• 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!

Star Trek Novels and Canon

From Burnham noting that space looked different in the Mirror Universe, the implication was that it was some quirk of physics, rather than biology, and that Vulcans, Bajorans, Klingons, and so on from the MU would also have slightly more dark-adapted eyesight then their Prime Universe counterparts.
Indeed, she even noted something like "even light shines differently here." Which I assumed was the writers' intent to say the stars aren't as bright in the Mirror Universe as they are in the Prime, which doesn't really make any sense, if there was that much of a difference in how bright the stars are in the MU it should impact which planets life could develop on, but that's what we're going with I guess.

Then again, in the third season Kovich did say that Mirror humans have a genetic predisposition towards being evil.
 
That's your head canon, then.

No, it's recognizing that that claim in one single Discovery episode contradicts everything else that the Trek franchise has ever established about who and what Mirror characters are. If a claim in one episode is outweighed or contradicted by all the other evidence, then it can be presumed to be an error or an anomaly, like "James R. Kirk," or the "faster than light, no left or right" nonsense claimed in "Fury."


From Burnham noting that space looked different in the Mirror Universe, the implication was that it was some quirk of physics, rather than biology, and that Vulcans, Bajorans, Klingons, and so on from the MU would also have slightly more dark-adapted eyesight then their Prime Universe counterparts.

Again, that's a claim in a single episode that has no support anywhere else in the franchise and is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with what had previously been established. It's also missing the whole thematic point of the Mirror Universe. The point of "Mirror, Mirror" was not that the Imperial characters were the polar opposites of Kirk and his crew, but that they were only slightly different, that it was disturbingly easy to slip into their roles because the potential for savagery still existed within everyone. That's why the episode title is a quote from the Magic Mirror in Snow White, which reveals the truth about people. It's not about opposition or alienness, it's about showing us a side of ourselves that we try to deny. DSC's writers misunderstood that and cheapened the concept by reinterpreting Mirror humans as just another alien species.


Then again, in the third season Kovich did say that Mirror humans have a genetic predisposition towards being evil.

Which, again, is profoundly missing the point of "Mirror, Mirror." It's moral cowardice, letting humans off the hook by pretending that we don't have the same inherent capacity for evil. TOS always understood that being good is a choice to transcend our darker side. "We're killers, but we won't kill -- today." That choice is the only difference between Federation and Empire.
 
"You're sensitive to light."
"Only compared to a human from your universe. It's the singular biological difference between our two races."


(DSC 1x12)

From Burnham noting that space looked different in the Mirror Universe
Though it could easily be chalked up to Burnham musing poetically.

The actual dialogue:

"The forest is dark, but I can see him through the trees. [...] I can't rest here. Not really. My eyes open,
but it's like waking from the worst nightmare I could imagine. Even the light is different. The cosmos has lost its brilliance. And everywhere I turn, there's fear."
 
"You're sensitive to light."
"Only compared to a human from your universe. It's the singular biological difference between our two races."


(DSC 1x12)

Which is obviously nonsense. How could a different "race" have the same individuals? And why is it only Mirror humans who are treated as somehow a different species and not Mirror Vulcans or Bajorans or Klingons or the rest?

Sometimes Trek writers simply get things wrong, and claim things that make no sense in the context of the rest of the universe. Like TFF saying the center of the galaxy could be reached in 8 hours (or 20 minutes going by the actual screen time with no gaps in the narrative) when everything since has presumed that such a trip would require decades. Or Lt. Leslie dying in "Obsession" but being fine the following week. Or Admiral Morrow saying the Enterprise was 20 years old in ST III when it explicitly had to be at least 38 years old (13 years from "The Cage" to season 1 and 15 years from season 1 to TWOK). Some things are just wrong.


Though it could easily be chalked up to Burnham musing poetically.

The actual dialogue:

"The forest is dark, but I can see him through the trees. [...] I can't rest here. Not really. My eyes open,
but it's like waking from the worst nightmare I could imagine. Even the light is different. The cosmos has lost its brilliance. And everywhere I turn, there's fear."

Yes. The only way that makes any sense is if she's speaking subjectively, if her own fears are distorting her perceptions. The Mirror Universe is not intrinsically evil -- that's missing the point. We know the Halkans are the same in both universes. Spock is basically the same person, just forced to be more ruthless to survive within Imperial culture. The Bajorans were the same, except that they were conquered by the Terran Empire rather than the Cardassians. The Cardassians and Klingons were the same, except that they banded together to fight the Empire. The only differences between the two universes are the result of Earth falling to tyranny instead of democracy; every change to every other species is the result of their conquest by or battles against the Empire.
 
