• 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

garoo1980

Lieutenant Commander
Red Shirt
I remember read old ST books that never refence each other, in fact some contradict others. But now there are series of novels that have definitely on going arcs. What changed? Is this simply becasue the shows aren't currently in production or was there a shift somewhere else with TPTB?
 
What changed? Is this simply becasue the shows aren't currently in production or was there a shift somewhere else with TPTB?

A little of both. There was a loose continuity that emerged in the novels in the '80s, but then when TNG entered production, the folks in charge decided to begin taking a firmer rein over the franchise, wanting the show to determine what was "real" in the universe and have the books merely follow its lead; and the person responsible for overseeing this, Gene Roddenberry's assistant Richard Arnold, took a very strict view of things, and so the books and comics were pretty much forbidden to have cross-references and new continuing characters or story threads. When Roddenberry died, Arnold was let go, but for the next few years, his policies were pretty much followed by default. Eventually, though, people started trying continuity in the books, and nobody objected, and gradually it just started happening more and more.

And the shows being out of production is definitely a factor. The modern book continuity really shifted into high gear with the post-finale DS9 novels, and has expanded with each of the subsequent post-finale series, as well as book-original series that don't have to worry (much) about conflicting with a show in production.
 
Christopher, is there currently an edict from the publisher that all the books must at least not contradict each other? I'm not talking about continuity between books by the same author, a la Vanguard, but cross all of Trek Lit.

For example, is the Typhon Pact something that ALL Trek authors must acknowledge and are constrained by? Is it "book canon" that Riker and Troy are on the Titan, Ezri on the Destiny, etc and anyone wanting to use those characters must use them in that context?
 
If I understand what the authors among us have said previously, there's not an official policy, but there does seem to be a definite preference. Shatner's novels and the Crucible Trilogy are the only ones I can remember from recent years that are inconsistent, however.
 
I would love it if the novels became cannon. I understand that many, many novels contradict one another and with that said, I would love it if the writers and fans voted on which novels to weed out as not being cannon. For example, I don't see many fans voting for the Shatnerverse to be included in a 'cannon novel list'. I understand this will likely NEVER, EVER happen but boy would I be thrilled.
 
Is it "book canon" that Riker and Troy are on the Titan, Ezri on the Destiny, etc and anyone wanting to use those characters must use them in that context?
Do you mean Aventine, because Ezri's having been on the Destiny before coming to DS9 was established on the show so it is canon.
 
Is it "book canon" that Riker and Troy are on the Titan, Ezri on the Destiny, etc and anyone wanting to use those characters must use them in that context?
Do you mean Aventine, because Ezri's having been on the Destiny before coming to DS9 was established on the show so it is canon.

Sorry, yes, I meant Aventine...

I don't mind continuity between books by the same author (the Shatnerverse, Rihannsu/Spock's World, et al), but I liked the old system where there were lots and lots of different "takes" on Trek (some good, some not so good), and they weren't beholden to each other.

I would want any given writer to be free to take his cues from his chosen point in time ONLY from "canon" Trek and go where he wishes, not bound by the writings of any other author.
 
I would love it if the novels became cannon. I understand that many, many novels contradict one another and with that said, I would love it if the writers and fans voted on which novels to weed out as not being cannon. For example, I don't see many fans voting for the Shatnerverse to be included in a 'cannon novel list'. I understand this will likely NEVER, EVER happen but boy would I be thrilled.

Would that be before or after the whole thing broke down into sectarian violence?

The Rihannsu campaigns alone could cost thousands of lives...
 
I would love it if the novels became cannon. I understand that many, many novels contradict one another and with that said, I would love it if the writers and fans voted on which novels to weed out as not being cannon. For example, I don't see many fans voting for the Shatnerverse to be included in a 'cannon novel list'. I understand this will likely NEVER, EVER happen but boy would I be thrilled.

Would that be before or after the whole thing broke down into sectarian violence?

The Rihannsu campaigns alone could cost thousands of lives...

Lives well spent to include the excellent works of Diane Duane as canon...:techman:
 
I would love it if the novels became cannon. I understand that many, many novels contradict one another and with that said, I would love it if the writers and fans voted on which novels to weed out as not being cannon. For example, I don't see many fans voting for the Shatnerverse to be included in a 'cannon novel list'. I understand this will likely NEVER, EVER happen but boy would I be thrilled.

next person who spells it 'cannon' should be shot out of one.:klingon:
 
I would love it if the novels became cannon. I understand that many, many novels contradict one another and with that said, I would love it if the writers and fans voted on which novels to weed out as not being cannon. For example, I don't see many fans voting for the Shatnerverse to be included in a 'cannon novel list'. I understand this will likely NEVER, EVER happen but boy would I be thrilled.
They can become canon even though they contradict each other. Film Trek does and its all canon, so why not Trek Lit? ;)
 
Does it really matter if the books are canon or not? Does anyone sit there reading and chanting in their head "None of this really happened. None of this really happened. None of this really happened..."? (btw, there are people who actually do that while watching Enterprise and Star Trek XI, and then spend ages online trying to prove themselves right :lol:)

As said in other threads, the books have influenced canon over the years: Uhura and Sulu's first names, as well as the names of Kirk's parents are taken from the novels.

