A Lit-verse based TOS chronology

[Christopher]

But that's not the only way I enjoy it — its role as part of a larger fictional construct is interesting and stimulating as well.

Yeah, but the point is, not everything has to be part of the same larger fictional construct. The whole reason I set the '80s novelverse apart is because it already forms its own interconnected continuity based in the cross-pollination of ideas among the novelists of that era, and based in the assumptions about the Trek universe that existed before TNG came along and changed so much. It's already a larger fictional construct with its own characteristic identity and flavor, and I don't like the idea of destroying that uniqueness by trying to ramrod its individual texts into the modern novel continuity.

The one '80s-continuity novel that I kept as part of my primary continuity for the longest time was Uhura's Song, because it's always been a favorite of mine. I even mentioned an Eeiauoan in Ex Machina. But then I realized, on a reread, that it included a character and ideas from The Entropy Effect, so it, too, was linked to the '80s continuity. Since I was in the process of exploring how the '80s continuity fit together at that point, even organizing its books together in a distinct section of my bookshelves, I realized that Uhura's Song should simply go where it belonged, that I should embrace its connections to the '80s continuity rather than trying to gloss them over.

Like I said, it's not about value judgments. Putting books in a different continuity doesn't diminish them. The '80s novel continuity is an intriguing entity in its own right, an important historical phase that deserves to be appreciated on its own terms. Restoring Uhura's Song to its place in the '80s continuity was like restoring an antique to its original state.

And context is everything: in this thread we're not just talking about any particular story. We are, very explictly, talking about an effort to fit all the Trek fiction we (or the OP) like into "one big continuity."

Yes, and that's just it. Why limit yourself to one? If it's fun to organize things into a larger continuity, it's even more fun to organize them into multiple continuities, each with its own distinct flavor.

Here's a question for you (and the thread), since my copy of VOTI is tucked away in a box in storage somewhere... given that it attempts to integrate all the novels (up to its publication date), how consistent is it with the similar effort available online on Memory Beta?

No idea. I haven't done a systematic comparison.

but c'mon... read Duane's My Enemy, My Ally then go watch Nemesis, and tell me you'd rather ignore the former for the sake of strict conformity with the latter. Yeah, didn't think so.

Again, the fundamental problem there is that you're assuming you're only allowed to like one version, that one is "real" and everything else is "ignored" or thrown away. That is not how fiction works. It's all unreal anyway, so it's nonsensical to say you have to pick just one version as the "right" one. Adam West's Batman is just as valid as Kevin Conroy's and Christian Bale's. The Godzilla who'd survived unaltered since the age of dinosaurs and was displaced from his feeding grounds by the Marshall Islands atomic tests is just as valid as the one who was originally a land-dwelling Godzillasaurus and got mutated to giant size by those tests. You don't have to choose. You hurt yourself by choosing, because you're arbitrarily limiting the number of fictional realities you're able to enjoy.

Diane Duane's Rihannsu are terrific. But they're a literary construct. They're an idea. And so are Nemesis's Romulans. Neither of them actually exists, so it's nonsense to say we have to choose one as "right." They're both stories, and we're allowed to enjoy stories that aren't compatible with each other.

Yeah, it did improve in the fourth season, but still... if it comes down to it, in my conception of fanon I'm more than willing to relegate that whole series to an alternate timeline for the sake of preserving what I value about the 23rd- and 24th-century shows.

That's the mistake I used to make -- thinking it was a value judgment. They're just different stories. You can value them all.

But then why stop at two? There are enough contradictions out there in Trek fiction (both written and filmed) to argue for a whole host of variant continuities. Where does one draw the line?

Why do you need to draw a line? This isn't a moral issue. It's about entertainment. It's about the fun of playing with different interpretations of an imaginary construct. You keep talking about this like there's some kind of right and wrong choice here. The only wrong choice is limiting your ability to explore possibilities.

There are seven official Godzilla continuities in Japan alone, with an eighth now in development. That's in addition to the continuity of the recent American film and its upcoming sequel. There's a new animated Batman continuity on TV or home video every few years. There are currently two unrelated TV series about Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, and Ian McKellen's Mr. Holmes is in theaters. Other fictional universes get to have multiple realities. Why do so many Trek fans imagine they have a moral imperative to restrict themselves to one? Whatever happened to infinite diversity?

My default preference (notwithstanding my remark just now about ENT) is to try to integrate things, rather than exclude them.

Again: It's not about excluding things. It's about having more than one place to include them.

If I have to make a choice between a story element from TOS & its films, and an element from any latter-day series, 99 times out of 100 I'll go with TOS. (Naturally, anyone else's mileage may vary.) So if embracing the present Litverse means abandoning that... nope, sorry, not gonna happen.

Nothing's being "abandoned." Just recategorized.

