David Mack is not doing any more Trek because he's focusing on his original historical fantasy series, Dark Arts, which starts in January with WWII set The Midnight Front, followed by the 1954 set Iron Codex in 2019, and a third book, The Shadow Comission, in 2020.

 

Uh, no, he hasn't given up Trek, he's just busy with the trilogy right now.

 

^ Yep. Dave's just got a full plate at the moment, but Pocket knows where to find him.

 

JD, I've always been more of a novel reader. I did see that about the comics, probably on Memory Beta. I've noticed with Star Trek each niche sort of follows it's own continuity. Since I always liked reading, I more or less follow the novel continuity. My brain probably couldn't handle trying to keep novel continuities, comic continuities, video continuities all straight. I'd drive myself nuts. But I'd love to see some of that period between say 2386 and 2293 tapped by more novels. Also there's plenty of Pike stories I'm sure that can be told, and even Captain Aprils tenure--I loved that Legacies touched on that a bit. The beautiful thing about Star Trek is even though there have been decades of books, there's still tons of Star Trek stories to be told.
I was initially concerned that David Mack had no Star Trek books in the pipeline because it always seemed he had some Trek novel down the road coming out. I'm sure when he's ready to do another Trek book he'll have something exciting to write about. But Star Trek has a great has a great group of writers overall so I'm sure there'll be good books on the horizon.

 

There’s really no ‘novel continuity’ vs ‘comic continuity’. Many comic characters and events have crossed over into both older and new novels, and vice versa.

 

Yeah, but that's the exception, not the rule. It doesn't mean they share a universe, just that one writer liked another writer's character or idea and decided to borrow it. For instance, Harley Quinn was created for Batman: The Animated Series, but by now she's been depicted in a dozen or more different, incompatible versions of Batman/DC continuity.

I mean, heck, by definition, any two different tie-in continuities have a lot of characters and events in common -- specifically, the character and events of the canon they're tying into. All Trek tie-in continuities have Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, etc. But they differ in their portrayal of events beyond screen canon. This isn't an all-or-nothing choice. A single shared character or idea doesn't mean the entire continuity is shared. It just means the character or idea has been included in more than one continuity.

 

And figuring out exactly what inconsistancies can be glossed over and what all can fit in a continuity in up to each person. That’s why I just include every cross-story reference on my website, note that everything is included regardless of continuity, and leave it up to the reader to sort what they think ‘counts’ and doesn’t.

Christopher, this discussion makes me think of a question I have for you. What are your thoughts about a document like the timeline in the back of Voyages of the Imagination, which includes EVERYTHING, regardless of continuity? Worthwhile way of presenting things?

 

Well, as you say, it's up to the individual to pick and choose. The goal of a document like that is merely to show where/when the stories would fall if they happened, rather than to insist that they all did happen regardless of their many contradictions and overlaps. Of course, some people are bound to misunderstand that, but there's no way to avoid that except to try your best to make the intention clear, which I think the Timeliners did.

 

Yeah I love it. A really valuable resource.

 

I’m glad that there’s no or little continuity between the comics and the novels as I hate being forced to buy something that I wouldn’t normally get just to follow the story.

That was why I stopped buying comics. I used to buy 6 or 7 titles a month from Marvel and DC. Then they started doing cross company ‘events’ which meant I had to buy other titles just so that I could follow the story that was in the titles I did buy.

 

Continuity does not equal "being forced" to buy something to follow the story. Even in a shared universe, each individual tale should be understandable on its own; the continuity links among different stories are ideally just a bonus, something that enriches your experience if you read/watch multiple works or series, but that doesn't leave you lost if you read/watch just one or two.

True, sometimes crossovers are handled in that way, but that's not the default or only way it's done. And it wouldn't make much sense to do it across two different media. The continuity links between Trek novels and Trek comics are more Easter eggs than essential plot points. It's not like we're intentionally trying to make our tales obscure or confusing to the readers.

 

I mean, to be fair, that almost is the default in the big two nowadays. Over the historical scope not really, but in recent years there's definitely a push for events to work that way.

You'd think so, yeah. But I mentioned the WoW novels some time back on the board? And they do work that way; major events in the overall storyline are mentioned in the game in such a way that you need to read the books or short stories to understand what people are talking about. Which is very frustrating. Major characters shifting sides, entire denouements that change the status quo for a character, major character deaths, they're all portrayed in the side media, and then mentioned offhandedly in the game as though you should already be aware of it, without elaboration or explanation.

And they've been doing this for years. :|

 

For me it's just a matter of preference. I've never been much into comics. I have noticed from time to time authors referencing a certain comic book story in their acknowledgments. But I've never felt I had to go find and read that comic to understand the book. If I'm curious enough about the backstory they are citing I might look up the summary in Memory Alpha or Beta. But I'm sure for comic book readers it's great to see those Easter eggs (just as it is when you see a movie). As a book reader, I feel it helps to read the relaunch novels in order of release. As Christopher noted, it's certainly not necessary. There are references to prior books, but they all do a good job of citing just enough that you understand what's going on. But I've been reading them as a continuing story, in some ways like watching a TV series. It's also nice knowing when one book references a prior book, that I know what that prior story was and what happened. In a sense, you're in the loop. And who wants to be out of the loop .

 

Plus if you skip novels, you're probably missing some great stories. I never feel forced to buy a novel. On the contrary, I look forward to their release.

 

In comics, yeah, but that doesn't apply to Trek novels. When we reference characters or ideas from the comics, you can follow the stories without even needing to know they're from the comics. They're just there. For instance, you can read about Pava in the Titan novels or Etana Kol in the DS9 novels without needing to know they were created for Marvel's '90s Trek comics.

Yes, naturally, some series do it that way, or people wouldn't experience that and become gunshy about crossovers. The point is that not everyone does it that way, that a bad experience with that approach shouldn't sour a reader on every crossover.

I think the best illustration of this principle is "The Cage." It's the first Star Trek story ever written or produced, and yet it's built around references to a previous adventure. The crew is reeling from their losses on Rigel VII. Pike is considering resigning because his yeoman and several others in his crew were killed. In a sense, the story is a sequel to a story that was never told. And yet we have no problem following it, because the story explains what we need to know about those prior events.

 

Easter eggs are fine. Those that spot them will appreciate them; those that don’t won’t be scratching their heads.

Crossovers, depending on how extensive they were, would annoy me to some degree. During the 1970s I regularly got Marvel’s the Avengers but not the Defenders. Then in 1973 Marvel published The Avengers v The Defenders which ran six issues - three of each title. I had to buy the Defenders issues to follow what was happening in the Avengers.

I also followed the X-Men but when the New Mutants and other titles debuted the stories became complicated running over several titles.

That was when I said ‘Enough is enough’.

I appreciate that the novels are written so you don’t need to read the comics even if there are references to them.

 

Oh, my mistake then.