Mistakes that pull you out of a story

[Christopher]

^^Actually ENT didn't even premiere until shortly after the DS9 Relaunch debuted. So the book version of Andorian culture and biology was established before ENT got at all heavily into exploring the Andorians.

Even so, there are no huge contradictions. Just because the Andorians in ENT don't make a point of having four sexes doesn't mean they don't. As for reconciling the two, see The Good That Men Do.

 

[Geoff]

Maybe there is a way to reconcile the two versions, but it doesn't really seem like there has been an attempt to do so in the fiction as yet.

Perhaps someone will write a TOS-era story featuring an Andorian character, and in the process they'll make a concerted effort to bridge the differences between the Andorians of Enterprise and those in the DS9 novels...

*** whistles innocently... ***

 

[Quimby]

[post deleted because my point was made better by someone else]

 

[Trevacious]

Diane Duane's "Leonard E. McCoy" in The Romulan Way. Arrh -- Leonard H! Leonard H!

 

[Christopher]

^^Again, that's something where the books and fandom established something that was later contradicted by canonical productions. William Rotsler's Star Trek II Biographies gave McCoy the middle name of Edward, and Diane Duane followed that precedent in her novels and comics, both before and after ST III gave him the middle initial of H.

 

[JD]

^^Actually ENT didn't even premiere until shortly after the DS9 Relaunch debuted. So the book version of Andorian culture and biology was established before ENT got at all heavily into exploring the Andorians.

Even so, there are no huge contradictions. Just because the Andorians in ENT don't make a point of having four sexes doesn't mean they don't. As for reconciling the two, see The Good That Men Do.

It's also worth pointing out there there is a 200+ year difference between the two, IMO that would be more than enough time for things to change.

 

[EmperorKalan]

Personally, I would find it implausible if characters' recollections and beliefs about history were always 100 percent correct. People are fallible, memory is imperfect, so when minor factual discrepancies crop up in characters' dialogue or internal monologue, I think that just makes it more realistic.

That could launch a whole new subject: overly-literal interpretations of references to things that happened "X years ago"...

I think the first thing that comes to mind on this is "The Valiant", placing it literally 200 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (thus working out to only 2 years after the flight of the Phoenix), when giving it a little leeway for rounding could place it up to two or three decades later. No need for such a tight timetable.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Especially as Shran is given a passing mention in Paradigm. Maybe there is a way to reconcile the two versions.

I disagree that there's a problem. Tholos ("The Andorian Incident" and "Shadows of P'Jem") has a wonderful androgynous quality and Tarah ("Cease Fire") towers over the "male" Andorians. I can easily reconcile that Shran, Tholos, Tarah and Talas represent the four Andorian sexes.

 

[Christopher]

That could launch a whole new subject: overly-literal interpretations of references to things that happened "X years ago"...

I think the first thing that comes to mind on this is "The Valiant", placing it literally 200 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (thus working out to only 2 years after the flight of the Phoenix), when giving it a little leeway for rounding could place it up to two or three decades later. No need for such a tight timetable.

Yeah, that's one of the things about the Okuda Chronology that always bothered me -- the insistence that every reference to "X hundred years ago" be treated as exact rather than approximate. The case of the Valiant is a particularly egregious example, since a date of exactly 200 years pre-WNM is obviously not viable.

 

[RookieBatman]

One thing I just noticed recently...it's not actually a mistake so much as a creative choice that I strongly disagree with (although it is, overall, a pretty minor thing). In "Dreams of the Ravens," the author makes repeated mentions of McCoy struggling with the fasteners on his clothes. Like, isn't the whole point of the seamless look of the clothes on Star Trek meant to suggest that they had mastered some form of fastening that didn't present these problems? At least, that's the way I remember hearing it, maybe I was wrong. Of course, the author had to mention it not once, but three times, so by the last, I was really getting irritated.

