The destruction of Romulus in the novelverse
- Thread starter Voth commando1
- Start date
I remember a time in college electronics lab where the textbook said that something had "divers uses" or something like that, and one of my classmates assumed -- reasonably enough -- that it was a typo for "diverse," because the word divers isn't very common in modern usage. But they are different; "divers" just means "multiple," while "diverse" means "different from each other."
I have a solution.
you just write sentences like this:
Picard turned to Riker "It's a galactic disaster because of the impacts of _________________".
"Yes" said Riker looking grave. "We still don't know what happened to _____________ or ____________".
The reader can write in their own fanon version.
(not a serious suggestion).
you just write sentences like this:
Picard turned to Riker "It's a galactic disaster because of the impacts of _________________".
"Yes" said Riker looking grave. "We still don't know what happened to _____________ or ____________".
The reader can write in their own fanon version.
(not a serious suggestion).
I could care less about the direction this thread has taken.
That's the one I hate most. That and things like the John Tiror conspiracy theories making all these little human errors gain traction on the internet into signs of Time Travel and Temporal Wars.
I think there's actually a couple of easy ways to have the cake and eat it on the Romulus destruction/Hobus supernova, but then we run into 'don't post story ideas' which we really need the right to waive our rights on, because it shuts down discussions like these 'how can you do x?' 'Well, they could do y, but now I have said what y is they apparently can't do it. Oh well.'
Does it cover oblique hints that might suggest ways to get around it?
Once again....it's a topic that's been discussed. At length.
Honest.
Honest.
"Set a course for the Romulan border."
"Aye, sir. Should we....?"
"Yes."
"Because of the....?"
"Right."
"Course laid in, sir."
"Engage."
"Aye, sir. Should we....?"
"Yes."
"Because of the....?"
"Right."
"Course laid in, sir."
"Engage."
You could sell a novel marketed as telling the complete story of Hobus and then sell a completely empty novel except a little note that says "Sorry, we don't have the rights for this... Just use your imagination
In a way, that's how Mark Winegartner's The Godfather Returns works. It's a sequel to Mario Puzo's original novel and not a tie-in to the films, and it wraps around the events of The Godfather, Part II without directly referencing them. The events of the second film happen halfway through the novel, and the second half of the novel deals with some fallout from the film. As weird as that sounds, it works.
I confess I cringe whenever somebody confuses "role" with "roll," which happens way too often these days. (As in "She's all wrong for the roll of Poison Ivy.")
The problem, as The Wormhole notes, is that these common errors tend to perpetuate themselves. The more people see the incorrect version, the more they assume they're correct and use them themselves, and so the horror multiplies geometrically like a zombie pandemic. :
See also canon vs. cannon, discrete vs. discreet, grisly vs. grizzly, etc. They're not the same words, folks. They're not interchangeable.
It's like nails scratching on a chalkboard . . .
On the other hand, if it wasn't for accidental errors establishing themselves as permanent changes, we wouldn't have ever moved on from single-cell organisms.
The transporter effect cleared, and standing on the pad was Romulan Senator Roklem.
"Ah Senator, it's been too long," Ambassador Jones greeted. "Tell me how's the family?"
Senator Roklem glared at the Ambassador with a look that conveyed his pain and loss, for clearly what happened to the Senator's family was so terrible it could not be spoken of.
Some would argue that was a mistake.
Logan's World, the second Logan's Run novel, was technically a sequel to the original novel, not the movie, but the authors moved quickly (as in about five pages) to bring the status quo of the sequel in line with the (very different) ending of the movie, so that the new novel would read like a sequel to the movie as well . . ...
Like the way 2010, 2061, and 3001 were sequels to the 2001 film, rather than Clarke's novel(ization).
Well, not quite; it sounds like Greg's saying the Logan sequel was in continuity with the novel but added material to bring subsequent events in line with the movie. Clarke just straight up set 2010: Odyssey Two in the reality of the movie instead of that of the book. Not to mention that the other two sequels were in mutually incompatible continuities as well. Clarke was never one for sequels or continuity between different works; his Tales from the White Hart stories were pretty much the only real series he ever did, and that was a series of tall tales whose only continuing element was the frame story with Harry Purvis telling the tall tales to his disbelieving mates at the pub. (The Rendezvous with Rama sequels credited to Clarke and Gentry Lee were almost entirely Lee's work, which is why they're so much worse than the original.)
Pretty much. Ancient spoilers to follow:
In the movie, there famously is no Sanctuary and the movie ends with the City collapsing, leaving Logan and Jessica to face whatever happens next.
But . . .in the original novel, Logan and Jessica do make it to Sanctuary, which turns out to be a secret base on the moon. Obviously, this doesn't match up with the movie.
So, Logan's World begins with a brief expository prologue, only a few pages long, in which (surprise!) Sanctuary is destroyed, Logan and Jessica are forced to return to Earth, and the City collapses . . . effectively establishing a new status quo that is more or less the same as the one at the end of the film. Thereby making the book more accessible to any reader who might be more familiar with the movie than the actual novel.
Many comic-book series have done similar things to increase their resemblance to their screen adaptations. For instance, the Supergirl in DC's "New 52" continuity was, so I gather, this aloof, angry alien with short hair and an ugly costume and no civilian identity, but now she's gained a more cheerful attitude, joined the DEO, been "adopted" by the Danvers family, grown her hair out, and donned a skirted costume very much like that of her TV counterpart. And in 1966, the Batman comics brought the two-years-dead Alfred the butler back to life because he was going to be in the TV show.
^ Along the same lines, didn't Michael Crichton famously use the Jeff Goldblum character in his sequel to JURASSIC PARK even though he had killed him off in the original novel, because the character had survived in the movie version?
This is a venerable tradition. The original 1919 Zorro novel by Johnston McCulley ended with Zorro revealing his true identity to the world, marrying the girl, and settling down to live happily ever after. McCulley had never intended to write any sequels, but when the 1920 movie adaptation was a big hit, making Zorro a potential cash cow, McCulley conveniently forgot about Zorro revealing his identity and retiring so he could keep churning out Zorro stories for the rest of his life. (As I recall, he also quickly widowed Zorro, or forgot about his marriage altogether, to make room for new romances.)
This is a venerable tradition. The original 1919 Zorro novel by Johnston McCulley ended with Zorro revealing his true identity to the world, marrying the girl, and settling down to live happily ever after. McCulley had never intended to write any sequels, but when the 1920 movie adaptation was a big hit, making Zorro a potential cash cow, McCulley conveniently forgot about Zorro revealing his identity and retiring so he could keep churning out Zorro stories for the rest of his life. (As I recall, he also quickly widowed Zorro, or forgot about his marriage altogether, to make room for new romances.)
Another example; David Morrell took the job of novelizing Rambo; First Blood, Part II, the sequel to the film based on his novel First Blood. The novel and the film have several differences, including the ending, but Morell wanted to see that the novelization included characterization the sequel film.....lacked.
I guess there are two ways to do it: Just ignore continuity and change things to fit the more famous version, or have the changes take place in-universe so that the continuity still holds. The former approach has probably been more common historically, but today's audiences would probably object to it more.
