From a point where he was wearing the old-style communicator pin but also knew Janeway was Captain of Voyager.
Awkward. Actually isn't it possible he simply knew janeway and noticed her rank pips?
Frustrations with Trek lit...
- Thread starter Overgeeked
- Start date
Awkward. Actually isn't it possible he simply knew janeway and noticed her rank pips?
Unfortunately no:
We have ample evidence, though, that uniform changes aren't required to be instantaneous (look at the early-2360s/mid-2360s overlap in later seasons of TNG, for example, or the mid-2360s/early-2370s uniform overlap in Generations), so maybe he was plucked from a transitional period in early 2371.
The opening scenes of "Relativity" were set at an unspecified date in 2371, and Janeway said she'd spent the past three months studying its schematics. Maybe she was assigned as its captain sometime in late 2370.
Ah well. At least it's still the past.
Comm badge changes are instantaneous, though.
Maybe Riker lost his new commbadge that day and was making do with his old one.
The replicators were down for maintenance that day.
If that were explained in STO the Iconians are to blame!
Just reread "Before Dishonor" and to add to the list of frustrations, I'd submit the whole last half of that book.
Actually, no. That's not really a frustration so much as a near aneurism. The frustration was characters, and whole races, taking a near 180 from previously depictions. I can't think of a more egregious example that that book, but I wouldn't mind a refresher.
Actually, no. That's not really a frustration so much as a near aneurism. The frustration was characters, and whole races, taking a near 180 from previously depictions. I can't think of a more egregious example that that book, but I wouldn't mind a refresher.
Last edited:
Just the last half? Generous.
First half wasn't great. It had promise, although it had the mischaracterization from the beginning. T'Lana seemed to get a lobotomy between Q&A and BD. If I had to generalize it as a frustration I'd call it convenient (contrived) incompetence.
But things seemed to hit a screeching halt after the Spock-Seven mind meld, before accelerating to stupid at maximum warp. I'm not sure I can generalize it. They pulled a lot of big strings (killed Janeway, destroyed the Planet Killer, dissolved a planet) and I don't feel like there was a commensurate payoff.
Since Janeways no longer dead, can we assume Q put Pluto back too?
The comparison I thought of for Peter David's characterization in his Trek books was a Dana Carvey impression. It rarely actually has anything to do with the original, but there are specific highlights that might remind you of them, or at least remind you of the public perception of them. And if you're into it, it comes off great in spite of the inaccuracy, but if you're not it just seems wrong.
I dunno, honestly I can see that. I didn't care for BD obviously, but I would definitely agree that it was a very audacious book, and I don't mean that as a backhanded compliment. It definitely did some huge stuff, and I kind of loved the destruction of Pluto, because haha wow.
Well, nobody said it DIDN'T happen.
It seems less audacious and clever when you realize the timeframe it was published in, and realize it was a petty swipe at the "Pluto is/isn't a planet" debate that was raging at the time. Seems like a bad joke that somehow slipped past the editors and licensors.
It might have gone down better if it wasn't such a blatant throwaway and/or quickly eclipsed by stupidity a whole order of magnitude greater. That super cube, after flying into THE SUN was said to be comparable in mass to the whole earth. If someone said the whole outline for the last act was cribbed from a 10 year old, I'd believe it.
Last edited:
In fact, the astronomical community had been debating that for decades. It had never seemed like a good fit to call Pluto a planet, because it was so different from the other objects of that name, so a lot of astronomers resisted using the label and chose to see Sol system as having eight planets (for instance, in the Internet Stellar Database's page for Sol -- note the February 2000 date at the bottom); but there was no other extant category to put it in until other, similar trans-Neptunian objects began to be discovered. People keep forgetting that what provoked the debate over a formal definition of "planet" was not Pluto, but Eris, the dwarf planet that was initially estimated to be even larger than Pluto (it's now estimated to be slightly smaller in radius but greater in mass). So the question was, do we call Eris a planet -- and thus apply the same label to the dozens or hundreds or even thousands of other dwarf planets likely to be discovered in the future -- or do we invent a new label for objects of its category, which would necessarily include Pluto as well? So the debate wasn't even really about Pluto, except as a member of the larger class that needed to be defined. The general public fixated on Pluto because it was the one they'd already heard of, but the scientific debate was over something very different and much bigger, the whole forest rather than a single tree.
Similar threads