 

[lawman]

Could you not do that, please? Assume my opinion rather than ask for the sake of rhetoric, I mean. Whether or not I would end up agreeing, it's just a pet peeve of mine; it comes across as though you wouldnt actually care about my opinion were I to end up disagreeing. I never even said anything about ignoring anything, I was just asking a question about your position.

No offense intended. I didn't mean to impute specific opinions to you personally. I may have phrased the question as directed at you, but it was really a rhetorical question, and could just as easily apply to any reader of the post.

At any rate, by all means feel free to clarify what your actual opinion is. Where do you see the boundaries between what does and doesn't fit into an integrated Trek continuity?

Like I said, it's not about value judgments. Putting books in a different continuity doesn't diminish them.

...Why do you need to draw a line? This isn't a moral issue. It's about entertainment. It's about the fun of playing with different interpretations of an imaginary construct. You keep talking about this like there's some kind of right and wrong choice here.

...Other fictional universes get to have multiple realities. Why do so many Trek fans imagine they have a moral imperative to restrict themselves to one?

I think we may be arguing more over semantics here than substantive differences. I'm concerned if what I've written comes across as framing this as a value judgment, a "moral issue," or a matter of absolute right and wrong, because that certainly wasn't my intent.

Likewise, this exchange between you and me was kicked off by my response to your post using phrases like "no way" and "entirely incompatible," which seemed to imply pretty strongly that you see a right and a wrong approach. But perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

I enjoy complex fictional universes; I enjoy playing around with continuity and its interstices and connective tissue; and I gather from both your fiction and your comments that you do too. I fully recognize and heartily agree that there's no single "right" answer (morally or otherwise!) as to how to go about it, though.

Consider: back in the OP, Ryan started out by saying

"I realized that I really just need to figure out a month by month chronology of the 5YM so that I will be able to place books in the chronology more definitively in the future. ... I started, obviously with the book order given in the Pocket Timeline."
​

Notwithstanding that he used the word "definitive," I don't think he meant that there would be only one possible conclusion; rather, he meant "definitive" for his own subjective purposes. Likewise, I never argued that the interpretation I was offering must supersede everybody else's; merely that it's a valid interpretation.

The way I see it, there are two basic sets of relevant criteria here to guide the approach to such a project:

1) Matters of taste. As the saying goes, of course, de gustibus non est disputandum. It really just falls to each of us to explain what subjective tastes underly our decisions about continuity, not because they're better than anyone else's, but because it lends clarity and avoids confusion. For me personally, for example, as I've stated, the TOS/movie era is the heart and soul of Trek, and everything else (however enjoyable) is in some sense secondary or derivative by comparison. YMMV.

2) Matters of logic. We need to be able to adduce evidence, offer reasonable arguments, and respond to counter-arguments about what does or doesn't "fit" into a single coherent chronology. Some details inevitably need to be massaged, regardless of the kind of source material or its vintage. "How much" is a judgment call, of course.

And we're not talking about anything like the contrast between Batman:TAS and Christian Bale Batman here (both of which I enjoy, BTW). There's no clear and obvious dividing line. After all, as Ryan wrote, his baseline starting point is the Pocket timeline in VOTI, which you indicated is also the presumptive baseline for current novelists... and that one (unless I'm severely misremembering it) does boldly attempt to integrate all the novels into a single continuity, regardless of vintage. Obviously reasonable people can disagree about exactly how feasible this is, but to posit that there's "no way" to do so seems to be an outlier position.

Fundamentally, I think the earlier and more recent Trek novel eras have far more in common (the underlying source material, for one!) than they have differences, and I find it both aesthetically pleasing and logically feasible to fit most (if not all) of the novels into a single continuity. Your take on things is different? Hey, that's fine, no skin off my nose — as I pointed out, it's all "fanon" anyway. No value judgments involved. Let's enjoy quibbling over the fine points! (Some of which have already come up — The Captain's Daughter, The Vulcan Academy Murders, which version(s) of the beginning and end of the FYM work best...)

There are currently two unrelated TV series about Sherlock Holmes in the 21st century, and Ian McKellen's Mr. Holmes is in theaters.

The only canonical Holmes is Doyle's. Everything else is mere homage.

 

[Christopher]

Likewise, this exchange between you and me was kicked off by my response to your post using phrases like "no way" and "entirely incompatible," which seemed to imply pretty strongly that you see a right and a wrong approach. But perhaps I misinterpreted your intent.

I don't see how "right and wrong" even comes into play. As I said, it's simply a matter of classification. It's about putting books where they fit best, rather than selectively rewriting them to put them in a less appropriate category.

There are certainly '80s novels that have no strong links to any others and are thus free and clear to put wherever you like. The oldest book I count in my primary continuity is The Covenant of the Crown, which predates not only the modern novelverse, but the '80s continuity as well. But The Lost Years has clear and unambiguous ties to multiple other '80s novels -- the three previous J.M. Dillard books and Dreadnought! among them. It is in direct continuity with those books, in the literal sense that it continues their story and character arcs. So I don't see it as something that you can selectively place wherever you want as an individual work. It's too integrated into the '80s continuity.

