I certainly agree they'd perceive it that way. I just don't agree their perception would be factually correct.
Spoilers Catching up on the last 4 years of TrekLit
- Thread starter Thrawn
- Start date
I certainly agree they'd perceive it that way. I just don't agree their perception would be factually correct.
Don’t we live in a post truth world after all...!
That's probably the wisest way the PD should be used. It's what I said earlier. Best case scenario is you can leave a civilization be. Everyone's going to make mistakes and I would argue needs to so they can learn. And the Federation is not infallible, and we may even learn things from other societies as they grow without any help.
But I do think it's irresponsible to do nothing and let a civilization die. "Pen Pals" and "Homeward" really does bother me. It seems just heartless and it seems a perversion of the PD. Now the solution in "Pen Pals" once they do decide to take action is the preferable action in that take. They were able to help anonymously. So other than saving the planet there was no interference. The Enterprise was able to then leave them to continue living happily ever after.
"Homeward" is more flawed. But the solution in that case is also an example of least interference possible. It Starfleet had a more reasonable interpretation of the PD, then the method they used to move the society could have been handled better. I agree that it has many faults though I liked the idea of using the holodeck as a way to move them with minimal impact on their development.
Actually I think total avoidance is an overreaction. Yes, the risk of being tempted to play god, or being too influential because the locals see you as super-advanced, is great enough that caution is called for, but absolute avoidance is never the healthiest way to manage a risk, just the simplest and most extreme. The PD is a safeguard against doing it the wrong way, but that doesn't make it the right way. There are ways to manage a contact without being unduly disruptive.
I mean, look at the Capellans prior to "Friday's Child." They'd been in contact with offworlders for years before the episode, making deals for access to their topaline ore, but they remained proudly committed to their own culture and uninterested in changing it. It wasn't until Kras made his deal with Maab to provoke a coup in exchange for giving the Klingons mining rights that the contact led to cultural disruption. Before that, as long as it was just a trade agreement in which the offworlders mined the topaline and otherwise left the Capellans free to govern themselves, the mere fact of contact was not damaging. No society has ever been destroyed by learning new things, as long as nobody forced it to change.
I think the problem with the TNG-era interpretation of the PD is the failure to recognize that it's more a precaution than an absolute necessity. It's like a seatbelt or an insurance policy -- it's a safeguard against those few cases where something might go wrong, but that doesn't mean something will inevitably go wrong without it in every single case. It's just a risk in such contacts, and the Federation's choice for how to manage that risk is to avoid the situations that could create it. But that means they're also avoiding a lot of contacts that wouldn't be harmful. And it seems to me there's got to be a more nuanced policy than total avoidance, a way to moderate contact and keep it within safe guidelines rather than just avoid it altogether. The PD is a reasonable way to start when you're a young civilization that still hasn't learned how to handle contacts maturely, but it should be the training-wheels version, playing it safe while you're still a novice. A civilization that gains experience and wisdom at such contacts should be able to grow beyond it, to learn how to handle contacts safely enough that absolute avoidance is no longer needed. Unfortunately, 24th-century Starfleet has gone in the opposite direction, adding more and bigger training wheels rather than learning to ride without them.
I don't think that was the right approach at all. As with most moral questions, the key issue here is one of consent -- respecting others' autonomy over their own lives and choices. The PD is meant to be a rule against imposing things on other cultures without their consent. "Homeward" twists that, because the entire thing is done without their consent. They're kidnapped, gaslighted, and forcibly relocated without any say in the process -- which is exactly the sort of thing that Picard condemned as fundamentally evil in Insurrection. What "Homeward" failed to understand is that the rule of non-interference is merely a means toward the more important end of protecting others' consent. So it's an abuse of the principle to violate their consent in order to hide your interference from them.
The right thing to do in that situation was to make open contact, inform them of the danger, help them relocate to a place of their choosing, give them a say in every step of the process so they retained their autonomy and authority over themselves, and then leave them to their own devices on their new home if that's what they want. That's what non-interference is supposed to mean -- not treating them like children who can't be trusted with knowledge, but treating them like adults who can be trusted to decide their own fate.
