Continuity Overload

[The Wormhole]

Sometimes (most times?) the tie-in writers are better about this than the folks who made the show/movies. I still get annoyed that when Kirk said, in Star Trek V, "I lost a brother once," nobody thought even for a second that he was talking about George ("only you call him Sam"...).

Nowhere near as bad as The Wrath of Khan. "I've never faced death. Not like this. Not even when I lost my best friend Gary, the love of my life Edith Keeler, my brother Sam and sister-in-law Aurelan, or my wife Miramanee and my unborn child. Oh, and the first two of those died as a result of my own actions, but no, I've never actually faced death before."

I actually interpreted the "I've never faced death like this" thing to mean this was the first time he actually was with someone he cared about throughout their dying moments and moment of their death, which really isn't the case with a lot of those examples. Most of the redshirts killed under his command were usually killed instantly before he could get to them. Gary Mitchell was killed after a huge boulder sealed him into a grave, so Kirk doesn't really witness that even if he did cause it. Kirk specifically looked away and avoided dealing with Edith Keeler's death. Sam was already dead when we see him. And I guess whatever relationship he had with Aurelan or Miramanee, watching his best friend of twenty years die was a bit different than seeing their deaths.

Or for another example, imagine a military officer who has faced death in some manner all his life and career. He's killed enemy soldiers, witnessed the deaths of soldiers he's served with or even commanded, including some friends. Family members have died, perhaps even his pregnant wife and unborn child but for whatever reason he was never on hand at the moment of death. Sure all these deaths take their toll on him and shape him in some manner. But then his best friend is fatally injured and he spends time with his friend on his deathbed. It's this that makes the officer of this narrative feel is the first time he's actually "faced death."

 

[Christopher]

I actually interpreted the "I've never faced death like this" thing to mean this was the first time he actually was with someone he cared about throughout their dying moments and moment of their death, which really isn't the case with a lot of those examples. Most of the redshirts killed under his command were usually killed instantly before he could get to them. Gary Mitchell was killed after a huge boulder sealed him into a grave, so Kirk doesn't really witness that even if he did cause it. Kirk specifically looked away and avoided dealing with Edith Keeler's death. Sam was already dead when we see him. And I guess whatever relationship he had with Aurelan or Miramanee, watching his best friend of twenty years die was a bit different than seeing their deaths.

Sure, you can try to rationalize it as a fait accompli, but I still feel it would've better suited continuity if he'd said something different, and the line has always rung a false tone with me, in the same way that "I lost a brother once" did. It's just one symptom of TWOK's generally cavalier approach to Trek continuity (retconning Chekov into "Space Seed" without explanation, having movie-era paraphernalia in the background of the Botany Bay modules, manufacturing an old flame and kid for Kirk out of nowhere, etc.). After all, Harve Bennett was a TV producer from roughly the same era as Roddenberry (though about a decade behind), and his approach to continuity was par for the course for the period. You can see that in Bennett's The Six Million Dollar Man, for instance. When it referred back to the events of the pilot movie, it altered them in a number of ways, even beyond the preexisting alteration of Steve Austin from civilian to colonel. And it did the "retconned old love" trick on a number of occasions, most notably with Jaime Sommers, the Bionic Woman. There was even a recurring character whose name was retconned from Barney Miller to Barney Hiller when the Hal Linden sitcom Barney Miller came out in the interim. TV shows of the '60s and '70s tended to treat the past as a suggestion rather than a set of boundaries.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I am always sorta amazed about how the obsession with canon and continuity with the ENITRE Star Trek Saga.

Personally, I'm just happy (and prefer) a Historian's Note at the start of the book....this book takes place xx months before (or after) this episode (or book).

I think reading everything in publication order is probably the safest bet. Yep, you can probably think of a few examples to read Trek Lit other than pub. order, but in general, I think publication order is best. (I do miss the listing in the back of the books, but I've adapted)

I just read a trek book -- I don't really want to review the book so I'll keep it nameless -- but it just seemed to be an exercise in tying in all trek books, episodes, and comics together with a zillion references -- half that I only got -- and half of the ones I got, I thought "Gee, is this really helping the story?"