2) Matters of logic. We need to be able to adduce evidence, offer reasonable arguments, and respond to counter-arguments about what does or doesn't "fit" into a single coherent chronology. Some details inevitably need to be massaged, regardless of the kind of source material or its vintage. "How much" is a judgment call, of course.

Exactly. Given how strong the ties are between The Lost Years and other '80s books, you'd have to massage a huge amount of stuff to make it fit a different continuity. And that seems to be making too great a change in the narrative.

After all, Dillard created several characters who have ongoing story arcs throughout multiple novels -- the security characters Ingrid Tomson, Lisa Nguyen, Lamia, and Jon Stanger. The Lost Years is the direct continuation of their storylines. It doesn't make sense to put 3/4 of their story arc in one continuity and the final part in a different one. TLY belongs with the other books.

After all, as Ryan wrote, his baseline starting point is the Pocket timeline in VOTI, which you indicated is also the presumptive baseline for current novelists... and that one (unless I'm severely misremembering it) does boldly attempt to integrate all the novels into a single continuity, regardless of vintage.

That is a misunderstanding of its intent. The goal was merely to place each book at the point where it would fall chronologically if you consider it to have occurred. That was not intended to imply that they all happened, especially since many of them contradict each other, and since if every TOS story happened, it would be impossible to fit them all into five years.

The only canonical Holmes is Doyle's. Everything else is mere homage.

We're talking about tie-in fiction. Canon has nothing to do with it either way. Every Trek novel or comic is "mere homage" to the shows and films.

 

[Idran]

Could you not do that, please? Assume my opinion rather than ask for the sake of rhetoric, I mean. Whether or not I would end up agreeing, it's just a pet peeve of mine; it comes across as though you wouldnt actually care about my opinion were I to end up disagreeing. I never even said anything about ignoring anything, I was just asking a question about your position.

No offense intended. I didn't mean to impute specific opinions to you personally. I may have phrased the question as directed at you, but it was really a rhetorical question, and could just as easily apply to any reader of the post.

At any rate, by all means feel free to clarify what your actual opinion is. Where do you see the boundaries between what does and doesn't fit into an integrated Trek continuity?

I don't, really. I just fit stuff that feels like it fits and don't fit stuff that feels like it doesn't. It's purely 100% subjective on my part, I'm not sure I could even characterize it by a set of rules. It's case-by-case, really. I guess for one example, I just recently dropped the Q Continuum trilogy from my personal chronology just because it doesn't easily mesh with Vanguard to me in the least. (Or to a lesser degree Eternal Tide and the first Stargazer book; it also has a very slight conflict with what The Buried Age hinted at in terms of the origins of various deadly energy beings, but if it was that alone then I wouldn't have any trouble keeping them both in a single continuity, if that helps you get an idea of where I put things.)

I love that trilogy, I still think it's great, but I still dropped it from my own because I'd rather do that than force it; I'd lose more in my eyes by forcing it than by just not including it. I've got some stuff included in my own chronology that I don't personally like nearly as well, but for me it's just a question of how much effort I want to put in justifying major continuity differences or "writing" a splice.

After all, as Ryan wrote, his baseline starting point is the Pocket timeline in VOTI, which you indicated is also the presumptive baseline for current novelists... and that one (unless I'm severely misremembering it) does boldly attempt to integrate all the novels into a single continuity, regardless of vintage.

Well...sort of? I mean, it doesn't really do anything to refer to the events of each book, and it never really makes a positive claim about whether or not they all happened. It's more just like an attempt at dating everything. I mean, it includes MU stuff without calling it out as a Mirror Universe story if I remember right, for example. And I think it mentions when multiple sources give varying dates for the same events. But it also includes blatantly contradictory stories as well.

Like, I'm pretty sure it's better characterized not as a single unified fictional universe project, but more like a this is when all this stuff happened whether or not it goes with this other stuff project. It's more like if someone made a timeline of all sci-fi stories ever just for the sake of giving them all dates; it doesn't mean that the person making the timeline is placing them in the same universe, just that they're charting them all on the same axes. I think what Christopher means is that if someone references a story, the time that that story happened has to be drawn from VOTI, but it doesn't mean that every writer has to write under the impression that everything listed in VOTI did happen.

The only canonical Holmes is Doyle's. Everything else is mere homage.

An ironic sentiment considering how much Doyle loathed Holmes by the end.

 

[Christopher]

I think what Christopher means is that if someone references a story, the time that that story happened has to be drawn from VOTI, but it doesn't mean that every writer has to write under the impression that everything listed in VOTI did happen.