You know what though, when you start adding grey areas then you start muddying the waters. Then you increase the chance that real damage may occur.
I do think leaving a society be is the best route to take. The Federation can still observe and learn from those societies, but it's best I think to avoid direct contact whenever possible until they are more advanced.
Now, that's different from allowing society to just die. But under normal circumstances I'd say leave them be. You start adding some nuance, then that increases the chances mistakes are made or an officer goes to far, either accidently or even deliberately. But again, I don't think that has to be total avoidance. And we know Starfleet has engaged in passive observations, or even occasionally direct observation through the use of observers. I liked Greg Cox's "The Antares Maelstrom". He had observers living on the planet and observing them, but being very careful to basically stay out of the societies way. Going so far as to live as the natives do. Now, that takes a special kind of scientist, one that is willing to basically live another life, and one that is able to exercise restraint. It'd be easy to 'want' to interfere in some ways. But it's important to note what we may think is a mistake may turn out not to be at the end of the day.
If total avoidance were the only way to deal with risk, we would've given up using fire and would still be huddling in the cold and getting sick from uncooked food. We would've given up flying after the first plane crash. Moderation is not wrong. Recklessness and total avoidance are the extremes, and like all extremes, they're both unhealthy in their own ways. There's always a smarter middle ground, one where you avoid damage by learning how to manage a risk rather than just avoiding it. When people and societies grow up, they're supposed to learn how to do things better, to do them right and responsibly, rather than just giving up on even trying.
And absolutism itself does damage, by being too easy and sparing you from having to think or make decisions, thereby leading to overly simplistic and inflexible responses to complex situations. If you just refuse to consider the options, you may end up unthinkingly taking a path that does more harm than good, as in "Pen Pals" and "Homeward." It's the opposite of being responsible.
And I still say that's based on a lot of false assumptions about how cultural contact works, derived from the way Star Trek tells stories designed to sell the Prime Directive, which is circular reasoning. When you study actual world history, as I have, you see how bogus and simplistic a lot of those assumptions are. Interaction between different cultures is normal and healthy. It's not some "contamination" that inevitably leads to harm -- on the contrary, the societies that are most exposed to outside ideas are the most robust and dynamic.
It's no different from interaction between individuals. We're better off connecting with other people than going it alone -- as long as everyone respects everyone's boundaries and freedom of choice. You can avoid meddling in someone's life without hiding your very existence from them. You just have to avoid thinking you're entitled to impose your beliefs on them. Again, the PD isn't supposed to be about other cultures' immaturity, it's about our immaturity in the face of the temptation to play god. But one hopes our society would eventually mature enough that we could resist that temptation without having to avoid it altogether. The PD should just be the first, simplest way of managing that temptation, not the final word on the subject for all eternity.
But that's got the same problem -- unilaterally acting without the consent of the natives. That is not protecting their freedom, it's violating it. It's also utterly the wrong way to do immersion anthropology. You can't do it if you hide your true nature from the people you embed yourself with. They have to know that you're an outsider so that they can show you how they live, and you have to be honest and accepting if you want them to trust you enough to show you. Moreover, the last thing you have to worry about is interfering with them or changing their way of life. They're in their own home and they outnumber you. They control the interaction, and the context reinforces their worldview and customs over yours. They're the ones who will change you, not the other way around.
That's literally the goal of immersion anthropology, to learn how to think like the people you're studying, to become like them rather than making them like you. And you can't do that if you hide from them, if you put on an act that's your own unilaterally constructed version of what you think they're like. It's condescending to them to think that could even succeed at fooling them. No, the only way it works is if you come to them honestly as an outsider and let them reshape you.
