Countdown/Novels

[Sci]

IDW Comics and Cryptic have undone some major developments in the novel series where there should be continuity with the novel series and vice versa.

No offense, but why? Why shouldn't difference licensed Trek stories have the freedom to pick and choose if they'll be consistent with one-another? Why should everything have to fit into one little box?

Not to sound *too* glib, but because then it would fit into one nice, neat little box. You could read one thing, and not have to do any mental gymnastics to make it work with what came before.

Yeah, but... why do you HAVE to make it work with what came before? Why not just accept it as a different version that's incompatible with what came before?

While I'm nowhere near as fanatical about it as Herbert is, I can still see the point he's trying to make. People try to give the old "infinite diversity in infinite combinations" argument, but wouldn't it be nicer if the richness of a fictional work came from authors and creators building upon and expanding previous works instead of going off in some wacky new direction each time?

Why not do it both ways? Have some works that build on what came before, and others that go in other directions. There are as many people who find that kind of interconnecting continuity daunting and who worry that they won't understand a book if they haven't read others as there are fans who want interconnecting continuity.

Fitting everything into one neat little box is just another way of imposing arbitrary limits on creativity.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The beauty of the movie's approach is that the old and new versions of ST can coexist.

If the movie doesn't mention Countdown, then how can we be sure? Obviously Countdown isn't canon, since it's only a comic. So how do we know what the *film's* approach to time travel is? We never see the reality that Old Spock and Nero come from...so, unlike Countdown, we don't know if it will survive.

 

[JoeZhang]

The beauty of the movie's approach is that the old and new versions of ST can coexist.

If the movie doesn't mention Countdown, then how can we be sure? Obviously Countdown isn't canon, since it's only a comic. So how do we know what the *film's* approach to time travel is? We never see the reality that Old Spock and Nero come from...so, unlike Countdown, we don't know if it will survive.

If it doesn't survive, where do they come from?

 

[BolianAuthor]

According to Star Trek XI's theory, the Borg travelling back in time from 2373 to 2063 wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the existing timeline, since it would only have created a divergent timeline, leaving the original intact....so then how come the Ent-E crew saw Earth get transformed into Borg Earth in the 24th century, because that shouldn't have been possible. Earth should have stayed as it was. Maybe the temporal corridor thingie they were caught in somehow enabled them to briefly glimpse another reality. Whatever, the events of First Contact create three divergent realities: The 'original' timeline of Picard & co.; the Borg-assimilated timeline briefly seen; and the timeline where the Borg nearly assimilate Earth but are stopped by Picard and co.

By quantum physics, the ST '09 version is the more realistic one. Just by common sense, there's no way one timeline can "overwrite" another anyway; if there are two different versions of a single moment in time, then by definition they exist simultaneously rather than one "replacing" (i.e. coming at a later time than) the other.

The only logical way to explain a timeline "changing" after a time-travel event is by applying the idea of multiple quantum states collapsing into one. Say you go back from 2400 to 2300 and change history. That means that from 2300 to 2400, your original history and the new one you create are running in parallel, both existing; but once the original time-travel point in 2400 is reached, the two timelines collapse into one, namely the "new" one. So it would appear to observers that the timeline has changed.

But it's possible that this doesn't always happen. Just because two parallel timelines can merge together, with one effectively ceasing to exist after a certain point, that doesn't mean it has to happen in every case. Maybe it depends on the circumstances or method of the time travel. Maybe it depends on some other complexities of quantum physics. (Well, actually it depends on the laws of drama -- much like effective warp velocity and the explosive yield of torpedoes.)

Okay... I'm gonna try and address this issue, because as a writer myself, I had to deal heavily with it, when writing my "Waking Nightmares" story, which was a sequel to VOY's "Endgame".

In my story, Admiral Janeway felt remorse for the destruction of the Borg race, at the hands of herself, 3 years into the future. So, she goes back in time, to stop her future self, from helping her past self (Captain Janeway). But hark... how can she stop her future self from 3 years ahead in time, when that future Admiral does not exist, because of the new timeline they're living in now?

Simple...

The timeline was NOT overwritten... it simply overlapped... like a portion of rug folding over the rest of the rug... because the future Admiral Janeway DOES still exist... in the past! Why? Because there is no way to erase that Admiral Janeway from the past. If you do, then that whole string of events would never have taken place, and the current timeline would ne be... there has/had to be a catalyst to initiate the change in the timeline. That catalyst, was Admiral Janeway.

