• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Question about a statement Kira makes to Quark in "The 34th Rule"

That would have to be to something within a few hundred light-years of the Idran terminus of the wormhole, which we know is about 70,000 light-years from Bajor

As mentioned in the OP we know from Voyager that, going at a leisurely pace, a starship can generally clock about 1000 light-years every 365 days or thereabouts. So I'd say that either Quarks' shuttle moves at a snail's pace or Kira was being a bit hyperbolic.
 
There's no way Quark's shuttle could come anywhere near Voyager's performance. Although their 1000-light-years-per-year estimate was always unrealistic, a best case assuming no delays or breakdowns, which was anything but the case.
 
Wow, I got a co-author to reply. This is indeed one of the coolest spots on the internet. If ever there is to be a place that snaps me back into my own little writing projects, this will most certainly be it.

I thank everyone for their time in this matter. As I continue reading "The 34th Rule" (I have a thing where I read slowly; it's done by choice) I'm falling for this book more and more. I've long since passed that early portion but you all have done a superb job helping me grasp it.

I also know where to look if I write a space opera and need assistance in making the technical aspects sound remotely legitimate. I sure as hell can't pull that off.
 
Wow, I got a co-author to reply.
Happy to do it, Jeff. One of these days, maybe I'll dig out my notes and see if I can find my rationale for the figure Kira employed. I might have calculated it, as I suggested, but it also occurs to me that I simply might have had Kira being hyperbolic. I don't recall, to be honest, though I do take pains with my details, one way or the other.

You know, one thing I always found interesting with encyclopedic Star Trek works is that reference makers, no doubt out of necessity, essentially assume that all characters tell the truth all the time (unless a story has them explicitly lying), and that everything they say is not only not a lie, but accurate. In real life, people fudge details all the time, or misremember them. Of course, if you start viewing a fictional world through that lens, you can never get anywhere with a reference work.
 
You know, one thing I always found interesting with encyclopedic Star Trek works is that reference makers, no doubt out of necessity, essentially assume that all characters tell the truth all the time (unless a story has them explicitly lying), and that everything they say is not only not a lie, but accurate. In real life, people fudge details all the time, or misremember them. Of course, if you start viewing a fictional world through that lens, you can never get anywhere with a reference work.

Russel T Davies said a similar thing in the commentary of the Season 3 Dr Who epsidoe 'Gridlock', in that Science Fiction is the only genre (or at least perceived to be) where every character speaks the exact truth, without hyperbole or falsehood, all the time. And he could not understand why that is the case.
 
Russel T Davies said a similar thing in the commentary of the Season 3 Dr Who epsidoe 'Gridlock', in that Science Fiction is the only genre (or at least perceived to be) where every character speaks the exact truth, without hyperbole or falsehood, all the time. And he could not understand why that is the case.

Except for Garak....
 
Russel T Davies said a similar thing in the commentary of the Season 3 Dr Who epsidoe 'Gridlock', in that Science Fiction is the only genre (or at least perceived to be) where every character speaks the exact truth, without hyperbole or falsehood, all the time. And he could not understand why that is the case.

Yes, I remember that podcast! And it's totally true!
 
Russel T Davies said a similar thing in the commentary of the Season 3 Dr Who epsidoe 'Gridlock', in that Science Fiction is the only genre (or at least perceived to be) where every character speaks the exact truth, without hyperbole or falsehood, all the time. And he could not understand why that is the case.

Except for Garak....
Garak always speaks the truth...especially when he's lying....
 
First off, it's Idran, not Irdan. Second, we're talking about a 5-ly error in a 70,000-ly measurement, so it's too nitpicky to bother with.
Why? The measurements are not related: the "just under 5 ly" was measured from a runabout at the Gamma terminus, not from Earth or Bajor or other such distant location, and can be easily picked to a couple of decimals. (Indeed, Memory Alpha gives three decimals, apparently visible on a runabout Okudagram in the episode!)

The only point of the rant was that "Destiny", Emissary" and "Battle Lines" are at odds in the sense that "Destiny" indicates a star that's closer than Idran was in "Emissary" while "Battle Lines" seemingly precludes such stars. Or at least "systems".

OTOH, perhaps the "Destiny" comet got its tail from tidal forces rather than starlight? The wormhole might have played a role there, as it was later seen affecting the comet's trajectory.

OTTH, the idea that the terminus (or Idran) would have moved after "Battle Lines" is an intriguing one...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Wow, I got a co-author to reply.
Happy to do it, Jeff. One of these days, maybe I'll dig out my notes and see if I can find my rationale for the figure Kira employed. I might have calculated it, as I suggested, but it also occurs to me that I simply might have had Kira being hyperbolic. I don't recall, to be honest, though I do take pains with my details, one way or the other.

That would be nifty, but really I wouldn't think it necessary. Your following paragraph really summarizes a very good point against your bothering with such details. If I've got you reminiscing or something, though, please do check! :)

You know, one thing I always found interesting with encyclopedic Star Trek works is that reference makers, no doubt out of necessity, essentially assume that all characters tell the truth all the time (unless a story has them explicitly lying), and that everything they say is not only not a lie, but accurate. In real life, people fudge details all the time, or misremember them. Of course, if you start viewing a fictional world through that lens, you can never get anywhere with a reference work.

I've thought about that in the past, myself. I try to think of points in sci-fi shows in which this doesn't happen, and everything I can think of leads to deliberate lying. If John Crichton from the television series Farscape tells someone it's going to take seven hours to get somewhere and it doesn't, he was lying. Hyperbole is erased in the brightest space operas and in the darkest space operas!

Or maybe I just haven't seen enough of the genre...

At any rate, I finished this book yesterday evening. What a ride it was. I'd say it was one of the best Trek novels I've ever read, but it was also only the second Trek novel I've read, so I won't bother.

I loved the examination of racism in a new and exciting light, and I absolutely adored the notion that Benjamin Sisko, a black man, is dealing with it because he feels he's going through it. It really reinforces the goodness that the franchise's creators had in mind when crafting it: so far removed is humanity from many people feeling that way toward his culture that no mention of it (other than, perhaps, the baseball player, or am I reading too much into things?) is ever really made. It's very much about him dealing with his racism, or rather, the bias he's understandably formed.

The Gallitep plot was chilling. Poor Quark and Rom, I can't think of much that happened to them on-screen that ever rivaled that. And the climax was satisfying.

If there were one issue I had with the book, it's the fact that it felt a little... well... apocryphal. Which considering it's non-canonical is perfectly justifiable, but it fits very nicely into the established canon as a 'after reading this, it's easy to think it happened' way apart from the idea that a Ferengi-Bajor conflict, however short-lived, is never mentioned again. That's somewhat hard to swallow, but it's not too hard to swallow. After all, there were zero fatalities involved.

Damn fine book, sir. You and Armin did a great job.
 
My issue wasn't the Bajor/Ferengi conflict, it's that Quark and Rom would ever be the same again, let alone in time for the next episode/book. IIRC there's a brief mention that they went through councelling afterwards in Mission Gamma: Twilight, but that just seems insufficient to explain it away (not that there's anything they could have done to make it fit with the TV show perfectly, save the horrible time-travel reset button)

Not that it ruined my enjoyment of The 34th Rule at all. I thought it was fantastic.
 
Yeah, there's that, too. I would compare it to all the times fans have made comment that O'Brien really ought to be frakking insane, though, or any other cast member in the franchise. These folks go through things that 99.9% of humanity will never even approach, several times a year at least.

But it's Quark and Rom... which obviously makes it a little harder to believe they'd be alright afterward with.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top