Burning Dreams

[William Leisner]

Just for grits and shins, Enterpriserules... what early-twentieth-century historical figures are constantly on your mind? If I were to make you a character in a story, facing some sort of perilous challenge, would I have you thinking, "What would Teddy Roosevelt do?" Or John J. Pershing? Or Fridtjof Nansen? Or who?

 

[RookieBatman]

Another way to look at it is that in the episode "Whom Gods Destroy," Kirk says that Captain Garth's exploits at the battle of Axanar were required reading at the Academy, indicating that he was quite a prestigious historical figure (and much more contemporary than Archer). But that doesn't mean that he was mentioned in every book.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I understand what you guys are saying, I just think that Archer and his crew are important enough for a mention. In TNG, Kirk and his crew are referenced and they are about 80 years in the past.

If I were to make you a character in a story, facing some sort of perilous challenge, would I have you thinking, "What would Teddy Roosevelt do?" Or John J. Pershing? Or Fridtjof Nansen? Or who? Possibly depending on the problem.

 

[Christopher]

Enterpriserules said:
I am sorry but I think that that is preposterous. Pike is a human and therefore would know human history.

I never said he didn't know human history. I just said there was no reason to assume that the subject of any given historical figure necessarily had to come up in the course of the story. I'm sure you know about a lot of historical figures that you don't generally spend a lot of time talking or reminiscing about as you go through your life.

Archer was one of the most important humans in that history. He is up there with Cochrane, MacAruthor, Washington, Julius Caesar, and so many others.

True, but I don't hear you complaining that Pike didn't think about Cochrane, MacArthur, Washington or Caesar.

Everyone in TNG knew about Kirk and the way his crew had saved the universe, I do not think that it is a stretch to say that Pike would have looked up to Archer and his crew.

"Saved the universe?" Okay, that's getting into hyperbole. I don't recall anyone saying that about Kirk in TNG. And there were only a very few instances where Kirk came up -- "The Naked Now," "Unification," "Relics," Generations. Most of the time, the TNG crew went through their lives and adventures without talking or thinking about James T. Kirk. That doesn't mean they weren't aware of him or didn't appreciate his importance; it just meant that their knowledge of history was just one factor in their lives and didn't play a role in every single experience they had.

So yeah, sure, of course it makes sense that Pike knew about Archer and respected him. That doesn't mean the fact somehow had to be mentioned in the novel. I'm sure he respected Albert Einstein and Surak too, but I don't hear you complaining about their exclusion.

I understand what you guys are saying, I just think that Archer and his crew are important enough for a mention. In TNG, Kirk and his crew are referenced and they are about 80 years in the past.

Of course they're important, and they have indeed been mentioned in a number of 23rd- and 24th-century books -- just not in this particular one. As I mentioned above, Kirk was only mentioned in four or five TNG episodes/films out of over 180 -- that's less than three percent. I'm sure Archer has been mentioned in more than three percent of the 23rd- and 24th-century Trek novels that have come out in the past five years -- probably much more. I suspect it would be hard to find a recent non-ENT Trek novel that doesn't include at least some passing reference to Archer or Tucker or Hoshi Sato or Shran or the Xindi or some element from ENT. So there are already plenty of references throughout the literature -- what's the big deal if this one book doesn't have one?

 

[Ronald Held]

Perhaps Pike thought of Archer as a Diplomat which was his latter career.

 

[William Leisner]

Enterpriserules said:
I understand what you guys are saying, I just think that Archer and his crew are important enough for a mention.

Yes, we understand what you think. Repeating it ad nauseum isn't going to make us understand it any more.

In TNG, Kirk and his crew are referenced and they are about 80 years in the past.

As Christopher already pointed out, the TNG gang rarely invoked Kirk and Co., and when they did, it was germaine to the situation (meeting Spock or Scotty, the appearance of a Psi 2000-like infection on board). And, without going to the DVD collection, I'm going to guess that, more often than not, it was Data, rather than any of the humans aboard, who was the one to pull out the old, arcane historical reference.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I was just expressing my point like we all do on this board. I liked the book over all. I thought that it was good and fun to learn more about Pike. I was just hoping that there would be an Enterprise connection.

