Old books, new continuity and the foggy window

[F. King Daniel]

I found myself reading the Wikipedia page for Star Wars canon, and one thing stood out as a perfect description of how I view older Star Trek novels, the ones "invalidated" by subsequent canon and novels, like Final Frontier, the Rihannsu novels or The Final Reflection. In fact, it's how I see the various series' and movies fitting together, too.

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.

I like to think that something like the events of Final Frontier or The Final Reflection or [insert novel here] took place, even if many of the details and backstory no longer fit into the current revision (so to speak) of the Trek universe. Captain April kidnapped George Kirk from his post on Starbase 2 and went on a rescue mission gone awry in the as-yet-unnamed Enterprise, landing them in Romulan space. Krenn the Klingon lived, Dr. Tagore was the first ambassador to the Klingon homeworld, and there was an attempted Klingon/Federation peace mission in the 2230's. There are countless other examples.

Do others like to think this way? Or do you prefer that older books simply "didn't happen" in any way, shape or form in the current novel continuity? Foggy window or HD only?

 

[Lonemagpie]

Look how often real history gets rewritten or reinterpreted, either as new information is discovered, or for political reasons or whatever.... The same applies to the history of the future...

 

[Relayer1]

I view it as, if it doesn't quite fit with current continuity the exact story / background is in an alternate continuity, but something very similar happened in the 'main' continuity.

 

[bbailey861]

Very much a foggy window. Much like one grandfather telling you a story, then rehearing from the other grandfather who has a different take on things (ala Lonemagpie's take on things). If things in a story don't jive with something I have previously read, I don't fret about it.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I don't feel the need to try to cram everything in. At least, not anymore. When I was a lot younger, I tried to fit in every story I liked, no matter how much of its content I had to gloss over or mentally rewrite. But eventually I realized I was hurting my enjoyment of the stories that way, because I wasn't taking them as they were presented. I was so busy trying to rationalize or edit or overlook portions of the narrative that I wasn't just reading and enjoying the story, and that defeats the whole purpose of fiction. I realized then that continuity had nothing to do with quality, and so removing a book from continuity didn't constitute a rejection or a dismissal of any kind; it just meant putting the book in a different category, one that was free from the niggling calculations of continuity and left me free to enjoy it on its own merits, as a pure work of fiction.

If anything, in recent years I've found myself more inclined to revisit Trek books and comics that I don't count as part of the "real" continuity. I think that working within that continuity as a writer has made it feel more like work to me, and so the out-of-continuity books have less baggage. Plus it's entertaining to revisit the variant interpretations of the Trek universe that different authors have created. I like that individuality, that idiosyncratic quality, and I think that trying to homogenize everything fails to give due tribute to the uniqueness of the really interestingly offbeat books like Planet of Judgment or The Final Reflection or the Duane novels.

Another reason I gave up on trying to cram everything in was that there simply wasn't room. The more adventures that the same group of people have in a finite amount of time, the more implausible it becomes -- and put in too many and it becomes chronologically impossible. I keep a very detailed chronology so that I'm aware of the duration of each adventure and can make sure they don't take up more time than I have available, as well as making sure there's some time in between for travel, repairs, recovery from injury, the occasional routine mission between all the life-and-death ones, etc. So I prefer to be selective about what stories I count as part of the Prime timeline (at least, where I have the option; the modern interconnected novel continuity has changed things somewhat). Heck, I like rearranging the continuity, reworking my assumptions about what goes where. It's a creative exercise in itself. And removing books from that timeline can be a healthy part of managing it, like pruning a bonsai. Except the "pruned" parts aren't discarded, they're just in a different category.

 

[zarkon]

I don't think about things like that.

Though when I reread some of the classic TOS books, I do find myself wishing elements had been picked up by TNG et all and become fact.

Although some ideas would have killed off stuff used in quite a few books. Does anyone remember which book said that the galactic barrier was a wavefront that had dispersed or something?

 

[Enterprise is Great]

If they don't fit in I don't try to fit them in. I just enjoy them for what they are. After DC comic rebooted in the mid-80's I thought about trying to fit the pre Crisis stuff in but it was too daunting a task. and why bother since it's all fiction anyways so why does it all need to fit especially when it doesn't?. So when rereading the older comics I just sat back and enjoyed those good stories. I do the same with older Trek novels.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I'm of two minds about this. I do think the "foggy window" can be useful to make things fit (its actually how I view TAS mostly), but I really have to agree with Christopher in that I mostly don't care if everything fits together or not. I enjoy the book/episode/movie/comic for what it is.

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah, I feel like either approach is pretty valid. It can be a fun exercise, mentally, to create continuity out of contradictory sources, but it's also freeing sometimes to ignore continuity completely and take a story on its own merits.

A particular example in Trek, for me anyway, is the TNG relaunch before Destiny. None of the facts in particular diverge, but there are a lot of weird tonal shifts and pieces missing. Each book is better if you take it in isolation and don't try to connect it to the others (in my opinion), especially Before Dishonor. But it's also fun to try and make them all fit together, fill in the missing character arcs, etc.

All of which is to say, I don't feel like this needs to be an argument. Either approach is fun, just depends on what you're looking for.

 

[Stevil2001]

The Doctor grinned. "My dear, one of the things you'll learn is that it's all real. Every word of every novel is real, every frame of every movie, every panel of every comic strip."

"But that's just not possible. I mean some books contradict other ones and -"

The Doctor was ignoring her.