So, even though the new future (without the Borg threat) is now "our" timeline, the "old" timeline still exists, in the past, because without it, there would have been nothing to prompt the change in events to begin with. THIS timeline simply overlapped it, from that point, onward... the point where Admiral Janeway got Voyager home.

NO timeline can be fully erased. It is not possible, and goes against the very nature of time itself. Even if you could wipe out an entire timeline from existance, it STILL would not be totally gone, because in the record of time and history, it still remains, up until the point in time which you removed it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Here's the thing. Ultimately, this isn't a philosophical issue, it's a practical one. And not because CBS, Paramount, and all us lazy author types can't be bothered to get our act together. A totally consistent continuity is a bad idea because:

1) Only 1-2% of the movie and tv audience read the books and comics anyway. So the studios would be insane to try to treat the books and comics as canon. Why tie your hands over an old Greg Cox novel that most of your audience has never heard of? And as long as the movies and tv shows are free to ignore the tie-ins (as they should be), you're always going to end with inconsistences between old and new books.

2) If, god forbid, the studios did feel they were actually constrained by what happens in the books, they wouldn't let us do anything interesting, ever. They would control the contents of the books so tightly, eliminating anything that could possibly complicate matters down the road, that it would make the reign of Richard Arnold look like Woodstock. You would have nothing but cookie-cutter, standalone novels in which nothing significant or controversial ever happened.

Is that really what people want?

 

[Therin of Andor]

You would have nothing but cookie-cutter, standalone novels in which nothing significant or controversial ever happened.

Is that really what people want?

Tee hee. Some, yes!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The beauty of the movie's approach is that the old and new versions of ST can coexist.

If the movie doesn't mention Countdown, then how can we be sure? Obviously Countdown isn't canon, since it's only a comic. So how do we know what the *film's* approach to time travel is? We never see the reality that Old Spock and Nero come from...so, unlike Countdown, we don't know if it will survive.

If it doesn't survive, where do they come from?

A timeline that no longer exists?

You would have nothing but cookie-cutter, standalone novels in which nothing significant or controversial ever happened.

That *was* the Richard Arnold era, in a nutshell.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, but... why do you HAVE to make it work with what came before? Why not just accept it as a different version that's incompatible with what came before?

Right. Nobody gets upset that they can't make The Dark Knight work with the Adam West Batman, or the Kevin Sorbo Hercules series with the Steve Reeves Hercules movies. It's fiction! It's okay to have different versions, because none of them are real anyway. It's not like you're studying for a history exam and have to get all the answers right. There's nothing wrong with having more than one "answer."

Why not do it both ways? Have some works that build on what came before, and others that go in other directions. There are as many people who find that kind of interconnecting continuity daunting and who worry that they won't understand a book if they haven't read others as there are fans who want interconnecting continuity.

Exactly. Instead of some arbitrary system that satisfies some readers and deprives others (while imposing limits on all the authors), we have something for everyone. There are connected books for those who like connected books, but there are alternatives too, both for the readers and the writers. How can that not be better?

 

[Saga]

the solution is simple. just write a story where Old Spock goes to alternate 1985 and prevents Nero from using the sports almanac to change history in the first place.

 

[Skywalker]

The original continuity can be Universe A, and the new continuity can be Universe 1.

 

[Dayton Ward]

^ I just had a Paul Buchman/Mad About You vibe hit me as I read that.

Paul: "Jaims, you've got it all wrong. A, there's original Trek, the stuff Roddenberry made up. And 2, there's this new Trek, whatever this knucklehead Abrams came up with."

Jaime: "And they're different from each other?"

Paul: "This is what I'm sayin'!"

Jaime: "Why can't they just...I don't know...squish them together somehow?"

Paul: "Never gonna happen, my friend."

 

[ShinRa Actual]

I noticed some don't ignore comic stories. They usually crisscross, like when WS had the license. I remember those days and I miss them. I did love how the TNG and DS9 had crossed over in Star Trek Divided We Fall mini series.

Pava Ek'noor from the old Starfleet Academy comic is in the newer Titan books, too.