Just wondering how important TrekBBSers feel about how exact the continuity has to be.

And to clarify, I always like (and prefer) the Historian's Note -- which can even be as simple as (this story takes place in between TV Season 4 & 5).

And yep, I do like the reference to another episode, but sometimes I think an author or two thrives on connecting everything together and the story suffers.

Your Thoughts?

Depends. Some novels use continuity porn brilliantly, others use it as tedious word count padding.

I'd like to see more novels take a looser approach - like Children of Kings, which existed in kind of a modern re-imagining of Captain Pike's era. It mixed and matched elements of Enterprise, the reboot movies and the TOS pilot.

 

[Greg Cox]

I actually interpreted the "I've never faced death like this" thing to mean this was the first time he actually was with someone he cared about throughout their dying moments and moment of their death, which really isn't the case with a lot of those examples. Most of the redshirts killed under his command were usually killed instantly before he could get to them. Gary Mitchell was killed after a huge boulder sealed him into a grave, so Kirk doesn't really witness that even if he did cause it. Kirk specifically looked away and avoided dealing with Edith Keeler's death. Sam was already dead when we see him. And I guess whatever relationship he had with Aurelan or Miramanee, watching his best friend of twenty years die was a bit different than seeing their deaths.

Sure, you can try to rationalize it as a fait accompli, but I still feel it would've better suited continuity if he'd said something different, and the line has always rung a false tone with me, in the same way that "I lost a brother once" did. It's just one symptom of TWOK's generally cavalier approach to Trek continuity (retconning Chekov into "Space Seed" without explanation, having movie-era paraphernalia in the background of the Botany Bay modules, manufacturing an old flame and kid for Kirk out of nowhere, etc.). .

To be fair, Kirk running into a hitherto-unmentioned old flame was pretty much standard operating procedure at that point. See Court-Martial, The Deadly Years, Shore Leave, Turnabout Intruder, etc.

And, given Kirk's age and romantic history, the idea that he might have beget a child or two didn't see like much of a stretch . . ..

 

[Christopher]

To be fair, Kirk running into a hitherto-unmentioned old flame was pretty much standard operating procedure at that point. See Court-Martial, The Deadly Years, Shore Leave, Turnabout Intruder, etc.

Which is kind of my point -- that TWOK handled continuity in the same cavalier way that was standard for TV in the '60s-'80s, where past events could be freely ignored and new "old flames" piled on by the dozen. (Although in earlier drafts, Carol Marcus was going to be Janet Wallace from "The Deadly Years." Carol using the alias Carol Wallace in Into Darkness was a very inside-baseball Easter-egg nod to that.)

 

[Greg Cox]

To be fair, Kirk running into a hitherto-unmentioned old flame was pretty much standard operating procedure at that point. See Court-Martial, The Deadly Years, Shore Leave, Turnabout Intruder, etc.

Which is kind of my point -- that TWOK handled continuity in the same cavalier way that was standard for TV in the '60s-'80s, where past events could be freely ignored and new "old flames" piled on by the dozen. (Although in earlier drafts, Carol Marcus was going to be Janet Wallace from "The Deadly Years." Carol using the alias Carol Wallace in Into Darkness was a very inside-baseball Easter-egg nod to that.)

Which flew completely over my head until just now!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I still get annoyed that when Kirk said, in Star Trek V, "I lost a brother once," nobody thought even for a second that he was talking about George ("only you call him Sam"...). I think J.M. Dillard rectified this in her novelization, but I don't recall exactly.

In the STV comic book adaptation that Peter David and James W. Fry did for DC Comics, we see Sam reflected in the window when Kirk says those words.

It's just one symptom of TWOK's generally cavalier approach to Trek continuity (retconning Chekov into "Space Seed" without explanation...

That's one continuity error that we can ultimately lay at the feet of Walter Koenig. He realized that he hadn't been with the show when "Space Seed" was made, but he also realized that they could easily remove Chekov from those scenes with a rewrite and give his part to say, Sulu, instead. Not wanting to jeopardize one of the better parts he'd ever had in Star Trek, Koenig opted to stay silent and not point out the mistake.