Wow, I'm certainly not saying anyone "has to" draw from it. I'm just saying it seems to be the most likely choice as a reference, since it includes not only the Okudachron baseline but the updates to it from later canon and the timing information for stuff from the novel continuity. I suppose it'd be a choice between that and Memory Beta for most authors. I think they're all following mostly the same set of assumptions by this point. I'm talking about what's useful, not what's mandated. As I said, I know nothing about whether anything is obligatory today, beyond the usual of staying consistent with canon information.

 

[lawman]

Given how strong the ties are between The Lost Years and other '80s books, you'd have to massage a huge amount of stuff to make it fit...

After all, Dillard created several characters who have ongoing story arcs throughout multiple novels -- the security characters Ingrid Tomson, Lisa Nguyen, Lamia, and Jon Stanger. The Lost Years is the direct continuation of their storylines. It doesn't make sense to put 3/4 of their story arc in one continuity and the final part in a different one. TLY belongs with the other books.

Here, it seems, you're taking your conclusion (two different continuities) as a starting assumption. I'm not sure what there is about various "lower-decks" characters, for instance, that would be in any way incompatible with current Litverse storytelling. If a TOS novel published this year were to feature Ingrit Tomson, how would that pose a problem?

I realize that TLY may be a particular sticking point, since as mentioned you wrote your own version of the end of the FYM in Ex Machina and Forgotten History (both terrific novels, BTW). But even if TLY happens to be incompatible with your own preferred version, does that mean all the trappings are incompatible by association — e.g., stuff like supporting characters from other books? Or the books that introduced them?

(That raises an interesting question, actually. I'm going to assume, I think not recklessly, that you read TLY back in the day. When the time came to write your abovementioned novels, did you consciously decide to include elements you considered incompatible with the account in TLY? Or did you just not worry about it? FWIW, personally I think the version of the FYM's end that's most glaringly inconsistent with any others is the version in Crucible, since it involved the ship being damaged rather than returning home intact... but apparently Crucible was conceptualized as "not bound by continuity" from the start, or so I've read.)

I just fit stuff that feels like it fits and don't fit stuff that feels like it doesn't. It's purely 100% subjective on my part, I'm not sure I could even characterize it by a set of rules. It's case-by-case, really.

Well, can't really argue with that, I guess. Any other particular cases stand out to you that have posed a dilemma?

I suppose it'd be a choice between that and Memory Beta for most authors. I think they're all following mostly the same set of assumptions by this point. I'm talking about what's useful, not what's mandated. As I said, I know nothing about whether anything is obligatory today, beyond the usual of staying consistent with canon information.

Huh! I'd think as the author of the DTI material and other continuity-heavy stories, if anyone were to know what if any current ground rules on continuity are imposed by licensing or editorial, it'd be you!...

 

[Christopher]

Here, it seems, you're taking your conclusion (two different continuities) as a starting assumption. I'm not sure what there is about various "lower-decks" characters, for instance, that would be in any way incompatible with current Litverse storytelling. If a TOS novel published this year were to feature Ingrit Tomson, how would that pose a problem?

As I already said, there's a difference between including a version of a character and including wholesale continuity arcs. There are versions of Harley Quinn that exist in several different Batman continuities, but only the one in Batman: The Animated Series experienced the specific events of "Harley and Ivy" or "Harley's Holiday."

My point, again, is that the '80s continuity is not some inconvenience to try to efface. It's something interesting and worthwhile in its own right, and I think it deserves to be honored as what it was. As I said, it's like restoring an antique. Look at the Enterprise miniature in the Smithsonian. The previous restoration tried to update it, giving it a more pronounced and detailed paint job that was widely resented by fandom because it changed it from what it had originally been. The plan of the current restorers, by contrast, is to come as close as possible to its appearance during filming, to respect its history rather than trying to alter it unduly.

The question is not whether you can force the '80s books to fit in the modern continuity, but whether you should. I just think it's more satisfying to let the '80s continuity stand apart and have its own distinct identity, to appreciate it as it was rather than trying to ignore or rewrite bits and pieces of it to create some kind of hybrid with the modern continuity.

I realize that TLY may be a particular sticking point, since as mentioned you wrote your own version of the end of the FYM in Ex Machina and Forgotten History (both terrific novels, BTW). But even if TLY happens to be incompatible with your own preferred version, does that mean all the trappings are incompatible by association — e.g., stuff like supporting characters from other books? Or the books that introduced them?

*sigh* Now I'm starting to think you aren't actually listening to me. This is a straw-man argument, because -- as mentioned above -- I've already clearly established the difference between referencing elements of a story and including the entire story.

(That raises an interesting question, actually. I'm going to assume, I think not recklessly, that you read TLY back in the day. When the time came to write your abovementioned novels, did you consciously decide to include elements you considered incompatible with the account in TLY?

I approached the end of the 5-year mission the way I did because Voyager: "Q2" had suggested that the 5-year mission had ended with Kirk's rescue of the Pelosians from extinction in a way that possibly violated the Prime Directive. Now, it's possible to read Icheb's line in that episode to mean that the Pelosian rescue happened sometime near the end, rather than at the end, but given the implied thoroughness of Icheb's report, it seemed to me that the Pelosian incident had been established -- canonically -- as the last event of the 5YM. I wanted to tell the story of that canonical event.