And as far as I'm concerned: The first Klingon in Starfleet was Konom, Captain April launched 1701 on her first mission with George Kirk as first officer, Spock served on the USS Artemis before joining Pike's Enterprise, Kirk and Spock somehow first met in the back of a police car before joining Starfleet and then again when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise, Sulu wanted to be on the Aerfen instead of the Enterprise, Uhura married Stonn and Saavik's half-Romulan. M'kay?
 
Christopher, is there currently an edict from the publisher that all the books must at least not contradict each other? I'm not talking about continuity between books by the same author, a la Vanguard, but cross all of Trek Lit.

Certainly not. There's no "edict" beyond staying consistent with onscreen Trek. The internovel continuity was the choice of the editors and authors. We do it because it's fun and creatively useful. But those of us who have stories to tell that are incompatible with the novel continuity have also been free to do so. In addition to the Shatner novels (the latest of which contradicted previous ones) and Crucible, there was the recent The Children of Kings, which was implicitly an alternate-timeline tale of sorts that didn't quite fit in either the canonical or new-movie continuity; and there was Troublesome Minds, which doesn't conflict with the main novel continuity but doesn't reference it either.

Margaret Clark wasn't around as sole editor long enough to say for sure, but I had the impression that she was trying to move away from the continuity-heavy approach to the books and go back to a stronger emphasis on standalones, or at least achieve more of a balance between the two approaches. So it's a matter of the editors' preference, not some corporate dictate.


For example, is the Typhon Pact something that ALL Trek authors must acknowledge and are constrained by? Is it "book canon" that Riker and Troy are on the Titan, Ezri on the Destiny, etc and anyone wanting to use those characters must use them in that context?

Well, it's film canon that Riker and Troi are on Titan, so the books wouldn't be able to ignore that, though there'd be nothing in theory to prevent a book that postulated a different interpretation of the starship Titan or its crew or that claimed Riker and Troi had moved on to another assignment after the film. The Shatnerverse novels used the books' Titan crew but offered an incompatible version of that ship's service record.

But there's no such thing as "book canon." There is the main novel continuity that's emerged over the past decade, and naturally any book set in that continuity will be as consistent as it can with the rest (although occasional inconsistencies do occur despite everyone's best intentions). However, not every book has to be set in that continuity.
 
Not that its a democracy but personally I like the series of novels to have continuity. For example I like that you can pick up a Titan book and not have to have read the previous ones, but I think you get a lot more out of them if you do. If that balance can be maintained I'm all for it.

But that stuff can't really apply to TOS at this point, there's been far too many books that contradict themselves to start now.
 
A further thought: I think a lot of people tend to assume we writers have far less creative freedom in this process than we actually do. As far as I recall, nobody's actually told me I had to keep one of my novels or stories in continuity; I just did so because it was what I wanted to do (with Ex Machina and The Buried Age) or because it only seemed natural (as with my TTN and TNG books or my Mirror Universe story). Other books are a good source of material to draw on for worldbuilding, so why not use them? Now, if I hadn't already been predisposed to keep my work in continuity, maybe I would've been asked to do so in the case of the series books, but as far as my personal experience went, it was just taken for granted.

The closest I've come to being told not to keep a book in continuity with others was for my Abramsverse novel, Seek a Newer World, since the policy was to make each book a standalone. Even so, we were just told to avoid overt continuity references. We were still planning to make sure the books didn't contradict one another, at least. And I did manage to sneak in a few subtle Easter-egg nods to novel and even comic continuity without calling attention to them (like a familiar character name or two).
 
The closest I've come to being told not to keep a book in continuity with others was for my Abramsverse novel, Seek a Newer World, since the policy was to make each book a standalone. Even so, we were just told to avoid overt continuity references. We were still planning to make sure the books didn't contradict one another, at least. And I did manage to sneak in a few subtle Easter-egg nods to novel and even comic continuity without calling attention to them (like a familiar character name or two).

Ah ha! It was your fault the books were pulled! Obviously the Supreme Court spotted your easter eggs and were determined to crush them! :guffaw::lol:
 
^ At the moment, just the two books aimed at the "young reader" audience and set while Kirk, McCoy, and Uhura are at the Academy.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top