 

[William Leisner]

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[Enterpriserules]

William Leisner said:
Thank you for that clarification.

Sure, I am not here to make enemies, friends.

 

[DarthPipes]

Just finished reading this book today and I thought it was excellent. Bonanno did a really great job fleshing out Pike's backstory and establishing his character. I appreciate as well that there were some many quiet moments in this book. This also shows a lot of stuff I wanted to see, like what happened to Pike afterwards.

I appreciate the author not giving Number One a name either. The character works better as the mysterious Number One. I never could get used to her being referred to as "Lt. Commander Lefler." My only complaint about her in the book is that the little we see of her, she comes across as Number One B*tch.

I think there's still a lot of room and potential for more stories about Christopher Pike. He's written as a dark and brooding man but an incredilby compelling one as well.

 

[blsisko]

Enterpriserules said:
In LFM Trip meets Kirk as a young boy...

LFM?? Huh??

Just to put in my $0.02US (again) on the ENT plug (or lack-thereof)... I'm glad there were no references to ENT. In my crazy view of the world (o' Star Trek), the one where everyone has a puppy and large fluffy clouds, ENT, VOY, and the first attempt at a ninth movie do not exist, so no need for a name drop.

But, no, really, "LFM"??

 

[Rosalind]

^ Last Full Measure, the latest Ent book.

 

[blsisko]

Rosalind said:
^ Last Full Measure, the latest Ent book.

So... how does Trip meet Kirk when Trip dies in TATV (see, the 4th season was what ENT could've been... at least until TATV... Hey, blsisko, enough of the ENT bashing, wrong place... )

er... uh... I mean... Pike met baby Kirk when?

 

[Trent Roman]

blsisko said:
So... how does Trip meet Kirk when Trip dies in TATV

Well...

Spoiler: Last Full Measure

Because we never saw a body, and to reconcile apparent discrencies between the holoprogram and and the characterization established during the run of ENT, the editors decided that the novel line will take the approach that Tucker's death was faked, and the records that Riker and Troi would eventually draw upon subsequently forged. So Tucker lives into old age under a new identity, at which point he encounters the infant Kirk.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Enterpriserules]

Trent Roman said:

blsisko said:
So... how does Trip meet Kirk when Trip dies in TATV

Well...

Spoiler: Last Full Measure

Because we never saw a body, and to reconcile apparent discrencies between the holoprogram and and the characterization established during the run of ENT, the editors decided that the novel line will take the approach that Tucker's death was faked, and the records that Riker and Troi would eventually draw upon subsequently forged. So Tucker lives into old age under a new identity, at which point he encounters the infant Kirk.

If you had read the book you would have know this.

 

[Trent Roman]

Enterpriserules said:
If you had read the book you would have know this.

If he asked for the plot point, then obviously he didn't read the book. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[blsisko]

Enterpriserules said:
If you had read the book you would have know this.

And if you had been following my tangents on ENT you'd know why I won't read the book.

Trent Roman said:
If he asked for the plot point, then obviously he didn't read the book. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Yup! Thanks!

 

[Enterpriserules]

It is your loss.

 

[blsisko]

Enterpriserules said:
It is your loss.

Actually it's not. I gave ENT all of season 1, some of season 2, dropped it for season 3, and gave it a chance for season 4. I have seen more than enough ENT to form my opinion.

Anyway, Pike doesn't seem like the historian type (as said before), so he (Pike, not garamet, just so you (universal) know that I used the correct pronoun) would have had no need for name dropping.

 

[DarthPipes]

For all those saying that Pike doesn't mention Archer, I'd point out that he doesn't mention the man he succeeded as Enterprise captain, Robert April. I would have expected at least a mention about April.