Which is obviously nonsense. How could a different "race" have the same individuals? And why is it only Mirror humans who are treated as somehow a different species and not Mirror Vulcans or Bajorans or Klingons or the rest?
Also poetic. Like saying someone is a "different breed" - they have a vastly different mindset from each other. The same kind of change that a person can experience in their own lifetime - a disillusioned man can be very different from the idealistic boy he once was, even if his DNA hasn't changed.
 
No, it's recognizing that that claim in one single Discovery episode contradicts everything else that the Trek franchise has ever established about who and what Mirror characters are. If a claim in one episode is outweighed or contradicted by all the other evidence, then it can be presumed to be an error or an anomaly, like "James R. Kirk," or the "faster than light, no left or right" nonsense claimed in "Fury."
But as you've said yourself, new canon overwrites old canon. Your opinion on it is valid, but it doesn't make it less so.
 
But as you've said yourself, new canon overwrites old canon.

When it's kept, when it continues to be relevant to future stories, yes. Not when it's a single anomalous reference that contradicts both earlier and later canon, e.g. "The Alternative Factor" claiming that matter and antimatter meeting would destroy the entire universe, or "Fury" claiming it was impossible for a starship to turn at warp. Those are just mistakes that the creators themselves subsequently ignored because they recognized they were bad ideas. The same appears to be true here. The Section 31 movie revealed that Georgiou grew up on a very bright planet, so the producers themselves are clearly ignoring the low-light business from DSC.
 
e.g. "The Alternative Factor" claiming that matter and antimatter meeting would destroy the entire universe
Quite right, and I have this vague recollection that Blish did what he could to make his short story adaptation somewhat less nonsensical on that point. Although I haven't cracked any of my Blish volumes (with the possible exception of Spock Must Die) in decades, so I'm hardly certain.

Years ago, I postulated that the Mirror Universe was the one in which "Requiem for a Martian" wasn't a hoax, and that it turned Star Trek into a laughingstock, negating the optimism and drive for social justice that it spawned. Now I'm wondering how we're going to escape turning into the Mirror Universe.
 
Quite right, and I have this vague recollection that Blish did what he could to make his short story adaptation somewhat less nonsensical on that point. Although I haven't cracked any of my Blish volumes (with the possible exception of Spock Must Die) in decades, so I'm hardly certain.
I just checked, and the Blish adaptation is pretty much verbatim to the episode, as far as I can recall. It was in the tenth volume, at which point Blish was no longer taking liberties with the episodes, and possibly J.A. Lawrence was ghostwriting a lot of them.


Now I'm wondering how we're going to escape turning into the Mirror Universe.

We're pretty much right on track for the Prime Universe future -- things escalating to the point of global war sometime between the 2020s and 2050s, then global reform and enlightenment in its aftermath. Roddenberry always figured humanity would need to near the brink of annihilation before finally coming to our senses and reforming civilization for the better, like an addict having to hit rock bottom before getting into rehab. Which is a reasonable assumption for someone from the WWII generation, who had seen humanity come closer to annihilation than ever before and felt obligated to invent new systems to ensure it never happened again, which is what the United Nations was created to ensure.

By that logic, maybe the MU is a timeline where that global war didn't happen and so we were never shocked to our senses -- sort of like how the Bell Riots not happening meant the Federation never happened.
 
Yeah, I've had the same reaction to all the "This is the Bad Place!" talk among Trek fans recently. Yeah, we're really boning it as a civilization, with the Good Friday Accords and the lack of ethnically ambiguous warlords conquering all of Asia and all.
 
Yeah, I've had the same reaction to all the "This is the Bad Place!" talk among Trek fans recently. Yeah, we're really boning it as a civilization, with the Good Friday Accords and the lack of ethnically ambiguous warlords conquering all of Asia and all.

We don't have Khan, but we do have Putin and his fellow autocrats around the world. Aside from not being genetically engineered, they aren't all that different.

Back around 1991, I read a book called Generations by William Strauss & Neil Howe, scholars who proposed a sociological model that American history followed a cyclical pattern of four repeating generational stages every 80 years or so -- a period of massive crisis and upheaval (e.g. the Depression and WWII), then a rebuilding era that's both more optimistic and more strict (e.g. the postwar boom and the Red Scare), then a generation that rebels against the strictness and experiments with new philosophies (e.g. the '60s-'70s), then a more self-absorbed, directionless generation that fails to address society's problems and allows things to build up to the next crisis period. I've found that everything that's happened in the world since the book came out has conformed pretty closely to their model, including the rough timings of events. So I've been expecting for a long time that things would build up to a crisis era like we're facing now, though I'd hoped it wouldn't get as bad as it has. But I'm optimistic that we'll come out of it relatively soon (since it's been 80 years since WWII ended) and have renewed prosperity in its wake, though not without further problems.

Maybe Star Trek is a future where people have learned from this model and use it to anticipate and prevent the worst problems. (Although the authors never claimed their model applied to anything but American history and sociology. Still, American and global affairs are pretty closely entwined these days, though that might be starting to change.)
 