Another one was in "The Case of the Colonist's Corpse." One of the big plot points revolved around how a computer scanning program couldn't translate handwritten letters into digital text with anywhere near perfect accuracy. Like, in almost 300 years, they still haven't gotten that right? Look at how advanced computers have gotten in just thirty years! I really hate when people treat future technology like it's just a teeny bit better than what we have now. Especially given that it's computer tech, which seems to increase at a very rapid rate (and given the depth of functionality that other computers have demonstrated on the show), I'd think that program should been able to handle some chicken-scratch just fine. But maybe that's just me.

Eh, enough negativity for one day.

 

[William Leisner]

That could launch a whole new subject: overly-literal interpretations of references to things that happened "X years ago"...

I think the first thing that comes to mind on this is "The Valiant", placing it literally 200 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (thus working out to only 2 years after the flight of the Phoenix), when giving it a little leeway for rounding could place it up to two or three decades later. No need for such a tight timetable.

Yeah, that's one of the things about the Okuda Chronology that always bothered me -- the insistence that every reference to "X hundred years ago" be treated as exact rather than approximate. The case of the Valiant is a particularly egregious example, since a date of exactly 200 years pre-WNM is obviously not viable.

To be fair, the Okudas do admit that those nice round numbers given on screen don't have to be accepted as 100% accurate (or even 99.44% accurate rounded up to 100%). And to my knowledge, neither of them have ever insisted that their dates be taken as gospel.

 

[Christopher]

Of course not -- they always listed their conjectural dates as just that (although fandom always seems to ignore those clear statements and assume they're gospel). But even a conjectural date for the Valiant mission just a couple of years after the Phoenix is, well, a lousy conjecture. And the policy for Pocket novelists has generally been that we're supposed to conform to the Okudachron conjectures as though they were, well, deuterocanonical, even when they make little sense.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Hm, I missed the Starbase 81 ref when researching Reunion. I chose Starbase 32 since it was the same base where the Stargazer had gone after the accident that claimed Jack Crusher a year earlier. It stood to reason that it would be the closest starbase, assuming they resumed exploring in roughly the same region of space; and it was necessary that it be the same place where Picard had first met Philippa Louvois, to explain how their relationship began.

Star Trek books in libraries are like buses. You wait for years and two come along at once. Our library, and subsequently I have got The Buried Age to read. I had a brief throw me out of the story moment when I read the blurb on the back, implying that Picard was going on an adventure with an android and an El-Aurian 10 years prior to Encounter at Farpoint. It's pretty obvious who the android and the El-Aurian will turn out to be, but don't spoil it for me yet in case I guessed wrong.

The thing is, I almost started the book with a brain strain, thinking that All Good Things appeared to show the first meeting of Picard and a certain android...

It's a good thing that I read the acknowledgments first. Yes, there is someone who reads acknowledgements in a book.

I've read the Battle of Maxia and the Court Martial so far. Damned fine way to start a novel. I'm looking forward to the next chapter.

 

[PaulSimpson]

^^Again, that's something where the books and fandom established something that was later contradicted by canonical productions. William Rotsler's Star Trek II Biographies gave McCoy the middle name of Edward, and Diane Duane followed that precedent in her novels and comics, both before and after ST III gave him the middle initial of H.

I knew I'd seen that Leonard E. McCoy somewhere - it's nagged at me for a long time! Thanks for assisting an amnesiac editor!

Paul

 

[EmperorKalan]

Of course not -- they always listed their conjectural dates as just that (although fandom always seems to ignore those clear statements and assume they're gospel). But even a conjectural date for the Valiant mission just a couple of years after the Phoenix is, well, a lousy conjecture. And the policy for Pocket novelists has generally been that we're supposed to conform to the Okudachron conjectures as though they were, well, deuterocanonical, even when they make little sense.

Thanks, Christopher. That explains a few things.

And I suspect there may be a connection between the two (i.e., fandom literalness and Pocket policy).