This is what "Friday's Child" got right and so many other episodes (especially "A Piece of the Action") got wrong. Cultures don't abandon their existing beliefs and values easily, not unless they already have an internal incentive to do so. Just meeting them and trading with them doesn't disrupt anything. The Capellans didn't change a thing about their way of life in response to being contacted by offworld miners and Starfleet medical teams. They still acted exactly as before, expected outsiders to conform to their customs and rules, and showed little interest in the foreign ideas the Federation offered. Even when Kras interfered by setting a coup in motion, he just nudged an internal political conflict that already existed, and as soon as Maab got what he wanted, he tossed Kras overboard and just did his own thing. And in the end, despite the interference by Kirk's party and Kras, it was the Capellans who resolved their own crisis -- Maab corrected his mistake by sacrificing himself so Kras would be killed by Maab's lieutenant. And their culture went on the same as before, even though their new teer was named for offworlders.
For all that "Friday's Child" was steeped in '60s cliches of tribal "noble warrior" cultures, it's actually one of the more plausible pieces of anthropology in the Trek franchise, and a sterling illustration of why even the active attempt to interfere in another culture won't automatically change it, because cultures have inertia and resistance to unwanted change. Or rather, when they do change, it's because of internal factors that create an incentive to change, and any external influence will only be embraced if it serves an existing internal drive for change (e.g. Maab accepting Kras's support for the coup he already planned, or the Mexica accepting Cortez's assistance in overthrowing the Aztec rulers they loathed).
(Wow, just a mention of The Captain's Oath set this thread right off... though having just finished it, I see why!)
The Captain's Oath
The short version: for my money, this is an all-time great TrekLit entry. Full of grand ideas, unusual aliens, compelling character arcs, clever continuity spackle, and affecting moral arguments, this is as profound a love letter to Star Trek as has ever been written. I was thrilled and fascinated and moved, and I don't think anyone could ask for more from a tie-in novel.
In particular, this absolutely hits the nail on the head when it comes to Kirk’s early characterization, and all while avoiding all the prequel pitfalls of having things fall too perfectly into place for no reason while still incorporating all we know of Kirk’s early career and then some. Kirk works through his guilt about the Farragut, his abortive early attempts at romance that cause baggage in later TOS episodes, his feelings about the Prime Directive and what it means and when to break it, his ability to give stirring moral speeches, his initial feelings about the Klingons, and his denial of no-win scenarios. It’s all here, contextualized by a series of adventures that feels like it could be an entire excellent season of modern television. This covers so much ground that one might expect it to fly apart, be too episodic or staggered or random, but Christopher hangs it on a few great character arcs so well that the throughlines are more than enough to keep it all together. They all come together in a story that becomes more than the sum of its parts, a masterfully accomplished epic.
Every adventure along the way feels just as Star Trek as hell while still not feeling stale. The Agdi, in particular, are alien and fascinating from start to finish. But on top of that, Christopher also takes the galaxy-hopping opportunities here to put together a bunch of continuity about Rigel, Regulus, various one-episode Admirals and Commodores from TOS, and early careers of Enterprise people including Sulu as well as Mitchell and Kelso. Every one of these little asides is intellectually satisfying and interesting from a character arc perspective, too. But what really puts the cherry on top of the sundae for me is how well Christopher adds in all the supporting character arcs as well. He succeeds brilliantly in sketching out real, human stories for Rhen and Diaz, not to mention Eshu Adebayo, Mehran Egdor, and even Azadeh Khorasani in her brief appearances early on (she has a great monologue about liking her artificial arm, so she can’t really blame the Klingons for causing her to need it). Spock and Rhen have nice moments together, Kirk and Gary have many nice moments together, Leonard’s complex feelings about Starfleet and what he wants to do with his life are explored with subtlety (and the origin of his nickname is awesome), and even the scene where Pike hands off the Enterprise to Kirk crackles with subtle characterization. Pike’s speech to him about how you have to take things into your own hands on the frontier and that this is a balancing act that sends many captains into madness is simultaneously a check against modern assumptions of interconnectedness, a nice bit of worldbuilding to justify how often that happened in TOS, and a great piece of characterization of Pike himself.
