The All-New Star Trek Books FAQ!
- Thread starter Stevil2001
- Start date
Re: QUESTIONS TO NEVER ASK
As for S&S "hiding" things, what happened with Honor was a glitch that's been fixed.
The lateness of the eBooks is entirely the fault of the deadbeat editor who keeps turning things in late, despite all the authors hitting their deadlines. Mea culpa.
As for S&S "hiding" things, what happened with Honor was a glitch that's been fixed.
Re: QUESTIONS TO NEVER ASK
Um...I'm hoping the reference that possibly no characters will be around after Warpath for the DS9 series is a tongue in cheek remark....
Um...I'm hoping the reference that possibly no characters will be around after Warpath for the DS9 series is a tongue in cheek remark....
Re: QUESTIONS TO NEVER ASK
Relax, it's a joke. Although if you've read David Mack's SCE: Wildfire books 1&2, you'll understand the reference. and then read Vanguard: Harbinger, TNG: A Time to Kill and A Time to Heal, and you'll see why the joke's on an FAQ page.
Posted by Capt_Piett:
Um...I'm hoping the reference that possibly no characters will be around after Warpath for the DS9 series is a tongue in cheek remark....
Relax, it's a joke. Although if you've read David Mack's SCE: Wildfire books 1&2, you'll understand the reference. and then read Vanguard: Harbinger, TNG: A Time to Kill and A Time to Heal, and you'll see why the joke's on an FAQ page.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Hey, I just thought of a question about this. The above seems to indicate that Shatner's Academy books will automatically be considered part of the Shatnerverse. I thought the reason that his current series of books were placed in their separate continuity so as not to cause confusion about Kirk's resurrection. If he's going back to a point before Kirk is resurrected, why do those books need to be considered in a separate continuity?
Hey, I just thought of a question about this. The above seems to indicate that Shatner's Academy books will automatically be considered part of the Shatnerverse. I thought the reason that his current series of books were placed in their separate continuity so as not to cause confusion about Kirk's resurrection. If he's going back to a point before Kirk is resurrected, why do those books need to be considered in a separate continuity?
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Kirk's resurrection isn't the only issue keeping the Shatnerverse apart from the rest of the continuity. A lot of those novels contain some events of major importance on a galactic scale with would simply be cumbersome to continuously incorporate into the rest of the novels' continuity--really, they'd just spend their time recovering from the latest disaster (which they do plenty of already).
As to whether the new books will be similar, we'll have to take a wait-and-see approach to it... but seeing as how its the same set of authors, it wouldn't surprise me to find these books acting as prequels of sorts, foreshadowing events of later novels... and given that the editors appear to be expanding the breadth of the TOS-era Trek universe, they may also not desire to include whatever grandstanding heroics Shatner & Co. will have Kirk perform for reasons similar to those stated above. For now, until we actually see the books, I think it's sufficient to say that if Shatner is authoring Trek fiction, it is "Shatnerverse" and all that implies.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Kirk's resurrection isn't the only issue keeping the Shatnerverse apart from the rest of the continuity. A lot of those novels contain some events of major importance on a galactic scale with would simply be cumbersome to continuously incorporate into the rest of the novels' continuity--really, they'd just spend their time recovering from the latest disaster (which they do plenty of already).
As to whether the new books will be similar, we'll have to take a wait-and-see approach to it... but seeing as how its the same set of authors, it wouldn't surprise me to find these books acting as prequels of sorts, foreshadowing events of later novels... and given that the editors appear to be expanding the breadth of the TOS-era Trek universe, they may also not desire to include whatever grandstanding heroics Shatner & Co. will have Kirk perform for reasons similar to those stated above. For now, until we actually see the books, I think it's sufficient to say that if Shatner is authoring Trek fiction, it is "Shatnerverse" and all that implies.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what you're saying is that any "galactic-scale" events are gonna get Shatner's books thrown into a separate continuity. I just don't understand (or agree) with that. Many other authors do things on a grand scale, but they don't automatically get shunted off into a separate continuity. And even if Shatner and the Reeves-Stevenses decide to foreshadow events, what in the world is wrong with that? Isn't that the point of prequels? No offense, but I hope the people at Pocket Books will give this deeper consideration than you seem to have. I don't see why any book (or series) should be automatically shuffled off into a separate continuity just because of something else the author wrote. If that were the case, every Diane Duane book should be in their own continuity, since she wrote the "Rihannsu" books.
Don't get me wrong, folks, I understand that the continuity really isn't a huge issue, and you can still enjoy a book just fine even if it is in a separate continuity. I don't have a problem with that, it just seems that people are assuming these books are going to be completely ignoring continuity or something; I guess I don't understand that attitude.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what you're saying is that any "galactic-scale" events are gonna get Shatner's books thrown into a separate continuity. I just don't understand (or agree) with that. Many other authors do things on a grand scale, but they don't automatically get shunted off into a separate continuity. And even if Shatner and the Reeves-Stevenses decide to foreshadow events, what in the world is wrong with that? Isn't that the point of prequels? No offense, but I hope the people at Pocket Books will give this deeper consideration than you seem to have. I don't see why any book (or series) should be automatically shuffled off into a separate continuity just because of something else the author wrote. If that were the case, every Diane Duane book should be in their own continuity, since she wrote the "Rihannsu" books.