We don't have Khan, but we do have Putin and his fellow autocrats around the world. Aside from not being genetically engineered, they aren't all that different.
Are we sure they aren't?
Maybe Star Trek is a future where people have learned from this model and use it to anticipate and prevent the worst problems.
We can but hope. Of course somebody wiser than I once asserted that the difference between an optimist and a pessimist is:
An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds.
A pessimist fears the optimist is right.
 
We don't have Khan, but we do have Putin and his fellow autocrats around the world. Aside from not being genetically engineered, they aren't all that different.

Back around 1991, I read a book called Generations by William Strauss & Neil Howe, scholars who proposed a sociological model that American history followed a cyclical pattern of four repeating generational stages every 80 years or so -- a period of massive crisis and upheaval (e.g. the Depression and WWII), then a rebuilding era that's both more optimistic and more strict (e.g. the postwar boom and the Red Scare), then a generation that rebels against the strictness and experiments with new philosophies (e.g. the '60s-'70s), then a more self-absorbed, directionless generation that fails to address society's problems and allows things to build up to the next crisis period. I've found that everything that's happened in the world since the book came out has conformed pretty closely to their model, including the rough timings of events. So I've been expecting for a long time that things would build up to a crisis era like we're facing now, though I'd hoped it wouldn't get as bad as it has. But I'm optimistic that we'll come out of it relatively soon (since it's been 80 years since WWII ended) and have renewed prosperity in its wake, though not without further problems.

Maybe Star Trek is a future where people have learned from this model and use it to anticipate and prevent the worst problems. (Although the authors never claimed their model applied to anything but American history and sociology. Still, American and global affairs are pretty closely entwined these days, though that might be starting to change.)
You’re talking Seldon crises. I dig it.
 
@Christopher I’m in agreement with you on many things, not least that there are instances of “canon” that just plain don’t work because they’re outliers that don’t really fit with the bigger and more consistent picture (as an example, I had TOS on in the background today, and “The Alternative Factor” came on. I’d have never sat down to watch that episode on purpose. I wasn’t paying attention much, but when I did, I remembered that it was basically nonsense that bore only the faintest resemblance to Star Trek canon as it could be understood even then.)

The “Terran” bit in terms of trying to distinguish Earth-descended humans from one universe from those from other is more nonsense, especially when you try to introduce some arbitrary biological difference with zero basis in way too many Mirror universe stories before. It’s like the cloaking device Macguffin in “The Emperor’s New Cloak.” Someone goofed and you can’t really square it with the rest of the established backstory.

I’m the kind of quixotic fan who wants to cleverly square that circle and make it all fit smoothly. But I’m also old enough to subscribe to the MST3K Mantra and recognize that sometimes it just won’t fit, and you should just enjoy the show.
 
It’s like the cloaking device Macguffin in “The Emperor’s New Cloak.” Someone goofed and you can’t really square it with the rest of the established backstory.

Actually it fits right into the backstory, if you look at the big picture. There have been many instances in Trek history where cloaking devices have been "new," or where a breakthrough in cloaking penetration has seemed to disappear later on. The Suliban, Xyrillians, and Romulans had cloaks in Enterprise, but they were treated as new in "Balance of Terror." BoT cloaks could be tracked by "motion sensors," but the cloaks in "The Enterprise Incident" could not. Klingon cloaks could be spotted by visual distortion in TSFS but not in TUC. Spock found a way to detect cloaks by engine emissions in TUC, but that was lost by TNG (along with the ability to fire while cloaked). And, of course, the Mirror Klingons had cloaks in "Through the Looking Glass" but not in "The Emperor's New Cloak."

The logical explanation for all of it is that cloaking is not a single technology, but multiple different ones. There's an ongoing arms race between stealth and detection, and each time a way is invented to penetrate a given type of cloak, it becomes obsolete and cloaking has to be "invented" all over again.

Of course, that wasn't anyone's intent; it's just that different writers over the decades have portrayed cloaking inconsistently, time and time again. But it stands to reason that there'd be a constant race between stealth and detection, so this is a rare case where the inconsistencies accidentally make perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is impractical to expect that television/film writers would be bound, constrained by, in addition to 600+ episodes, also 400+ pages of novels being published every month, although OTOH in practice they're actually not that bound or constrained by something from series 2 episode 61 or 144 or series 3 119 or 4 162 either, they're only as constrained as they wish to be or not be. But expecting them to even try to get familiar with so much, so many novels or even a big amount of the novels as well as of the TV, would be quite too much to expect.

If for some long period there probably isn't going to be new mass media products made then that becomes lesser or not problem but Paramount wouldn't want to admit that ending or even long hiatus. I do, however, see nothing wrong with fans adding some novels to their personal continuities.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top