The fact that TLY clashed with that was irrelevant, because I took it as a given that the only novels we were expected to tie into were those in the current continuity. After all, there have been many Trek novels over the decades that contradicted each other. Yes, a large number of the '80s novels formed a loose continuity, but that was the exception. The norm for a very long time was that the novels didn't fit together at all and a novelist was under no obligation to acknowledge any of them; indeed, for some time, novelists were forbidden to do so. A new continuity began to form in the late '90s and early '00s, and I chose to put Ex Machina (and all my later works) in that continuity. (And "expected" is too strong a word for ExM -- I was never told to put it in the current continuity, I just chose to.) I took it as a given that I was under no obligation to honor any earlier works, particularly those that had been contradicted by subsequent canon.

After all, as I said, there are now seven different versions of Kirk's final mission. Mine was the fourth. If the three previous versions -- TLY, DC's second annual, and DC's "Star-Crossed" -- all disregarded each other, why would I be expected to do any differently?

FWIW, personally I think the version of the FYM's end that's most glaringly inconsistent with any others is the version in Crucible, since it involved the ship being damaged rather than returning home intact... but apparently Crucible was conceptualized as "not bound by continuity" from the start, or so I've read.)

The goal of Crucible was to be consistent with screen canon and pay no attention to other tie-ins. But what you need to understand is that that's the norm for Trek novels and comics. There have been a few ongoing continuities within the mass of unconnected works -- the loose '80s continuity, the current novel continuity, the DC comics, the Marvel/Paramount comics, etc. -- but as a rule, Trek tie-ins are never under any obligation to acknowledge each other. When they do, it's a matter of choice. The only thing they're required to honor is the canon.

Huh! I'd think as the author of the DTI material and other continuity-heavy stories, if anyone were to know what if any current ground rules on continuity are imposed by licensing or editorial, it'd be you!...

The ground rules are to stay consistent with canon. It's as simple as that, and every novelist knows it. Beyond that, as I said, continuity among tie-ins is a choice on the part of the authors and editors. We try to work together within the established continuity framework because we want to.

 

[Idran]

I think what Christopher means is that if someone references a story, the time that that story happened has to be drawn from VOTI, but it doesn't mean that every writer has to write under the impression that everything listed in VOTI did happen.

Wow, I'm certainly not saying anyone "has to" draw from it.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood; sorry for the presumption, I didn't mean to misrepresent you. :/

 

[ryan123450]

A few rambling thoughts inspired by this conversation:

My preference is the inclusion of as much as possible into my personal continuity. I usually don't make a distinction between an homage and an outright continuity link. I almost always only read these books once, and the memories of the details fade as the months and years go by. Additionally, the presence of many continuity errors within the shows themselves and within books that are 100% definitively set within the modern Lit-verse continuity leads me to the opinion that continuity must be looked at a bit squinty-eyed to make everything fit anyway. Retcons are our friends.

So I take the approach that I will just let the exact details fall into the murkiness of memory and assume that everything in my personal continuity fits at the macro-level. I basically take that approach with my reading lists, and leave it to each individual reader how they will reconcile any hiccups or separate continuities along the way.

I have no problem believing that T'Prynn could have met Ingrit Thompson or that Konom could have met Xintal Linojj. I just want good continuing stories.

 

[lawman]

The question is not whether you can force the '80s books to fit in the modern continuity, but whether you should. I just think it's more satisfying to let the '80s continuity stand apart and have its own distinct identity, to appreciate it as it was rather than trying to ignore or rewrite bits and pieces of it to create some kind of hybrid with the modern continuity.

Totally fair, and I respect that, as a matter of personal preference. Can you respect that I disagree, that I don't see as bright a dividing line as you do, and thus find it more satisfying to see how much Trek lit can in fact fit logically into a single integrated continuity?

My preference is the inclusion of as much as possible into my personal continuity. I usually don't make a distinction between an homage and an outright continuity link. I almost always only read these books once, and the memories of the details fade as the months and years go by. Additionally, the presence of many continuity errors within the shows themselves and within books that are 100% definitively set within the modern Lit-verse continuity leads me to the opinion that continuity must be looked at a bit squinty-eyed to make everything fit anyway. Retcons are our friends.

So I take the approach that I will just let the exact details fall into the murkiness of memory and assume that everything in my personal continuity fits at the macro-level.

I am inclined to agree. No one else is obliged to, of course, but this is pretty much how I go about constructing my personal conception of Trek fanon. It's the "personal taste" aspect of what I was talking about upthread. I only hope that when it comes to the details of what to include (and when), that I can also make reasonable arguments based on the evidence in the stories.