Don't get me wrong, folks, I understand that the continuity really isn't a huge issue, and you can still enjoy a book just fine even if it is in a separate continuity. I don't have a problem with that, it just seems that people are assuming these books are going to be completely ignoring continuity or something; I guess I don't understand that attitude.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Actually, if the Rihannsu books do exist in their own continuity, all the other Duane books pretty much have to go with them, given the level of interconnectivity...
Anyway, elements of the Shatner books have popped up in the "main" fiction continuity here and there.
Actually, if the Rihannsu books do exist in their own continuity, all the other Duane books pretty much have to go with them, given the level of interconnectivity...
Anyway, elements of the Shatner books have popped up in the "main" fiction continuity here and there.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
They don't have to be. There's also no reason for "The Ashes of Eden", the first so-called Shatnerverse novel, to be considered as separate continuity either, unless someone else writes a final fate for ---- something that is killed off in the book, damn new stupid spoiler code, that isn't as clear cut as Rosalind suggests (Where in hell is the "'Instant UBB Code' area"???? ----.
But for trilogy purposes, most people shunt it off with the other novels he wrote.
All the comment assumes is that many ST book readers will continue to think of all of Shatner's ST novels as being part of a whole. Fans are free to make them "count" or not.
They don't have to be. There's also no reason for "The Ashes of Eden", the first so-called Shatnerverse novel, to be considered as separate continuity either, unless someone else writes a final fate for ---- something that is killed off in the book, damn new stupid spoiler code, that isn't as clear cut as Rosalind suggests (Where in hell is the "'Instant UBB Code' area"???? ----.
But for trilogy purposes, most people shunt it off with the other novels he wrote.
All the comment assumes is that many ST book readers will continue to think of all of Shatner's ST novels as being part of a whole. Fans are free to make them "count" or not.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Thanks for pointing that out - I do recall reading that fact the day of the upgrades - but it seems to only be accessed from the "Instant UBB Code" when posting the message, not when editing:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....;gonew=1#UNREAD
Thanks for pointing that out - I do recall reading that fact the day of the upgrades - but it seems to only be accessed from the "Instant UBB Code" when posting the message, not when editing:
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....;gonew=1#UNREAD
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
No, you can type it all in yourself too if you want. The key however is to put the "=" and some text after it to make it work.
ie.
<spoiler=What Spoiler is about>The Spoiler text</spoiler>
And obviously the <> should be []
and that would make
No, you can type it all in yourself too if you want. The key however is to put the "=" and some text after it to make it work.
ie.
<spoiler=What Spoiler is about>The Spoiler text</spoiler>
And obviously the <> should be []
and that would make
The Spoiler text
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
What you have to understand is that continuity between books is not a default -- it's a choice. A lot of the books these days have had ongoing continuity between them, by editorial and authorial choice. Other books have been more or less consistent with each other without directly referencing each other. Others are ambiguous; there's no real evidence to suggest they're in the same continuity. (For instance, I'm reading ENT: Rosetta now, and there's evidently no attempt to bring in elements of Andorian naming and culture established in the DS9 books. Also I'm not aware of anything from the Stargazer books being specifically referenced in any non-MJF books in other series. Though that could change later at any author's discretion, of course.) And sometimes there are even contradictions, such as the SGZ books and the Lost Era books giving conflicting info about Rachel Garrett's career, and Genesis Wave and Titan disagreeing about the name and sex of Ogawa's child. I think I recall hearing about one or two things in New Frontier that have been contradicted elsewhere, though I don't remember specifics.
So it's not as if continuity is some universal practice from which the Shatner/Reeves-Stevens books are being uniquely excluded. It's just an option. Many of the books maintain a tight continuity with each other; others go pretty much their own way while trying not to clash too badly with each other most of the time. I'd put the Shatner books in that latter category, and they're hardly alone there. It's not like there's some kind of formal quarantine imposed on the Shatner books; they're just some members of the subset of books that take a fairly agnostic approach to cross-series continuity, as opposed to the subset of books that make a point of coordinating with one another.
After all, not all Trek books are necessarily aimed at the same audience. The Shatner books -- hardcovers with a famous actor's name and photo on the cover -- are going to draw in plenty of readers who don't have any interest in the rest of Trek Lit. And people interested in other Trek Lit may not be partial to the more blockbusterish approach of the Shatner novels. So there's limited crossover between the books' audiences, and too much cross-continuity would just get in the way. And other Trek book lines have different audiences too; not everyone's into all of them. That's why continuity is an option applied differently to different series, rather than everything marching in lockstep.