That's one instance of the pattern that impresses me so much about this book – every component of the story is always working on multiple levels simultaneously. Characterization, spackle, epic sweep, and inventiveness all combining to make every scene important and full of surprises and satisfying resolutions, both emotionally and intellectually, to so many things at every level of detail. I wanted it to keep going! I was ready to read Christophe'rs re-contextualization of the pilot episode and just carry on from there! I understand why Margaret focused so much of the Trek line on standalone TOS stories (they sell well, and its hard to argue with that) but I honestly wish TrekLit had done this a decade ago, using this as a springboard to tell a long variety of interconnected stories where Kirk finds Sherev again, or Adebayo again, etc. This is just fantastic, and as much as I’ve loved Christopher’s work in the past, this is the first one where everything has come together so perfectly – all of his strengths and none of his weaknesses, a set of truly great stories. Just tremendous work, an all-time great TrekLit story for my money.
Christopher - you've absolutely outdone yourself. Kudos and congratulations. This is a hell of a book.
Next up: The Enterprise War. I have a feeling that after this just about anything is going to be a bit of a letdown, but I'm certainly intrigued.
The Captain's Oath
The short version: for my money, this is an all-time great TrekLit entry. Full of grand ideas, unusual aliens, compelling character arcs, clever continuity spackle, and affecting moral arguments, this is as profound a love letter to Star Trek as has ever been written. I was thrilled and fascinated and moved, and I don't think anyone could ask for more from a tie-in novel.
In particular, this absolutely hits the nail on the head when it comes to Kirk’s early characterization, and all while avoiding all the prequel pitfalls of having things fall too perfectly into place for no reason while still incorporating all we know of Kirk’s early career and then some. Kirk works through his guilt about the Farragut, his abortive early attempts at romance that cause baggage in later TOS episodes, his feelings about the Prime Directive and what it means and when to break it, his ability to give stirring moral speeches, his initial feelings about the Klingons, and his denial of no-win scenarios. It’s all here, contextualized by a series of adventures that feels like it could be an entire excellent season of modern television. This covers so much ground that one might expect it to fly apart, be too episodic or staggered or random, but Christopher hangs it on a few great character arcs so well that the throughlines are more than enough to keep it all together. They all come together in a story that becomes more than the sum of its parts, a masterfully accomplished epic.
Every adventure along the way feels just as Star Trek as hell while still not feeling stale. The Agdi, in particular, are alien and fascinating from start to finish. But on top of that, Christopher also takes the galaxy-hopping opportunities here to put together a bunch of continuity about Rigel, Regulus, various one-episode Admirals and Commodores from TOS, and early careers of Enterprise people including Sulu as well as Mitchell and Kelso. Every one of these little asides is intellectually satisfying and interesting from a character arc perspective, too. But what really puts the cherry on top of the sundae for me is how well Christopher adds in all the supporting character arcs as well. He succeeds brilliantly in sketching out real, human stories for Rhen and Diaz, not to mention Eshu Adebayo, Mehran Egdor, and even Azadeh Khorasani in her brief appearances early on (she has a great monologue about liking her artificial arm, so she can’t really blame the Klingons for causing her to need it). Spock and Rhen have nice moments together, Kirk and Gary have many nice moments together, Leonard’s complex feelings about Starfleet and what he wants to do with his life are explored with subtlety (and the origin of his nickname is awesome), and even the scene where Pike hands off the Enterprise to Kirk crackles with subtle characterization. Pike’s speech to him about how you have to take things into your own hands on the frontier and that this is a balancing act that sends many captains into madness is simultaneously a check against modern assumptions of interconnectedness, a nice bit of worldbuilding to justify how often that happened in TOS, and a great piece of characterization of Pike himself.
