Question: Timetrap

[TheAlmanac]

Was just thinking about this some more, and if we're looking at a revised timeline-placement for this novel, it would almost certainly have to occur prior to the events of In the Name of Honor, where Kirk's fundamental pre-TUC attitude towards the Klingons undergoes its final seismic shift, and where we first glimpse the near-bigoted attitude he holds early in that movie.

In Timetrap, Kirk still has not yet lost all of his goodwill towards the Klingons (despite the murder of his son, etc.), and during the course of the novel, is still willing to consider an outcome in which the Federation and the Klingon Empire can put aside their differences and work towards a common, beneficial future together. By the time period of Star Trek VI, all of that is now pretty much gone.

So...probably circa 2286, then, not long after the events of The Voyage Home, since Honor is officially the very "next" mission of the Enterprise-A following the Sybok incident, and with both stories (The Final Frontier and In the Name of Honor) taking place very early in 2287.

I'd be reluctant to place that much weight on Kirk's attitude towards Klingons in a single other work...

To offer a counterexample, there are plenty of DC Comics stories involving Kirk and Klingons which take place later than In the Name of Honour but don't feature such a strong antipathy on Kirk's part. I still prefer to "count" those stories, so Timetrap could just as easily fit in somewhere amongst them as it could beforehand.

 

[Christopher]

^Right. People's behavior and attitudes don't always follow simple curves. We can go back and forth on our feelings about someone or something depending on our mood of the moment. We can be pulled in opposite directions by conflicting feelings. Sometimes someone may do something that makes us angry at them, but then we forgive them, and it may take a pattern of further affronts to crystallize our negative feelings.

I'm sure we've all known people who are nice to us at some times and total jerks at others, for no reason we can understand. I've known a couple of people like that. And I've gone back and forth between being open to friendship or interaction with them and being hurt and resentful toward them and wanting nothing more to do with them.

Kirk isn't the kind of person to whom hostility toward an entire species would come naturally. This is the guy who initially wanted to strike out violently against the Gorn and the Horta but ended up extending the hand of friendship to them instead. Although he's a soldier, he prefers to look for a path to peace and understanding whenever possible, and is able to forgive other peoples for their offenses against his people. So just because something happens to make him feel hostile toward the Klingons, that doesn't mean he'd be permanently bigoted against them forevermore. Over time, that hostility would probably fade as his natural sense of fair play and peacemaking reasserted itself. It might take some further affront to harden his heart yet again. (In J.M. Dillard's TUC novelization, she explained Kirk's out-of-character hatred toward the Klingons as the result of a recent Klingon raid that nearly killed Carol Marcus.)

 

[Deranged Nasat]

^Right. People's behavior and attitudes don't always follow simple curves. We can go back and forth on our feelings about someone or something depending on our mood of the moment. We can be pulled in opposite directions by conflicting feelings. Sometimes someone may do something that makes us angry at them, but then we forgive them, and it may take a pattern of further affronts to crystallize our negative feelings.

I'm sure we've all known people who are nice to us at some times and total jerks at others, for no reason we can understand. I've known a couple of people like that. And I've gone back and forth between being open to friendship or interaction with them and being hurt and resentful toward them and wanting nothing more to do with them.

Kirk isn't the kind of person to whom hostility toward an entire species would come naturally. This is the guy who initially wanted to strike out violently against the Gorn and the Horta but ended up extending the hand of friendship to them instead. Although he's a soldier, he prefers to look for a path to peace and understanding whenever possible, and is able to forgive other peoples for their offenses against his people. So just because something happens to make him feel hostile toward the Klingons, that doesn't mean he'd be permanently bigoted against them forevermore. Over time, that hostility would probably fade as his natural sense of fair play and peacemaking reasserted itself. It might take some further affront to harden his heart yet again. (In J.M. Dillard's TUC novelization, she explained Kirk's out-of-character hatred toward the Klingons as the result of a recent Klingon raid that nearly killed Carol Marcus.)