For the sake of argument, I tend to reconcile a lot of the otherwise thorny details by assuming that there are actually several iterations of Trek history, overlaid one atop another rather like palimpsests, the result of various canonical incursions into time. There's the "original" Trek continuity (which may in fact correspond to the Goldsteins' timeline), based upon nothing but TOS, TAS, and the early movies. Then I'd argue that ripple effects from the time trip in STIV:TVH resulted in a second version, with a slightly altered timeline (among other details), that also included the 24th-century future we saw in TNG and DS9. Then I'd argue that there's a third version, with an altered 22nd century history including the events of ENT, as a result of the time trip seen in ST:First Contact.

I suppose this is, in a sense, a set of variant continuities much as Christopher suggests. The difference is that I think we can posit in-story rationales for it, rather than the distinction being strictly a meta-level observation.

 

[Christopher]

Totally fair, and I respect that, as a matter of personal preference. Can you respect that I disagree, that I don't see as bright a dividing line as you do, and thus find it more satisfying to see how much Trek lit can in fact fit logically into a single integrated continuity?

I'm just saying that I used to have the same goal, and then I realized that it was undermining my enjoyment of the individual works, because I wasn't letting them be what they'd been written to be. I'm not speaking from ignorance of your position, but from my own past experience with it.

The cool thing about Trek Lit for me in the early days, before there was any attempt at continuity, was the way each author brought their own distinct interpretation to the Trek universe, made it theirs. Even in the '80s continuity, which was very loose at best, there was still a lot of that individuality of author voices and views. Later on, when playing the game of continuity became my overriding goal, I realized that I'd lost something along the way, that it was detracting from my experience of the books' individual flavor and idiosyncrasies. Like being offered a variety of diverse foods from various culinary traditions and slathering them all in ketchup until they taste the same.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am interested in seeing how much Trek Lit can fit into a single integrated continuity. I have a huge chronology of books and comics that I do fit into an integrated continuity, stretching well beyond canon and the current lit-verse. But I don't force stories in if they're an awkward fit, if I have to deny their intent or idiosyncratic vision in order to reconcile them. I want to balance the desire for continuity with my respect for the flavor of the individual works. So I have my large integrated continuity, plus other stuff. You're wrong to define my approach as losing something. It's actually gaining even more. If it's fun to organize one big continuity, it can be even more fun to add others alongside it. Others that respect the intent of the original works, that work with them rather than against them. That satisfies my organizational obsessions even more than limiting myself to just one continuity.

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

I want to chime in very briefly and say that this has become the most interesting discussion on the subject of continuity as a concept that I may have ever read. All of you have contributed to that.

 

[lawman]

I want to chime in very briefly and say that this has become the most interesting discussion on the subject of continuity as a concept that I may have ever read. All of you have contributed to that.

Why, thank you! That's a very gracious thing to say. Especially on a site like this, you have to figure that thought-provoking discourse is its own reward.

It's also inspired me to go do some additional work on my own (ever-in-progress) version of a Trek timeline, so FWIW, to circle this back around to the OP's main focus, here are a few observations I've made...

(And I think these apply whether or not one is trying to fit older novels into the grand scheme of things!...)

So far as the Vanguard series is concerned, by its own internal date references, TOS chronology basically seems to sort out as follows:

"WNMHGB" falls in late 2265, covering an uncertain span of time. V1:Harbinger and V2:Summon the Thunder also fall during late 2265.

The official FYM begins around the start of 2266, and V3:Reap the Whirlwind occurs early that year. The first TOS episode (production order 1.03), "The Corbomite Maneuver," occurs sometime that winter.

The 2266-'67 year break occurs approximately between "Arena" (1.19) and "Alternative Factor" (1.20), with V4: Open Secrets spanning that period and stretching to the end of March, where it places "Errand of Mercy" (1.27). V5: Precipice then jumps back to Jan 2267 and proceeds forward again at an irregular pace. The S1-S2 break, between "Operation: Annihilate" (1.29) and "Catspaw" (2.30), would fall around April/May.

M'Benga's stay on Vulcan during V5:Precipice, including references to The Vulcan Academy Murders and The IDIC Epidemic, apparently falls midyear (Jun-Jul?), which poses problem WRT "Journey to Babel" (2.44), which seemingly falls later in the year but must precede those novels due to Sarek's involvement. "A Private Little War" (2.45), M'Benga's first actual appearance on the Enterprise, apparently falls in Dec, and the 2267-2268 year break appears to fit between that and "Gamesters of Triskelion" (2.46) (a data point corresponding with the Okudachron).

The S2-S3 break, between "Assignment: Earth" (2.55) and "Spectre of the Gun" (3.56), apparently falls around Jun. The culmination of the novel series (in V6:What Judgments Come and V7: Storming Heaven) leads up to the destruction of Vanguard sometime late in 2268 (internal references place it at least some time after "Enterprise Incident" (3.59)). There's a coda set in April 2270.