Honestly, if I were in his shoes, I likely would've done the same.

 

[F. King Daniel]

To be fair, Kirk running into a hitherto-unmentioned old flame was pretty much standard operating procedure at that point. See Court-Martial, The Deadly Years, Shore Leave, Turnabout Intruder, etc.

Which is kind of my point -- that TWOK handled continuity in the same cavalier way that was standard for TV in the '60s-'80s, where past events could be freely ignored and new "old flames" piled on by the dozen. (Although in earlier drafts, Carol Marcus was going to be Janet Wallace from "The Deadly Years." Carol using the alias Carol Wallace in Into Darkness was a very inside-baseball Easter-egg nod to that.)

Which flew completely over my head until just now!

I got it, but took it to mean Janet was Carol's half-sister ("Wallace is your mother's name"), and that Jim was a very naughty boy.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I got it, but took it to mean Janet was Carol's half-sister ("Wallace is your mother's name"), and that Jim was a very naughty boy.

Yeah, but Wallace is her married name (she married Theodore Wallace, presumably after her breakup with Kirk). It's possible that Carol was Theodore's half-sister. And that they're the ancestors of Darien Wallace, Phil Wallace, and the Wallace family of Omicron Theta. And descendants of Alfred Russell Wallace.

 

[Bibliomike]

Sometimes (most times?) the tie-in writers are better about this than the folks who made the show/movies. I still get annoyed that when Kirk said, in Star Trek V, "I lost a brother once," nobody thought even for a second that he was talking about George ("only you call him Sam"...).

Nowhere near as bad as The Wrath of Khan. "I've never faced death. Not like this. Not even when I lost my best friend Gary, the love of my life Edith Keeler, my brother Sam and sister-in-law Aurelan, or my wife Miramanee and my unborn child. Oh, and the first two of those died as a result of my own actions, but no, I've never actually faced death before."

Eh, it won't convince you, but the answer is right there in the words "Not like this." In none of the cases you point out was Kirk ever in jeopardy. Whenever Kirk has faced death personally (we are asked to believe/accept), he's gotten out of dying with no lasting, personal consequences. This time, the price extracted for his survival is Spock's death. (Which won't be permanent either, but Kirk doesn't know that yet.)

And "Not like this" also could mean, literally, Kirk has never had a death hit him this hard. In which case the line that bothers me in ST V is perfectly legitimate: Spock was closer to Kirk than his brother was, which even a casual reading of TOS/TAS/the movies certainly supports. The line is establishing a canonical benchmark of grief for the character.

And maybe Kirk is even correcting David by saying those words. David says, "Lt. Saavik was right, you never have faced death," to which Kirk says, "Not like this." Meaning all those deaths you mention and more, but, no, this time is different.

Sure, as you say a few comments down, this is a rationalization; still, I don't think that line is quite as bad a violation of continuity because it includes that qualifying phrase.

But I love TWOK, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Bibliomike]

Speaking of ST V, I appreciated Greg referencing Sybok in Foul Deeds Arise - like the movie or not (and I kinda sorta do), Spock's heretofore unknown half-brother showing up and hijacking the Enterprise would, I would think, qualify as a memorable experience! So nicely done.

Just to tease, Sybok is also mentioned in my new book, coming out next week.

That sound you hear are my latinum slips ringing in your coffers. I'm in! (Would have been from the title and Spock focus alone, frankly... and the pilot-era Nimoy cover art, at that!)

 

[Christopher]

Nowhere near as bad as The Wrath of Khan. "I've never faced death. Not like this. Not even when I lost my best friend Gary, the love of my life Edith Keeler, my brother Sam and sister-in-law Aurelan, or my wife Miramanee and my unborn child. Oh, and the first two of those died as a result of my own actions, but no, I've never actually faced death before."

Eh, it won't convince you, but the answer is right there in the words "Not like this." In none of the cases you point out was Kirk ever in jeopardy. Whenever Kirk has faced death personally (we are asked to believe/accept), he's gotten out of dying with no lasting, personal consequences. This time, the price extracted for his survival is Spock's death. (Which won't be permanent either, but Kirk doesn't know that yet.)

