Anything new you can reveal about it yet? I forgot about it since we haven't heard any details besides the title and era.
^David McIntee's Indistinguishable From Magic has a Gold Key Trek reference.![]()
^David McIntee's Indistinguishable From Magic has a Gold Key Trek reference.![]()
And I'm proud of it!
^David McIntee's Indistinguishable From Magic has a Gold Key Trek reference.![]()
And I'm proud of it!
Oh wait, did you put the thing about Scotty dying his hair blond in there!? Didn't I suggest that?! Awesome!
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?
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.)
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.
Now that doesn't cover Gary Mitchell, but I don't think Kirk knew Gary as long as he knew Spock...
^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.
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.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.![]()
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.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.