I've elided some references and I may have missed a few. It's certainly possible to get more specific than this, and I welcome corrections.

In the meantime, the point I originally raised in this thread is that this just doesn't correspond all that tidily with TOS taken on its own terms. It seems odd to start the FYM early in '66 rather than late in '65, for reasons already discussed, and also to stretch S1 out over such a long span. This results in a skewing of S2 that causes problem re: Vulcan, as also discussed.

Overall it seems more proportional to me (given the known end date of the FYM) to put the start of the FYM in mid-late 2265 (allowing a few months' room for delays/fudging, as also discussed), then allot approximately one year per TV season. This would keep "Charlie X" (1.08) where it belongs seasonally, and put "Balance of Terror" (1.08, Romulans) in late 2265, "Arena" (1.19, Gorns) mid-2266, and "Errand of Mercy" (1.27, Klingons and Organians) in fall of 2266. Moving along, "Journey to Babel" (2.44, Sarek) would fall in spring of 2267, avoiding the Vulcan dilemma. (S3 then begins at the end of 2267, and — given the extra time needed for 'Paradise Syndrome," 3.58 — continues into early 2269. And by that point we're past any possible contradictions with Vanguard.)

 

[ryan123450]

Finally getting back to this project, I decide to see how things would shift around if I ignored the idea of Journey to Babel being specifically dated in mid-November. I assumed that I could ignore the idea that it was the Journey to Babel incident that prompted Starfleet to assign M'Benga to the Enterprise (as is stated in his letter) and retcon it as simply McCoy requesting him and he got transferred (as was suggested as an option in the same letter). But then I realize that wouldn't solve much and I see the depth of the error that this letter creates.

The very next episode is A Private Little War dated in early December. So for the two Vulcan books to even logically fit anywhere in the TOS timeline, even totally disregarding the Vanguard letter, they would have to take place between Journey to Babel and A Private Little War.

Journey to Babel- No M'Benga. First meeting with Sarek.
Vulcan books- Enterprise meets M'Benga. Meets Sarek again.
A Private Little War- M'Benga is onboard

Do the events of those books, with Kirk and Spock meeting Sarek again post Journey to Babel fit with such a rapid timeline? Or do they point to the idea that these episodes are spread out more?

I really wish I just had time to read these two books really quick.

 

[Christopher]

Do the events of those books, with Kirk and Spock meeting Sarek again post Journey to Babel fit with such a rapid timeline? Or do they point to the idea that these episodes are spread out more?

The Vulcan Academy Murders is explicitly "nearly two years" after "Amok Time," which makes it difficult to reconcile the idea that it's before "A Private Little War." A lot of the early novels played really fast and loose with the TOS chronology (like Web of the Romulans and Double, Double both being immediate sequels to first-season episodes yet having Chekov as navigator). It's also pretty clearly a considerable amount of time after "Journey to Babel," long enough for Amanda to come down with a progressive degenerative disease.

I think if one doesn't just disregard the M'Benga letter in Vanguard, one had best interpret it as referring to some events that are just roughly similar to the Lorrah books.

 

[lawman]

...for the two Vulcan books to even logically fit anywhere in the TOS timeline, even totally disregarding the Vanguard letter, they would have to take place between Journey to Babel and A Private Little War.

Journey to Babel- No M'Benga. First meeting with Sarek.
Vulcan books- Enterprise meets M'Benga. Meets Sarek again.
A Private Little War- M'Benga is onboard

I think if one doesn't just disregard the M'Benga letter in Vanguard, one had best interpret it as referring to some events that are just roughly similar to the Lorrah books.

Any way you slice it, the timing dilemma remains. Even if the events M'Benga refers to are only "roughly similar" to the Lorrah books, so long as they're similar enough to involve the Enterprise visiting Vulcan, interacting with Sarek, and meeting M'Benga, they pretty much have to fit between those two episodes — which means the whole timeline of Precipice is out of whack if it posits those episodes falling in Nov-Dec.

 

[ryan123450]

Well this is mostly arbitrary, and totally just my personal take which I am imposing on this situation but I've decided on my interpretation. The two years since Amok Time I will mostly ignore, but I will push Amok Time as early as I am comfortable doing, which is to the beginning of season 2. Coincidentally that lines up with Amok Time's airdate order anyway. Ignoring the letter's claim that the Vulcan duology takes place 4 or 5 months before M'Benga is actually transferred to the Enterprise, I will put those books relatively soon before A Private Little War.

Then I will assume Journey to Babel takes place a longer period of time before that, to give a gap between Kirk and Spock's encounters with Sarek, and some time for Amanda to get sick. I will assign Journey to Babel in the place (late June/early July) where the letter claims the Vulcan books would go. No solid reason for doing so, but the general timing works out pretty well this way. All the details of the letter are mostly overwritten though.

I think I've got 2267 in my final form now too.