That's one instance of the pattern that impresses me so much about this book – every component of the story is always working on multiple levels simultaneously. Characterization, spackle, epic sweep, and inventiveness all combining to make every scene important and full of surprises and satisfying resolutions, both emotionally and intellectually, to so many things at every level of detail. I wanted it to keep going! I was ready to read Christophe'rs re-contextualization of the pilot episode and just carry on from there! I understand why Margaret focused so much of the Trek line on standalone TOS stories (they sell well, and its hard to argue with that) but I honestly wish TrekLit had done this a decade ago, using this as a springboard to tell a long variety of interconnected stories where Kirk finds Sherev again, or Adebayo again, etc. This is just fantastic, and as much as I’ve loved Christopher’s work in the past, this is the first one where everything has come together so perfectly – all of his strengths and none of his weaknesses, a set of truly great stories. Just tremendous work, an all-time great TrekLit story for my money.
Christopher - you've absolutely outdone yourself. Kudos and congratulations. This is a hell of a book.
Next up: The Enterprise War. I have a feeling that after this just about anything is going to be a bit of a letdown, but I'm certainly intrigued.
^Wow, thank you so much for that very complimentary review. I needed some cheering up, and this helps.
Could you do me a favor and repost that review on Amazon, if you haven't already? The more reviews our books get there, the higher they rank in Amazon's search algorithms, or something like that. And this review is a keeper, I think.
Could you do me a favor and repost that review on Amazon, if you haven't already? The more reviews our books get there, the higher they rank in Amazon's search algorithms, or something like that. And this review is a keeper, I think.
I think what we have comes down to a difference in world views. I tend more toward the conservative end of things, you I believe the more liberal end, and I don't really mean politically per se (though I admit I generally fall on the conservative end of the spectrum, but not tea party conservative--I consider myself a pragmatic conservative--for instance I supported people like John McCain in 2000, Jon Huntsman in 2012 and John Kasich in 2016--just to give you some perspective). Now what do I mean by all that when it comes to the PD--a fictitious story device, and what does that have to do with any of this? That means that when I see the PD I can understand an abundance of caution. I can see value in being more passive, more reserved in how the PD is applied. Now, I'm don't mean to say that your saying we should go in hog wild and tell less advanced societies all the secrets of the universe or anything. But if the PD were a real thing I'd prefer a motto of what I said earlier. Keeping contact to the absolute minimum necessary.
Where I think we agree is that I do think allowing a civilization to die is pretty damn cold hearted. But where I think we disagree is the methods of saving the society. I'd prefer the method of "Pen Pals" where Starfleet helped anonymously and the planet was able to carry on its merry way. In "Homeward" I liked the holodeck idea, though it wasn't perfect. But it was better than letting them all die.
Now we can argue whether passive observation or passive infiltration as depicted in "The Antares Maelstrom" is itself a violation. I do think there is value in keeping an eye on less advanced civilizations, not for any nefarious reasons but because the Federation is curious and wants to learn. We can learn a lot by studying other societies, but I'd prefer no direct contact if possible, or minimal contact, or as we saw in "The Antares Maelstrom" even.
But I think our differing world views plays into how we see the PD, and how anyone probably sees the PD. That doesn't mean all conservatives see the PD as I do or all liberals as I do. It's much more complicated then that. But I was just trying to make the point that it probably plays a role. Or at least it does for me.
It's interesting to read your observations. For the most part I agree. I enjoyed the story.
The one weakness I alluded to earlier (but didn't want to bring up until you read it) was I found the jumping around in the timeline a bit confusing at times. I understand where Christopher was going with it, but at times it caused me just a tad bit of confusion. I thought something happened to so and so, but then realized we were in a different time frame so it didn't happen yet, that sort of thing. That was the only thing that caused me to rate it 'above average' as opposed to excellent. But I did enjoy the story.
And I'll admit, at one time I thought of Kirk as a maverick. Not an out and out rule-breaker. A maverick doesn't necessarily mean someone who disobeys the rules. But I had a mistaken impression of him. I saw him at one time a bit more like he was depicted in "Enterprise: The First Adventure", a bit of a hot head, leaping before thinking.
What changed? Well, some future books that took place in that earlier era for one. But really, "My Brother's Keeper" was a wake up call. Friedman ran with the idea of what Mitchell referred to as a 'stack of books with legs' and he, and Christopher, and KRAD for that matter, all seem to agree that Kirk was not a maverick (which is the more correct view IMO). He was doing his job, and actually was very much a rules kind of guy. And I realized, yeah, during the first season he was a pretty by the book guy. Even later in the series, it's not that he became a maverick then even. As happens to anyone, he simply became more comfortable in his own skin, a bit more relaxed.