 

[BritishSeaPower]

I guess I somewhat subscribe to the foggy window theory. More or less, unless the entire book just flies in the face of elements established on the later shows or movies, I can reconcile it. I don't know that I would say I rewrite them or "make them fit" but I just sort of plow on. For example, there's a real lack of Dominion War TNG stories. And even though a fair bit of the Dominion War books contradict other things that came later, they don't flat out tell something that couldn't happen. (The Ro Laren aspect of the story did annoy me as it's hard to reconcile, but there's nothing that says it couldn't have happened and Picard was just pissed Ro didn't come back to the SF fold before the DS9-R.) So I've included them on my reading list. And, it actually worked fairly well with the reading order I did.

Overall, I'm less concerned with tight continuity. I'd say, consistent, over lockstep. But I've been reading the Post-AGT TNG books in chronological order, with a few hiccups, and it's really fun to have, basically, extra seasons, even if they aren't always in agreement.

I haven't really read too much TOS, but I am inclined to go back and read them once I get current with the DS9/TNG/VOY books. And I really can't say I'll be too troubled by having to reconcile, say, the Rihannsu with the later Romulans. There's enough space in the RSE for a few different cultural paradigms to have come to power since we first met them till "now."

Would I love really tight continuity? Sure. But that's hard to keep control of all of the time, and it's harder to do when the shows were on the air. But over the past 12 years, I've been impressed by how much does work together, and the subtle ways authors have tried to even address the harder to fit aspects as well.

On a side note, one of the things I love about Doctor Who and it's extended audio/literary/comic universe is that EVERYTHING is in continuity, even before "wibbley-wobbley, timey-wimey". The Doctor has met Shakespeare 10 times? Sure, why not? The Doctor technically lived through the events of Human Nature twice? Yeah, okay.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Although some ideas would have killed off stuff used in quite a few books. Does anyone remember which book said that the galactic barrier was a wavefront that had dispersed or something?

That was The Wounded Sky.

 

[rfmcdpei]

I like to think that something like the events of Final Frontier or The Final Reflection or [insert novel here] took place, even if many of the details and backstory no longer fit into the current revision (so to speak) of the Trek universe. Captain April kidnapped George Kirk from his post on Starbase 2 and went on a rescue mission gone awry in the as-yet-unnamed Enterprise, landing them in Romulan space. Krenn the Klingon lived, Dr. Tagore was the first ambassador to the Klingon homeworld, and there was an attempted Klingon/Federation peace mission in the 2230's. There are countless other examples.

Many elements of the 1980s continuity have made it into the present novelverse canon. About the only significant event in Duane's Rihannsu history was the existence of Remus as a class-M world co-orbiting with Romulus, instead of being a barely habitable and tidally-locked desert planet one orbit inside of Romulus' with its own distinct splinter race. (Ael hasn't been invoked within the current canon, but even she did make it into Chris Roberson's alt-history novella set in the timeline without Spock.)

Fewer elements of John Ford's Klingons made it into the novelverse canon, mainly since the Klingons received much more attention from the various TV shows than the Romulans did, but some did--the Black Fleet, say.

I'm fine for grandfathering in as many of the plausible and appealing events in older books as possible in the current universe, especially the background events that the crews of the TV shows weren't taking part in. (Christopher's note about the risk of overcrowding the schedules of the crews involved is quite valid.) If not, well, if they stand on their own terms, what's wrong with them being disconnected from the current novelverse canon?

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

Although some ideas would have killed off stuff used in quite a few books. Does anyone remember which book said that the galactic barrier was a wavefront that had dispersed or something?

That was The Wounded Sky.

Any good?

 

[Christopher]

That was The Wounded Sky.

Any good?

It was Diane Duane's first Trek novel, so yeah, it's very good. In fact it's my favorite of her Trek novels, and I think it gets unfairly overlooked because it doesn't have Romulans in it. It does kind of idealize the TOS cast a bit much, but I like to think of it as "Star Trek as epic myth."

 

[JD]

I like to try to get things to fit into the Novelverse continuity as best I can, but it doesn't really bother me when they don't. My general approach is that if something contradicts another story, then I just shoot it off into it's own alternate universe, and am able to continue enjoying it that way.

 

[zarkon]

That was The Wounded Sky.

Yessss.

Any good?

Yes, it's a great book. Super exploration, crazy concepts and, as is almost standard for her, yet another brilliant alien.

As an aside, the TNG ep "Where No One Has Gone Before" is loosely based on it.

 

[Starbreaker]

Well... I have to remind myself that NONE of it is real. There are lots of good novels that shouldn't be overlooked because there was a decision made years down the line as to what is 'canon' or not. Federation, for example. It's a fantastic novel but it doesn't jive with First Contact. So what?

 

[rfmcdpei]

That was The Wounded Sky.

Any good?

It was Diane Duane's first Trek novel, so yeah, it's very good. In fact it's my favorite of her Trek novels, and I think it gets unfairly overlooked because it doesn't have Romulans in it. It does kind of idealize the TOS cast a bit much, but I like to think of it as "Star Trek as epic myth."

Pretty much. Plus, the Hamalki and creative physics. (And Wolf-Rayet stars!)

 

[RPJOB]

In my mind if Desilu.Paramount/CBS thinks it's good enough to licence then it's official and exists somewhere. The comics in one universe. The Bantam books in another one (or two or...). ADF's adaptations in another. The Gold Key comics in a somewhat odd one but still there.

Parallels showed us a minimum of 250,000 universes which had an Enterprise-D. How many others don't have that particular ship or ships of that design?

Everything fits, somewhere. Nothing is more valid than any other.