I've wondered if we might interpret Kirk's "let them die!" comment - which I know you find highly uncharacteristic and problematic - as, in fact, an indication of the very fact that he knows he'll be resolved to help them. Now that the Klingons are in an obviously vulnerable position, the knot of varied emotions and perspectives within him - the complex structure balanced precariously yet functionally between various angles on The Klingon Issue - is resolved in favour of a certain subset; it's a simplification, a diminishment of the self, and perhaps he isn't ready to face that yet. Perhaps such an easy resolution to the conflicted and multi-faceted relationship he has to the Klingons feels like a self-betrayal, or scares him. So he throws up a defence, not wanting to let go. Who wants to see a cathedral of self-identity, held up by interlocking impulses and emotions, replaced by something far less complex and straight-forward?

Which of course, parallels what some in the UFP and Klingon Empire are experiencing; the loss of much of their accumulated identity and history, as depends on their relationship with the other.

 

[Leto_II]

In-universe-wise, there's actually another, chronology-related, reason I was kinda theorizing a potential 2286 placement for the novel, coming from looking at data-cues found in several stories set early in the Enterprise-A's service history:

In Timetrap, most of the novel's events take place out on the Klingon border-frontier, when the attempted invasion occurs. In the second post-TVH issue of the first DC Comics run (issue #39), the opening pages have Captain Kirk mentioning in his log that the Enterprise is out on "the frontier," headed to a starbase there in order to brief ships in the region on "the latest intelligence" (or words to that effect).

It might be possible, story-wise, to assume that this intelligence he refers to could be related to the events of Timetrap (the fleet, and the related internal turmoil inside the Klingon Empire, particularly the "New Klingon" movement), in that novel's aftermath, with Starfleet tightening up the border, updating/briefing ship traffic on recent events, etc.

There's also something of a month-long window between the ending of The Voyage Home and the SNW short story "Scotty's Song," which is one possible timeframe during which the novel and the first post-movie DC storyline could conceivably occur.

Again, though...totally just spitballing a bit, here. Had coincidentally recently re-read those other stories, and it got me to thinking. Then again, on the other hand, it is definitely true, as Christopher and others mention, that Timetrap could still just as easily be set much further down the line, too.

 

[TheAlmanac]

I'm not sure why you're focussing on the first DC run, Leto_II, but it's not very compatible with the continuity of other Star Trek tie-ins (especially now)...

In another thread, I called the problem "Konom Baggage," and that's a very apt way to put it when you're trying to place stories based on Klingon events or attitudes. As much fondness as I have for that run in general, the presence of Konom on the Enterprise-A doesn't work very well with other events in this time period--and even less well with Worf's unique Starfleet status down the line.

You're better off, in general, if you endeavour to line Timetrap up with the second DC TOS volume.

 

[Leto_II]

Although, to be sure, the Klingon attitude itself in the novel is pretty compatible with both DC runs (as well as the greater Litverse in general) -- it's more Kirk's attitude I was thinking about, there, but what really makes it work well in that timeline-position, again, is in how DC issue #39 opens, and how it provides an interesting (if unintentional) potential storyline-link to Timetrap.

Also, having recently re-read both DC volumes, there are a bunch of similar, Konom-esque continuity problems present throughout the second series, as well (such as the Klingon Empire possessing a 23rd century Emperor when TNG's "Rightful Heir" supposedly contradicts this).

However, if Konom can become a "forgotten" Starfleet officer decades before Worf (perhaps due to some technicality, such as Worf having officially attended the Academy, while Konom didn't), we can also handwavium away the whole "Emperor"-issue as politically-motivated historical revisionism on Gowron's part, or something similar.

Again, agreed, the novel does fit extremely well with DC Vol. 2, so I'm not necessarily beholden to a specific chronological position for it before getting everyone's input first.

If we were to place Timetrap as part of the second DC run, what would be some appropriate spots for it to fall into, continuity-wise? I might glance over the issues and Memory Beta myself to get some ideas on this one.

 

[ryan123450]

Since all Klingon references to their leader before the term Chancellor was coined on TNG were to the Emporer, I always just assume they are actually meaning the same thing. Translation error perhaps?

