DC Comics questions

[Jsplinis]

Hi guys,

As a fan of DC Comics' Star Trek comics, I am interested in the further works of the three main writers: Peter David, Howard Weinstein and Michael Jan Friedman.

I have been reading about Friedman's novels in various threads and on the web. My concern is how do they coincide with PAD's and Howard's stories.

I've read that Michael's Shadows on the Sun and Howard's Better Man are pretty consistent.

I've also gotten the impression that Michael's My Brother' Keeper trilogy may not be consistent with Howard's Star Crossed and PAD's Star Fleet Academy (DC Annual 2). If so, in what ways are they inconsistent?

Also, I understand that Michael's Faces of Fire deals with backstory for Carol and David. Does this put it at odds with Howard's Star Crossed? Is so, how?

And lastly. How about Double, Double or Legacy? Do they contradict any other DC Comics vol.2 stories, PAD novels or Mackie novels?

Thanks for all the help,
jsplinis

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I've also gotten the impression that Michael's My Brother' Keeper trilogy may not be consistent with Howard's Star Crossed and PAD's Star Fleet Academy (DC Annual 2). If so, in what ways are they inconsistent?

My Brother's Keeper and "Star Crossed" have a different sequence of assignments for Kirk between the Academy and the Enterprise.

"Starfleet Academy" and My Brother's Keeper have different first meetings for Kirk and Mitchell.

Also, I understand that Michael's Faces of Fire deals with backstory for Carol and David. Does this put it at odds with Howard's Star Crossed? Is so, how?

I don't believe they're inconsistent with one another, as I don't recall any flashbacks in Faces of Fire.

How about Double, Double or Legacy? Do they contradict any other DC Comics vol.2 stories, PAD novels or Mackie novels?

I didn't know Howard Mackie had written Star Trek novels.

I kid, I kid...

Seriously, though, I can't think of anything off-hand about Double, Double and Legacy that's contradicted by the comics. I'd say that Legacy is broadly consistent with Annual #4, the Pike annual, but it's been a long time since I've read either.

 

[Christopher]

Faces of Fire contradicts "Star-Crossed" because they show Kirk learning of David's existence in two different ways, years apart. Also, I think David's ages in the two are incompatible.

Most of these books and comics were written at a time when continuity among tie-ins wasn't permitted. As a rule, one shouldn't expect any consistency among them. Nor is there any reason why that should be an overriding factor in whether they're worth reading. They're all make-believe stories anyway, so as long as you find them enjoyable to read, so what if they imagine things differently? It can even be fun to explore the different alternatives that different authors have come up with for how various events happened.

As I see it, continuity is a secondary concern. Just read books to see whether you like them. Then, after that, you can look into whether they fit together or not. Heck, you can make that determination better after reading them yourself than you can by asking for other people's opinions.

 

[CaptPapa]

Faces of Fire contradicts "Star-Crossed" because they show Kirk learning of David's existence in two different ways, years apart. Also, I think David's ages in the two are incompatible.

Most of these books and comics were written at a time when continuity among tie-ins wasn't permitted. As a rule, one shouldn't expect any consistency among them. Nor is there any reason why that should be an overriding factor in whether they're worth reading. They're all make-believe stories anyway, so as long as you find them enjoyable to read, so what if they imagine things differently? It can even be fun to explore the different alternatives that different authors have come up with for how various events happened.

As I see it, continuity is a secondary concern. Just read books to see whether you like them. Then, after that, you can look into whether they fit together or not. Heck, you can make that determination better after reading them yourself than you can by asking for other people's opinions.

Exactly - then for me, I like to compromise on any inconsistencies, draw my own conclusions, for myself only, so I can live within my own little c-word existence.

 

[JD]

Continuity?

 

[CaptPapa]

Continuity?

And/or canon. I just didn't want to say it - seems like those terms can quickly lead to heated debates.

I just wanted to say that I read anything related to TOS and take to heart, so to speak, that which I like and feel is or can be real within the (my) Star Trek world. If there is a conflict between two or more versions of the same event in Star Trek history, then I resolve it to my own Star Trek view. What is accepted as canon has no meaning to me - my only concern is what fits into my own universe. I read and watch new versions to make sure I don't limit myself. I certainly don't like it all, or agree necessarily with the direction of the franchise, but to each their own.