• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Continuity Overload

Anything new you can reveal about it yet? I forgot about it since we haven't heard any details besides the title and era.
 
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?


The continuity is the only reason I'll read Star Trek books. Completely stand-alone books, like a lot of the TOS books, feel completely pointless to me and have about as much tension as an Adam West Batman cliffhanger. With the post-Nemesis continuity, it feels like there could be consequences for almost any character in each book (although, obviously the TV characters aren't likely to die), which gives the setting more weight. As much as I love Kirk and Spock, I don't want to read yet another reset-button episode. As much as I don't care at all for Janeway and Chakotay, I do want to read about Operation Full Circle, and how it all unfolds.

However, I'm probably not a typical Trek reader.
 
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.)

I don't think it makes Kirk callous to note that he may have had a bit of selective memory. TWOK is a gut punch, and Kirk is walking away saying "This is the worst pain ever!"

It's true that he's had gut punches before. He's had friends and family die, some by his own hands. He's even faced no-win scenarios on multiple occassions. But that doesn't change the fact that right there, in 2285, he's lost the most important person in his life.

If, God forbid, my wife were to pass on, I could be forgiven for not acknowledging the deaths of my brother, or father, or high school friend. I agree that Kirk has faced scenarios arguably worse than that of The Wrath of Khan. But I don't agree that him not acknowledging that would be out-of-character, or even a general unreasonable expectation.
 
^Whereas I think that if you'd lost enough people in your life, then a new loss would probably remind you of the losses you've felt in the past, not make you disregard them.

Although it has just occurred to me, on the other side of the argument, that the one constant in all those other losses Kirk endured was that Spock was there to help him through them. Maybe that's what he meant by "not like this" -- that this was the one time he had to face death without Spock's support. You know, I can almost buy that.
 
Perhaps "Not like this," is a reference to Spock's relationship to Kirk, i.e. best friend, rather than the general circumstances.

Which is to say I've had a best friend for 20 years, and when she dies it's going to suck, a lot. She's basically the only person I do regular phone calls with outside of my parents, and I'm certainly more free on the phone with her than I am with them. Of course when my parents die it's going to hurt tremendously...but it's not the same thing, either.

Now that doesn't cover Gary Mitchell, but I don't think Kirk knew Gary as long as he knew Spock, and when Kirk killed Gary it was because he had no choice. Very different circumstances from Spock's death, where you -know- (even before Into Darkness drove the point home) that Kirk would have gladly died in Spock's place, and quite possibly ends up feeling that he should have.
 
Although it has just occurred to me, on the other side of the argument, that the one constant in all those other losses Kirk endured was that Spock was there to help him through them. Maybe that's what he meant by "not like this" -- that this was the one time he had to face death without Spock's support. You know, I can almost buy that.

I really like this interpretation. It's never occurred to me before, but it's going to put that scene in a new light the next time I rewatch TWOK.

Now that doesn't cover Gary Mitchell, but I don't think Kirk knew Gary as long as he knew Spock...

Kirk says in WNMHGB that he's known Gary for 15 years. Both Kirk & Khan say in TWOK that it's been 15 years since "Space Seed."* Depending on how you interpret the TOS chronology, that'd mean that Kirk and Spock had known each other anywhere to 15-18 years by that point.

*Yes, I know that the Okuda Chronology places the two stories 18 years apart. That was a dumb assumption IMO, so I disregard it.
 
Alternately, one could assume Kirk and Khan were just approximating (arguments could be made for either party being unreliable), but that's beside the point. :)
 
^Whereas I think that if you'd lost enough people in your life, then a new loss would probably remind you of the losses you've felt in the past, not make you disregard them.death without Spock's support. You know, I can almost buy that.

From experience- pretty much, though it also is affected by circumstances. By which I mean, similarities in losses make you feel they're cumulative, while totally different losses don't do that so much.

It's also much more likely that you'll feel the cumulative loss if there's guilt associated with them, but not when there isn't.
 
Alternately, one could assume Kirk and Khan were just approximating (arguments could be made for either party being unreliable), but that's beside the point. :)
I think this is the assumption that Greg Cox's third Khan novel uses (that Khan was converting to Ceti Alpha V years, rather than using Terran years). Kirk's own use of "fifteen years" later in the film I can accept as simply being a case of extreme ballpark-estimate handwavium, if I have to.
 
Although it has just occurred to me, on the other side of the argument, that the one constant in all those other losses Kirk endured was that Spock was there to help him through them. Maybe that's what he meant by "not like this" -- that this was the one time he had to face death without Spock's support. You know, I can almost buy that.

I like that explanation, too.
 
^Although I don't think it quite works with the rest of his lines there: "I've cheated death. I tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity."
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top