Is The Best and the Brightest contradicted by any other source?

[F. King Daniel]

My views on Trek continuity are best summed up by this quote from the Star Wars' Steve Sansweet
(director of SW fan relations) and Chris Cerasi (former Lucas Books editor) back in 2001:

"The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them."

And just like that, everything fits together!

 

[Drago-Kazov]

I think of the new one as alternate reality. Like the ones that appear in the Worf mind screw episode.

Why don't you see the books in the same way then - and view them as an alternative reality rather then incompatable because of continuity issues?

Trek did so many alternative reality stories that it was easy transition. There is a limit on how many alternative realities i can accept without being confused. Also i saw Star Trek XI before i saw other Trek.

 

[JD]

Are there any so glaring that they cannot be retconed or ignored?

See for yourself:

I've never watched those. Very funny stuff.

 

[Relayer1]

I have to admit that with the shows so far in the past and only the occasional movie coming along, the novels are my prime focus these days. I'm all for continuity within the relaunch novelverse that I'm so invested in and older books that don't 'fit' don't interest me so much.

That's not to say some aren't great stories though...

 

[Christopher]

I recently did a watch-through of the Godzilla movies from the '90s and '00s (here's my summary blog post with links to the individual era reviews), and in the later of the two distinct film series (the one running from 1999-2004), they deliberately set each film in a separate continuity (with one exception), reinventing the Godzilla universe and changing its backstory and core assumptions, exploring different approaches to the character and concept. I thought that was an intriguing creative exercise (though some of the individual entries were rather lame), and it was a lot of fun to see all those different variations on the same theme, all those different ways the same basic premise could be interpreted. (Plus the weird twist that essentially every one of those different realities included the original 1954 film as part of its backstory, but interpreted its events in different ways and sometimes tweaked or ignored its ending.) And I found myself wondering why some Trek fans are so opposed to the idea of multiple continuities. It seems to me that they're missing out.

Fiction is an exercise in imagination. Watching or reading Star Trek in the first place means accepting the premise of an imaginary reality different from our own. So reading a Trek story that isn't compatible with canon or the novelverse is just more of the same -- accepting the premise of a Trek universe different from the main one. It's just stretching the imagination a little further.


Anyway, we've drifted so far into the discussion of acceptance of contradictory works that I don't think the original question was ever clearly answered. As far as I know, The Best and the Brightest is still compatible with the novelverse.

 

[Relayer1]

Δ Well that probably nails it for the original question then !

As regards the interesting (and recurring) digression, I think your approach speaks of your viewpoint as a creative author and is somewhat more mature, considered and practical than the rather 'fanboy' mentality exhibited by myself and many other posters here.

Personally, I'd far prefer a tight continuity running through ALL of the shows and novels...that is just pie in the sky though. I'm happy enough with the relaunch continuity and any earlier novels that don't fit can just be viewed as 'Myriad Universe' stories and something pretty similar happened in the core continuity.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I don't see it as an either-or question. As I think I already said, there's room for both. I like a tight, integrated continuity, sure. But I don't have a problem with other continuities existing alongside it. It doesn't need to be all-or-nothing. There are some Trek books and comics I count as part of my core continuity, others I count as alternate-timeline events, and others I just count as pure fiction, stories I can enjoy without bothering with the conceit that they "really" happened in some way.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

I like a tight, integrated continuity, sure.

You are really really good at retcons, i knew you had to like continuity at least a bit.

 

[Janos]

And I have no doubt that some pf the characters will pop up one day. All it takes is for an author who is passionate about those characters and sees an opportunity to make good use of one, or some, and there you go.

So, they haven't been seen since the book? Not even by PAD who likes obscure characters?

I haven't read the book? However, Susan Wright doesn't seem to be a revered author 'round these parts.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Not even by PAD who likes obscure characters?

PAD doesn't usually read a lot of ST fiction, AFAIK. Most of his "obscure characters" have been his favourites from canonical Trek: Shelby, Selar, Lefler, etc., and characters from his previous books ("Worf's First Adventure"). And Arex and M'Ress, whom he inherited when he took over DC's ST comic.

Susan Wright doesn't seem to be a revered author 'round these parts.

I seem to recall she was popular enough back in the day.

 

[Christopher]

I'd be glad to see the Best and the Brightest characters return, but somehow it's never occurred to me to try it myself on those occasions when I've worked in that timeframe.