TCO is certainly in that same school of thought. And it was interesting to read a novel about Kirk's first command. I was under the erroneous opinion that the Enterprise was his first command. But reading "The Making of Star Trek" indicated it was not supposed to be. E: TFA depicted it as such which added to my error I suppose. But I liked the idea he had a previous command. It makes sense on reflection. And it's not inconsistent. It's not like there was some episode that said otherwise.
And I'm glad someone else depicted a first mission. One disappointment I had in My Brother's Keeper is that it came tantalizingly close to him taking command of the Enterprise. But I guess while MBK really wasn't all that consistent with E:TFA, perhaps they didn't want to rewrite that first mission at that point in time. And it opened the door for Christopher I guess. I mean, his story isn't meant to be in the same continuity as MBK really (though as I noted there are parts that could work), it probably be a bit much to have 3 Kirk takes command of the Enterprise stories in the novels.
I think you'll enjoy "The Enterprise War". I really enjoyed that story. As I had not seen season 2 of Discovery yet, I couldn't help but think of Jeffrey Hunter et. al in the roles and the Enterprise as it appeared around "The Cage". Though since I saw season 1 I did think of Discovery elements in other areas. But it made no difference. It was an excellent read. And I always considered myself at an advantage seeing season 2 AFTER reading the novel. It gave me more depth when seeing season 2.
As I said, caution is fine as a starting position, but it's unreasonable to refuse to ever move beyond it. Maybe a civilization at the Federation's level isn't advanced enough to have mastered the nuances of safe contact, but that doesn't mean no civilization will ever devise a better way to do it. It may take another thousand years to figure it out, but I have to believe there's a less blunt and crude option than just avoidance.
And I still say that's missing the point. The notion that contact by itself causes damage is a self-serving lie invented by Western civilization to let itself off the hook for the damage it did to other cultures. The truth is, it wasn't the contact that damaged those cultures, it was the West's active and intentional efforts to assimilate or destroy them. Pretending otherwise is blaming the victims, saying they were too weak to handle contact when in fact they could've handled it just fine if the contact hadn't been rapacious and destructive. Contact is not the problem. Coercion is. The PD is meant to be a precaution against the temptation to turn a contact coercive. It is not a statement that contact is automatically destructive. That's what TNG-era writers failed to understand.
As I said, that is not a viable way to do anthropology. This is not about my "worldview," thank you very much -- it's about the objective facts of how anthropology does and does not work as a discipline. I'm not talking about whether it's moral or not, I'm talking about whether it would work that way. And it wouldn't. You can't truly learn about a society if you only watch it from outside or interact with it in a one-sided way. Whatever understanding you think you have of their culture from the outside is going to be superficial and incomplete. You're going to be making assumptions you don't realize you're making, and you won't recognize the assumptions they take for granted. So if you tried to pretend to be one of them, you'd inevitably screw something up and expose your outsider nature. ST glosses over this for the sake of the story, because it's dramatically convenient to have the characters able to sell an impersonation convincingly, but what works in drama isn't the same as what's realistically feasible. There are a lot of problems with the idea that get glossed over by the fiction.
That's pretty much exactly what it does mean, someone rebellious or dissenting from the norm.
I don't exactly disagree with that. I may be conservative by nature, but not static. I think passive observation makes sense as a first step. The perhaps what we saw in "The Antares Maelstrom" as a reasonable second step--more direct observation. And then perhaps a 3rd step is more direct interaction. Obviously how long each step would take would likely vary depending on civilizations. In Star Trek, at least by TNG era, there's a direct point, warp power...but that's just a story device. That point of 'first contact' may in reality vary on other conditions, or even from society to society.