 

[JD]

There have also been references to the events of The Gorn Crisis in some of the books with Bacco, and I according to Burning Dreams Memory Beta page Moves With Burning Grace, the Enterprise's Chief Engineer from the Early Voyages series is in it.

 

[ClayinCA]

I think what Joe is talking about is the rumored

Spoiler: MAJOR SPOILERS for STAR TREK (2009)

destruction of the planet Vulcan in the movie's "present,"

which would really mean that all bets were off as far as continuity goes.

Not really.

Spoiler: ST09

The movie is in a new, parallel timeline that does not replace the original. Any fiction set in the original timeline is unaffected by the events of the film, except for things that precede the split (for instance, George Kirk serving aboard the Kelvin under Captain Robau), or things that would apply in both timelines such as the existence of certain aliens or planets. The only Trek fiction that would be affected by events unique to the movie's altered timeline would be fiction set specifically in that distinct continuity.

Oh yeah, I realize that - I guess I was unclear when I posted that. I just meant that the

Spoiler: STAR TREK (2009)

destruction of Vulcan

was something that would explicitly be unable to be referenced in any Original Timeline books - that it's such a clear line of demarcation between Old Continuity and New Continuity that it forces any future novels to pick one, basically. Which is more or less what you said, I think, only the way you said it, it actually makes sense. As opposed to me.

^ I just had a Paul Buchman/Mad About You vibe hit me as I read that.

Paul: "Jaims, you've got it all wrong. A, there's original Trek, the stuff Roddenberry made up. And 2, there's this new Trek, whatever this knucklehead Abrams came up with."

Jaime: "And they're different from each other?"

Paul: "This is what I'm sayin'!"

Jaime: "Why can't they just...I don't know...squish them together somehow?"

Paul: "Never gonna happen, my friend."

Dayton, I knew I liked you. Anybody who has imaginary Mad About You conversations is a wonderful but twisted human being.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think even the fate of a 'certain planet' might not be so clear cut. I think the novels could come up with some *very* clever explanations after the fact.

I mean, if you locked all Trek novel writers in a room, told them to reconcile ST XI with current novel continuity *in the same timeline*, the certain planet included, I think they could all come up with different explanations, each of which could be very creative and fully compatible *with existing continuity*.

 

[JB2005]

It could be like the Kronos thing...I tend to think of the pre STVI as Kronos and the post STVI as Quo'nos..but that's just me...

 

[Dayton Ward]

Dayton, I knew I liked you. Anybody who has imaginary Mad About You conversations is a wonderful but twisted human being.

Heh. Mad About You is a favorite of mine and my wife's, the earlier seasons in particular; something we enjoyed together when we were newly married.

We now return you to our topic, already in progress....

 

[Christopher]

It could be like the Kronos thing...I tend to think of the pre STVI as Kronos and the post STVI as Quo'nos..but that's just me...

It's not Quo'nos, it's Qo'noS. Klingon, like Arabic, does not require U after Q. Whenever you see "Quo'noS" in print, that's a mistake by some copyeditor who didn't bother to think that English rules might not apply to foreign or alien speech. It's not pronounced "kw," but more like a choking/gargling sound in the back of the throat -- same as the Arabic sound represented by Q in transliteration.

And "Kronos" is simply the Anglicization of "Qo'noS" (no doubt influenced by the name of the Titan Kronos from Greek mythology) -- or rather, "Qo'noS" is how Okrand retconned the name "Kronos" from ST VI into Klingon phonetics. The Klingons themselves didn't change the name of their planet; it's just that humans in the TNG era are more prone to try to use the actual pronunciation (or an approximation of it) than to employ the Anglicized form favored in the 2290s. Like how we now call the Polish capital Gdansk instead of Germanizing it to Danzig.

 

[KRAD]

Or how we now refer to the city in China as Beijing instead of Peking. The city's name didn't actually change.

 

[Christopher]

Or how we now refer to the city in China as Beijing instead of Peking. The city's name didn't actually change.

Well, it kinda did, just not at the same time we Yanks changed how we referred to it. The spelling "Peking" was coined by the French about 400 years ago based on an old pronunciation that changed sometime thereafter; we just clung to the old spelling/pronunciation long after it had stopped being used in China. And in fact the name of the city has been changed several times over the generations, mainly when the capital shifted elsewhere (since -jing means "capital").