And that's just not true. He had to kill his own best friend Gary Mitchell because Gary was trying to kill him. So, yeah, there were major personal consquences to getting out of dying -- the guilt at killing his own best friend. And Miramanee died because she and Kirk both were being stoned by the panicked tribespeople, so that's another case where he escaped death himself but paid a high personal price.

And yes, "We are asked to believe" is exactly the point. The movie was playing fast and loose with continuity, as was typical for the era and for Harve Bennett's body of work -- even when past events were referred back to, it was in broad strokes, taking what was useful for the current story and disregarding everything else. The film invented the conceit that Kirk had always cheated death in the past so that the death of Spock would have more dramatic impact within the film itself. But that conceit is a cheat in and of itself, because it deliberately ignores his past experience with personal tragedy.

But then, that's the way it usually was. Series leads would go through many profound personal tragedies and losses, yet each one would be forgotten once the next one rolled around, or else the hero would end up being so weighted down by grief that it would be impossible to continue functioning. Heck, Kirk lost the love of his life and his brother and sister-in-law in consecutive episodes, but that triple blow of grief was never mentioned again.

And "Not like this" also could mean, literally, Kirk has never had a death hit him this hard. In which case the line that bothers me in ST V is perfectly legitimate: Spock was closer to Kirk than his brother was, which even a casual reading of TOS/TAS/the movies certainly supports. The line is establishing a canonical benchmark of grief for the character.

Except it makes Kirk seem pretty shallow and callous toward everyone that isn't Spock, and it robs "Where No Man," "City on the Edge," and "The Paradise Syndrome" of their dramatic weight by trivializing Kirk's tragedies therein. (Not counting "Operation -- Annihilate!" because that episode never really established any dramatic weight.)

 

[inflatabledalek]

It's obvious isn't it? The ending of Requiem for Methuselah wasn't a one off, Spock was constantly mind wiping Kirk to remove the memory of traumatic events, hence Kirk's statement because the pointy eared git wasn't there to do it this time (every time I see V I like to imagine Spock feels slightly squeamish about the end of that episode when Kirk does his "I need my pain!" speech).

 

[RandyS]

I've never minded all the copious references to episodes or movies, chance are if you're reading a Star Trek novel, you're enough of a fan you're intimately familiar with the show.

Me too. It's particularly helpful to me when I'm reading a book and my DVD's have sat untouched on the shelf for a few months (which DOES happen, believe it or not), and I have forgotten the odd reference here and there.

 

[JD]

I like the books working in continuity references where they are appropriate. I don't always remember the episodes and things so the references help to jog my memory. Authors do sometimes go overboard, but so far I've never really been to bothered by the books I've read.

 

[Christopher]

I just wrote a scene where Kirk is reminiscing about something from his past, and I managed to work in a reference to an episode, a reference to some unseen event I just made up, and a reference to another Trek novel.

 

[Stevil2001]

It's obvious isn't it? The ending of Requiem for Methuselah wasn't a one off, Spock was constantly mind wiping Kirk to remove the memory of traumatic events, hence Kirk's statement because the pointy eared git wasn't there to do it this time (every time I see V I like to imagine Spock feels slightly squeamish about the end of that episode when Kirk does his "I need my pain!" speech).

I like this, but in my head canon, when Kirk says he hasn't faced death in TWOK, he's thinking to himself, "And fuck you, Gary Mitchell!"

I just wrote a scene where Kirk is reminiscing about something from his past, and I managed to work in a reference to an episode, a reference to some unseen event I just made up, and a reference to another Trek novel.

Needs more Gold Key comics.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^David McIntee's Indistinguishable From Magic has a Gold Key Trek reference.

 

[ryan123450]

I just wrote a scene where Kirk is reminiscing about something from his past, and I managed to work in a reference to an episode, a reference to some unseen event I just made up, and a reference to another Trek novel.

Has this novel been announced yet, Cristopher?

 

[Christopher]

Has this novel been announced yet, Cristopher?

It's The Face of the Unknown, my TOS novel for January 2017.