 

[Christopher]

Up until recently, I did exclude the Peter David issues of DC Vol. 2 from my continuity, along with the Howard Weinstein issues that picked up their dangling threads. But I recently re-read them and decided that the continuity and story concerns I'd had weren't really that hard to reconcile, so I plugged them back in (in part because there's so little else available to fill in the gap after TFF). I just mentally glossed over the "Emperor" references and read them as "Chancellor" instead. In the context of the modern novel continuity, the character would've probably been Chancellor Kesh. Unless he was some kind of restored emperor that later Klingon historians disregard as illegitimate.

 

[Leto_II]

^ Yeah, I'd never really thought of that as a potential workaround for the whole "Kahless IV"-issue, but damn if that isn't clever -- with Kesh established as being in power at least up through the same year as "The Trial of James T. Kirk" DC storyline (and then returning to power at least temporarily up through 2291), it potentially lets the characters coexist as one and the same. Wish I'd thought of that.

Originally I was speculating that it could've been a "Gowron/Clone Kahless™" power-sharing type of situation, but if Kesh decided to assume the historical name after coming to power for various political reasons, that's an event I could also very easily buy, given what we know about the Klingon Empire.

It tidily solves a movie-era continuity problem going all the way back to DC Vol. 1, especially given that there are numerous "Klingon Emperor" references to be found in Timetrap, as well.

 

[Kor]

Since all Klingon references to their leader before the term Chancellor was coined on TNG were to the Emporer, I always just assume they are actually meaning the same thing. Translation error perhaps?

"Chancellor" was first used in TUC.

Before that, there was one reference to "the emperor" in TNG "Sins of the Father," but we did not actually see an emperor. And as Klingon society was further fleshed out in TNG, it became clear that there actually had not been an emperor in a long time. The political leader had the vague title of "leader of the high council."

I don't remember the term "Chancellor" ever being used in TNG even after the release of TUC. As a viewer, I just assumed it was obsolete by the TNG era, dropped in favor of "leader of the high council." However, "Chancellor" came to be used commonly in DS9.

I can't believe I know this stuff off the top of my head.

Kor

 

[Idran]

I don't remember the term "Chancellor" ever being used in TNG even after the release of TUC. As a viewer, I just assumed it was obsolete by the TNG era, dropped in favor of "leader of the high council."

Weren't Gowron and K'mpec called chancellors in TNG?

Edit: Oh, huh, according to Chakoteya you're right, the term was never used in TNG with reference to the Klingons. (Chakoteya does use the term in description once in that context, but it never shows up in dialogue.)

 

[Christopher]

^There's a simpler way now to search Chakoteya's transcripts:

http://scriptsearch.dxdy.name/

 

[Idran]

Oh, thanks!

 

[Leto_II]

Was just re-reading several of John Byrne's recent Star Trek: New Visions photocomics, and in both stories found in the fourth issue ("Made Out of Mudd" and "The Great Tribble Hunt"), there are several direct references made to the Klingon Emperor as being a political entity during the events of the 5YM.

I'd likely retcon/re-interpret this as being a reference to the Klingon Chancellor, of course (Byrne has famously professed disdain for TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT), but this being found in a comic published only a few months ago was interesting nonetheless.

 

[Avro Arrow]

"Chancellor" was first used in TUC.

Before that, there was one reference to "the emperor" in TNG "Sins of the Father," but we did not actually see an emperor. And as Klingon society was further fleshed out in TNG, it became clear that there actually had not been an emperor in a long time. The political leader had the vague title of "leader of the high council."

K'mpec apparently also referred to himself once as the "Klingon Supreme Commander". Although this sounds more like a military title, so maybe it's akin to the US President also being Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces?

Was just re-reading several of John Byrne's recent Star Trek: New Visions photocomics, and in both stories found in the fourth issue ("Made Out of Mudd" and "The Great Tribble Hunt"), there are several direct references made to the Klingon Emperor as being a political entity during the events of the 5YM.

I'd likely retcon/re-interpret this as being a reference to the Klingon Chancellor, of course (Byrne has famously professed disdain for TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT), but this being found in a comic published only a few months ago was interesting nonetheless.