I don't think it's hubris personally. I really think it's about allowing a society to develop at their own pace. It's not even about are they ready to be contacted by a more advanced society. In actuality I think it might be rather the reverse. Are we ready? Are we ready to contact such and such society without hampering them or damaging them, intentions notwithstanding?
In fairness to the writers it is consistent with history. Many times in history a rule, tenet, law, whatever the case may be, gets perverted or modified over time. Now, as I noted, I wonder if there was some precipitating event in the period between the 23rd century and TNG era that caused the alteration--but whether it was that or just laziness on the part of Starfleet, it's not uncommon. Perhaps as the Federation grew and Starfleet sent ships further and further out they felt a stricter version of the PD was warranted, however misguided that might be. Storytelling wise, yeah, obviously it was probably written that way to add drama to the episodes.
What I meant was that I never saw Kirk as outright breaking rules. But someone who stretched them and took them to the breaking point. But it was a mistaken impression, one you and Michael Jan Friedman earlier helped set right. And when I recently rewatched the original series it helped me see Captain Kirk in a bit of a different light.
@Thrawn, were you planning on reading the non-Pocket books that have come out over the last few years, like Prometheus, the Hidden Universe travel guides (which were written by @Dayton Ward), or the autobiographies? I read the travel guides, and the Kirk autobiography and really enjoyed.
And there seemed to be no issues with Saru intervening to save the people of Terralysium in "New Eden".
I remember a long time ago there was a concept of a "TOS Relaunch," having the original series novels have more connections amongst themselves and more focus on the lower-level crew who were canon characters, but basically extras and could be developed any which way in the books. I don't think it really took off the way serialization did with the 24th century novels, aside from "The Janus Gate" and the "Errand of..." trilogies.
I certainly remember those times, but was there supposed to be continuity between those sub-series? It definitely was sold (with validity) as "You'll care about this red shirt" but I don't remember it being piped as a serialization of any kind. (other than between books in the same series)
Yeah, I think there was some big inconsistencies between different book series. I don't think there was any attempt to keep them continuous. In fact, when it comes to the original series there rarely is continuity between different book series. Sometimes an author might give a nod to something, but pretty much in that case it seems they can do what they want.
Not sure about the other books, but I'd recommend Prometheus. It takes place within the relaunch universe of the 24th century, though it's separate from the specific series. But I thought it was pretty good. I only read it because they came out during the book drought of 2018. One positive of all that because it was pretty good and I probably wouldn't have read it otherwise. I believe there was some coordination with JJ Miller for his Prey trilogy (at least in the sense that you see the beginnings of the issues that would lead to the events of Prey--certainly not required reading for Prey but an interesting tie in nonetheless).
IIRC, there was supposed to be, yes. The idea was to do a modern-style series with ongoing continuity and character development taking place in between and interwoven with TOS episodes, tying them together into a tighter continuity than they had before -- sort of like what Vanguard later did, but more directly integrated with TOS itself. But it didn't work out that way, and the two trilogies we got weren't as connected as the books were initially intended to be.
I really need to check out the Prometheus books sometime, it and Stargazer are the only Novelverse series I've never read any of.
If you haven't checked out the travel guides, I highly recommend them, they're a lot of fun and even use some stuff from the novel. They really made me wish Vulcan and the Klingon Empire were real places I could visit. I live in a desert already, so I'd be able to handle Vulcan pretty well, not so sure about Qo'Nos though, I've gotten the impression it's a bit more swampy and humid, and I can not handle humidity.
I liked the Stargazer stories as well. A nice early look at the early career of Captain Picard. Sadly it only covers about the first several months of his command. I'd love to see the new Picard series maybe encourage interest in his early career and maybe a resurrection of this series. There are at least 15 years not covered to any great degree of his command of the Stargazer between the last book and Christopher's "The Buried Age" which starts off at the very end of the Stargazer and its aftermath. That's another excellent book BTW. It's counted as a "Lost Era" book, and not really a Stargazer book, but it does include the Stargazer's last moments and Christopher does reference Friedman's earlier stories (particularly in using the same characters). I believe, IIRC, that it's in the same continuity.
Similar threads