 

[captcalhoun]

what bugs the crap out of me is when the Okudas make shit up in the chronology or the Encyclopaedia and don't even acknowledge they did that

and that opens the whole can of worms over what they do and don't include: oh, it's fine to include your mate's random-shit registry numbers for the Constitution class but you won't include a live-action Caitian from Star Trek IV because its species name is from a wardrobe department note?!

 

[Christopher]

what bugs the crap out of me is when the Okudas make shit up in the chronology or the Encyclopaedia and don't even acknowledge they did that

That's completely untrue. Every single bit of conjecture in the Chronology and Encyclopedia is explicitly labeled as conjectural. If you don't know that, then you need to read more carefully.

and that opens the whole can of worms over what they do and don't include: oh, it's fine to include your mate's random-shit registry numbers for the Constitution class but you won't include a live-action Caitian from Star Trek IV because its species name is from a wardrobe department note?!

Okay, you're taking this way too seriously. These books aren't holy texts, and you don't need to study them for your final exams. They're meant as entertainment. They're one possible extrapolation from a fictional universe, and the authors make it clear in their introductions (another part you need to read more carefully) that they're just offered as one possibility meant to entertain and inspire, rather than an absolute dogma to be obeyed at your peril. The obnoxious thing is that so many fans are too lazy or careless to read the parts that say it's conjectural, mistakenly assume it's meant to be gospel, get frustrated as a result of that lazy misunderstanding, and then angrily blame the writers for the frustration they brought on themselves.

 

[ialfan]

Personally, I would find it implausible if characters' recollections and beliefs about history were always 100 percent correct. People are fallible, memory is imperfect, so when minor factual discrepancies crop up in characters' dialogue or internal monologue, I think that just makes it more realistic.

That could launch a whole new subject: overly-literal interpretations of references to things that happened "X years ago"...

I think the first thing that comes to mind on this is "The Valiant", placing it literally 200 years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (thus working out to only 2 years after the flight of the Phoenix), when giving it a little leeway for rounding could place it up to two or three decades later. No need for such a tight timetable.

That is very true. I find it insane that when someone says something took place 50 or 100 or 200 years ago that it was EXACTLY that. After all if someone asked me when the Revolutionary War was I would say 250 years off the top of my head which is rounded but more or less accurate.

 

[JoeZhang]

Okay, you're taking this way too seriously. These books aren't holy texts, and you don't need to study them for your final exams. They're meant as entertainment.

oh my god! run for it Christopher, use the back door, we'll hold the mob off for as long as we can!

 

[captcalhoun]

what bugs the crap out of me is when the Okudas make shit up in the chronology or the Encyclopaedia and don't even acknowledge they did that

That's completely untrue. Every single bit of conjecture in the Chronology and Encyclopedia is explicitly labeled as conjectural. If you don't know that, then you need to read more carefully.

no, it's really not. there are multiple instances of ships beinig given classes and registries that are entirely conjectural in the encyclopaedia and it's not noted for one

and that opens the whole can of worms over what they do and don't include: oh, it's fine to include your mate's random-shit registry numbers for the Constitution class but you won't include a live-action Caitian from Star Trek IV because its species name is from a wardrobe department note?!

Okay, you're taking this way too seriously. These books aren't holy texts, and you don't need to study them for your final exams. They're meant as entertainment. They're one possible extrapolation from a fictional universe, and the authors make it clear in their introductions (another part you need to read more carefully) that they're just offered as one possibility meant to entertain and inspire, rather than an absolute dogma to be obeyed at your peril. The obnoxious thing is that so many fans are too lazy or careless to read the parts that say it's conjectural, mistakenly assume it's meant to be gospel, get frustrated as a result of that lazy misunderstanding, and then angrily blame the writers for the frustration they brought on themselves.

that's precisely my point though. WAY too many people take the encyclopaedia as Holy Writ - like i used to - and don't realise that it's not any more 'right' than me claiming the USS Intrepid from "Immunity Syndrome" is a 'Akula' class starship when it was never seen on-screen