IIRC, the Klingon Emperor was also seen in Byrne's Romulans: Schism. (He does seem to keep the Byrneverse (can we call it that?) largely consistent within itself.) But it's a little more difficult to claim this one was a mistranslation of Chancellor, since his daughter was referred to as "Princess", implying some kind of royal lineage that doesn't seem to exist for the Chancellorship. (Then again, Azetbur assumed the Chancellorship after Gorkon died, so maybe there was a hereditary aspect to the position in the TOS era?)

 

[Leto_II]

IIRC, the Klingon Emperor was also seen in Byrne's Romulans: Schism. (He does seem to keep the Byrneverse (can we call it that?) largely consistent within itself.) But it's a little more difficult to claim this one was a mistranslation of Chancellor, since his daughter was referred to as "Princess", implying some kind of royal lineage that doesn't seem to exist for the Chancellorship. (Then again, Azetbur assumed the Chancellorship after Gorkon died, so maybe there was a hereditary aspect to the position in the TOS era?)

Holy crap, can't believe I forgot about this -- hadn't re-read Schism in what seems like forever, and I love that Byrne has this personal sub-continuity going across his various works that encompasses the Romulans, the Klingons, Pike's Number One, and the USS Yorktown during the 5YM era (even if that continuity occasionally conflicts with TNG in very minor ways).

But yeah -- we definitely get a hereditary Klingon Emperor (and his treacherous princess daughter) in that storyline, although he goes nameless during it. We know that Kesh becomes Chancellor at some point prior to 2279 (this series is set circa 2270), but of course there's also Kahless IV during the movie-era.

In fact, the two characters (the Schism emperor and Kahless IV) are written very closely to one another, in terms of personality and characterization; assuming that the Schism emperor isn't overthrown between that story and the late 2270s, it's quite possible that this might be Chancellor Kesh, having assumed the "royal" name of Kahless IV, and keeping some of that "hereditary" succession that we later see in TUC intact.

Either that, or it's Kesh's immediate predecessor who also maintained the practice, and from whom Kesh continued it upon attaining office (if we're assuming a connection between him and the DC Comics emperor).

 

[Christopher]

^The thing is, the title "chancellor," in modern usage, is essentially equivalent to "prime minister." As I suggested before, the chancellor and emperor could've been two different people, like Gowron and Kahless in the TNG era, or like the British Prime Minister and Queen -- one is the head of government, the other is the reigning monarch. It could be that, at the time, there was a claimant to the imperial line who ruled as emperor at the same time that Kesh held the chancellorship, but later Klingon historians consider him a pretender and disregard him as a legitimate emperor. Kinda like how, in European history, there were some people who declared themselves pope but who are not considered popes by the modern Catholic Church.

 

[Sto-Vo-Kory]

^Don't forget Gary Seven is also part of his Byrneverse, as evidenced by the solicits for his new photo-comic.



EDIT: this was in response to Leto II, not Christopher.

 

[Timo]

There is a flesh-and-blood Emperor to the Klingons in the newer installments of the Duaneverse, too. (Curiously, there wasn't one in the books written before "Rightful Heir"!)

Or at least there's an Emperor one of the throwaway characters in a throwaway scene can go talk to. Perhaps that's a mere effigy he's going to consult? Or perhaps "I need to go talk to the Emperor" is Klingonaase for wetting one's lizard?

Revising history is something the Klingons might do in a very concrete fashion, this being Star Trek. Supposedly, as of TNG, they do live without a physical, living, breathing and belching Emperor. Supposedly, they find this a good idea, i.e. the resulting Empire a more competitive one than one with an Emperor. So supposedly, somebody at some point would ask "Why didn't we do this sooner?". And supposedly, somebody would say "Hey, let's do it sooner!", jump to his Bird of Prey, load it with kemacite, and fly it past warp ten through the Guardian of Forever while watching out for the Tillman factor...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JD]

I've been kind of amazed that the CBS people let Byrne keep the Klingon Emperor stuff in his comics. I wouldn't think it would be that hard of a thing to change. Is it just that Byrne is a big enough name that they're willing to let in slide in his case? I know there are ways to exlain it away after the fact, but I would have thought it would be a lot less complicated if they just had Byrne change it it.