What you have to understand is that continuity between books is not a default -- it's a choice. A lot of the books these days have had ongoing continuity between them, by editorial and authorial choice. Other books have been more or less consistent with each other without directly referencing each other. Others are ambiguous; there's no real evidence to suggest they're in the same continuity. (For instance, I'm reading ENT: Rosetta now, and there's evidently no attempt to bring in elements of Andorian naming and culture established in the DS9 books. Also I'm not aware of anything from the Stargazer books being specifically referenced in any non-MJF books in other series. Though that could change later at any author's discretion, of course.) And sometimes there are even contradictions, such as the SGZ books and the Lost Era books giving conflicting info about Rachel Garrett's career, and Genesis Wave and Titan disagreeing about the name and sex of Ogawa's child. I think I recall hearing about one or two things in New Frontier that have been contradicted elsewhere, though I don't remember specifics.
So it's not as if continuity is some universal practice from which the Shatner/Reeves-Stevens books are being uniquely excluded. It's just an option. Many of the books maintain a tight continuity with each other; others go pretty much their own way while trying not to clash too badly with each other most of the time. I'd put the Shatner books in that latter category, and they're hardly alone there. It's not like there's some kind of formal quarantine imposed on the Shatner books; they're just some members of the subset of books that take a fairly agnostic approach to cross-series continuity, as opposed to the subset of books that make a point of coordinating with one another.
After all, not all Trek books are necessarily aimed at the same audience. The Shatner books -- hardcovers with a famous actor's name and photo on the cover -- are going to draw in plenty of readers who don't have any interest in the rest of Trek Lit. And people interested in other Trek Lit may not be partial to the more blockbusterish approach of the Shatner novels. So there's limited crossover between the books' audiences, and too much cross-continuity would just get in the way. And other Trek book lines have different audiences too; not everyone's into all of them. That's why continuity is an option applied differently to different series, rather than everything marching in lockstep.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
I don't remember what's been confirmed about Shatner's Academy novel(s), but if Shatner has younger versions of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy being pals at the Academy, I'd certainly shunt it off into its own universe. In TOS it seems likely that Kirk and McCoy may have known each other for some time, but a big part of TOS is watching Kirk and McCoy getting to know and understand Spock. They know virtually nothing about him at the beginning of the series -- nothing about his parentage, next to nothing about his planet's culture.
As for the great galactic crisis business -- I don't know if every publishing event that features one has to be separated out into its own universe, but Pocket really overdid it a hell of a lot for a few years there. Bad enough that the canonverse had the Borg, the Dominion, and sundry others to worry about; the books threw at them genetically engineered plagues, the Furies, the Genesis Wave, and on and on. It was as ridiculous as having a fictional series about the FBI in which another 9/11 or Oklahoma City happens every weekend somewhere in the USA but life nonetheless goes on as usual.
I don't remember what's been confirmed about Shatner's Academy novel(s), but if Shatner has younger versions of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy being pals at the Academy, I'd certainly shunt it off into its own universe. In TOS it seems likely that Kirk and McCoy may have known each other for some time, but a big part of TOS is watching Kirk and McCoy getting to know and understand Spock. They know virtually nothing about him at the beginning of the series -- nothing about his parentage, next to nothing about his planet's culture.
As for the great galactic crisis business -- I don't know if every publishing event that features one has to be separated out into its own universe, but Pocket really overdid it a hell of a lot for a few years there. Bad enough that the canonverse had the Borg, the Dominion, and sundry others to worry about; the books threw at them genetically engineered plagues, the Furies, the Genesis Wave, and on and on. It was as ridiculous as having a fictional series about the FBI in which another 9/11 or Oklahoma City happens every weekend somewhere in the USA but life nonetheless goes on as usual.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
I agree here. As much as I like the Shatnerverse books, I always thought the idea of a prequel with Kirk and Spock chumming around at the Academy seemed kinda silly. I think he could do a lot better than that. Now, it's remotely possible that he could have Kirk and Spock having separate adventures in the Academy, and never meet each other, but it doesn't really sound like that's the direction he's taking.
I definitely agree here, and on a tangent, that's long been the problem with DC Comics, too (and Marvel, probably). I was actually going to make that point myself, but I couldn't think of any Trek instances to reference (since I haven't read any of the 24th century books yet).
I agree here. As much as I like the Shatnerverse books, I always thought the idea of a prequel with Kirk and Spock chumming around at the Academy seemed kinda silly. I think he could do a lot better than that. Now, it's remotely possible that he could have Kirk and Spock having separate adventures in the Academy, and never meet each other, but it doesn't really sound like that's the direction he's taking.
I definitely agree here, and on a tangent, that's long been the problem with DC Comics, too (and Marvel, probably). I was actually going to make that point myself, but I couldn't think of any Trek instances to reference (since I haven't read any of the 24th century books yet).
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Iron Mike Paris.
Re: ASPECTS OF TREKLIT
Might it be an idea to update the DS9R FAQ regarding the fact that Warpath is now out and Fearful Symmetry will be forthcoming next year??
Might it be an idea to update the DS9R FAQ regarding the fact that Warpath is now out and Fearful Symmetry will be forthcoming next year??
Similar threads