 

[ryan123450]

January 2267 (Note 1)

• 1x23- A Taste of Armageddon
• 1x24- Space Seed
• 1x25- This Side of Paradise

February 2267

• Official Record (Note 2)
• 1x26- The Devil in the Dark

March 2267

• Errand of Fury, Book 1: Seeds of Rage
• Errand of Fury, Book 2: Demands of Honor
• 1x27- Errand of Mercy (Note 3)
• Errand of Fury, Book 3: Sacrifices of War
• VAN: Open Secrets (Note 4)

April 2267 (Note 5)

• 1x28- The City on the Edge of Forever (Note 6)
• Final Frontier
• 1x29- Operation- Annihilate!
• The Leader
• 2x05- Amok Time (Note 7)
• 2x01- Catspaw

May 2267

• Ambition
• 2x02- Metamorphosis
• Chaotic Response
• 2x03- Friday's Child
• Invasion!, Book 1: First Strike

June 2267

• Mere Anarchy: The Centre Cannot Hold
• 2x06- The Doomsday Machine
• 2x04- Who Mourns for Adonais? (Note 8)
• 2x07- Wolf in the Fold

July 2267

• 2x15- Journey to Babel (Note 9)
• 2x08- The Changeling
• See No Evil
• 2x09- The Apple
• 2x10- Mirror, Mirror

August 2267

• 2x11- The Deadly Years (Note 10)
• Romulans: The Hollow Crown, Issue One (Note 11)

September 2267

• 2x12- I, Mudd
• The Shocks of Adversity (Note 12)

October 2267

• 2x14- Bread and Circuses
• Twilight's End
• The Vulcan Academy Murders (Note 13)

November 2267

• The IDIC Epidemic (Note 13)
• First, Do No Harm
• The Second Year Ends

December 2267

• The Third Year Begins
• 2x16- A Private Little War (Note 14)
• 2x13- The Trouble With Tribbles (Note 15)
• A Bad Day For Koloth
• 2x14- The Gamesters of Triskelion (Note 16)
• VAN: Precipice (Note 17)

1. Still spacing months evenly up until Errand of Mercy and City on the Edge of Forever
2. The placement of this story is based on Christopher's suggestion, having to do with when Chekov joined the crew. It seems as good a place as any.
3. Specifically takes place in March according to Vanguard: Open Secrets. All the Errand of Fury books take place in the same month.
4. I placed all the stories which take place over a long amount of time at the time during which they end.
5. Another stretch of evenly spacing the episodes. This stretch is from here to The Deadly Years.
6. Dated in DTI: Forgotten History
7. Moved this as far ahead in season 2 as possible to space it out from The Vulcan Academy Murders more.
8. Moved as suggested to break up the ancient god encounters and give context to Scotty's behavior in Wolf in the Fold.
9. Moved to some time before The Vulcan Academy Murders. That book's former placement seemed as good as any.
10. Dated in early August according to The First Peer and Precipice.
11. Finishes shortly after The Deadly Years
12. 17 months after Balance of Terror.
13. Precipice letter dating these books ignored due to internal errors. Placed shortly before A Private Little War.
14. Dated to early December in Precipice.
15. Dated mid to late December in Precipice.
16. Finishes out mid to late December.
17. Takes place over the entire course of the year. Placed at the very end.

If nobody has anything more to add to this I'll give my thoughts on 2268 whenever I get a chance this week.

 

[lawman]

I still think it's stretching things to push the middle of S2 to the very end of 2267, but it's your project, not mine! You do at least seem to have surmounted the most glaring contradictions in there (hi Sarek!).

***

Interestingly enough, meanwhile, so far as I can determine there are only nine assorted "Litverse era" TOS novels that fall during the "Year Four/Year Five" post-series period of the FYM, as opposed to during or before the TV series or in some other timeframe...

(It's a little tricky to be sure, as (A) they're no longer numbered, (B) TOS books don't fit into the larger interlocking 24th-century Litverse context, and (C) external references, e.g. the Pocket Timeline, are too outdated to include them all, and the info on Memory Beta is sometimes cursory. I'm also not including things like the Seekers books, which don't feature the Ent crew.)

But FWIW, from a 15-year publishing span, and in (hypothetically) chronological order...

That Which Divides
No Time Like the Past
Allegiance in Exile
Weight of Worlds
Garth of Izar
Savage Trade
Rings of Time [ebook]
Troublesome Minds
Ex Machina

IOW, they're still way outnumbered by the "older" novels. But I certainly can't claim to have read everything, either on or off this list. Am I overlooking anything?

 

[ryan123450]

Well ignoring the fact that there are books on your list that I wouldn't consider part of the Lit-verse, it should be pointed out that Rings of Time was an actual paper novel, not just an ebook. And Ex Machina takes place after Star Trek: The Motion Picture. As to the exact order of those books, chronologically, I'd have to look into it to see if that is correct (at least as far as it could be definitively determined).