• 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!

"The Fall of the Federation" Best of Trek #2

F. King Daniel

Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Poking around the internet I came across “James Dixon’s Fandom Star Trek Chronology 17”, a scarily detailed (and anti-establishment, it even ignores stuff said in many episodes in favour of obscure fan technical manuals) take on Star Trek’s future history (the anti-Enterprise rant and rave is hilarious. I’d love to hear this guy’s take on the new Trek film!).
The chronology has a fascinating end: circa 10260 AD, after disastrous contact with several new races the Federation crumbles amongst civil wars and splits up into many smaller alliances. It goes on to describe 600 years of apocalyptic battles (the “Great Invasions”) that wipe out any trace of the Federation in the Milky Way galaxy. The chronology says this info comes from an article called ‘The Fall of the Federation’ in ‘The Best of Trek #2’ which is a mashup of the best bits of an old (unofficial) mag called ‘Trek’ (I have no idea what these things were like/about. I’m just using Google).
With these books being unofficial and never to be reprinted, I was wondering if any of you could shed any light on what this ‘Fall of the Federation’ article was like? Was it any good? Was it a timeline? A short story? Any chance of a rundown or something (or even a scan considering it’s unofficial and unlikely for reprint ever)?
I find all this Star Trek apocalypse-in-space stuff fascinating (One of the reasons I loved Destiny) and weird 80’s unofficial versions of it in the distant future doubly so.

While I’m here, what the hell would Trek people be like in the 101st century? I’d imagine being ‘human’ or ‘Klingon’ or whatever would be more a lifestyle choice than anything else, considering how varied Enterprise’s Crewman Daniels’ family tree was in the 31st century.

(also I’m only online at a public computer at the mo. Back in a day or two!)
 
God, James Dixon. There's a name I haven't thought about in ages. Which is why I've been drinking less hard liquor lately.... :lol:

The phrase "it even ignores stuff said in many episodes in favour of obscure fan technical manuals" pretty much sums Dixon up in a nutshell.
 
...This info comes from an article called ‘The Fall of the Federation’ in ‘The Best of Trek #2’ which is a mashup of the best bits of an old (unofficial) mag called ‘Trek’ (I have no idea what these things were like/about. I’m just using Google).
With these books being unofficial and never to be reprinted, I was wondering if any of you could shed any light on what this ‘Fall of the Federation’ article was like? Was it any good? Was it a timeline? A short story? Any chance of a rundown or something (or even a scan considering it’s unofficial and unlikely for reprint ever)?

Amazon has used copies of "The Best of Trek #2" starting at 1¢ plus shipping. Search via ISBN: 0-451-09836-6, because it's not labeled correctly. It's probably worth reading for yourself, at that price. :rommie:

I read most of these volumes back in the day (there were 18 in all, between 1978 & 1996.) They contain a great deal of, erm, eccentric material (to put it mildly.)
 
I thought they were pretty interesting. I stumbled on one or two Best of Treks from the library, and later bought the trade paperback omnibus combining both of the Best of the Best of Trek paperbacks at a used bookshop.
 
It's a ten page article that lays out a scenario for the fall of the Federation. It assumes that, based on the size of the Federation in the 23rd century and the amount of space explored, it'll take around 8000 years for internal pressures from an ever-expanding Federation to become insurmountable. It's basically the standard overstretched empire idea: the Federation has allowed in a very diverse number of civilizations with very diverse cultures, and there are tensions between some who want the Federation to adhere to a consistent core set of values and those who think anything goes. Meanwhile (because this was written before TNG and doesn't allow for a Federation with replicators and virtually free energy) there's nowhere really left to expand, and there are few new resources, so there's an economic depression. A couple of particular systems become flashpoints for secessionism and other crises. Meanwhile, there are still some hostile powers in the galaxy, who see this as an opportunity. And everything falls apart.
 
I think I used to have a copy of the original issue that "Fall of the Federation" article was in; I remember seeing it with an accompanying illustration. But I don't have it or any of the BoT collections anymore.

I think the article was presented as a discussion of what might lead to the Federation's downfall, or maybe as a "historical" article describing the events. It wasn't a timeline or a short story. I don't remember any details of the article, but it was probably a pretty basic Fall of Rome thing in space, the same ground covered by Asimov's Foundation series or Andromeda. Nothing worldshakingly original.

EDIT: Ahh, I should've known Steve would come through with the details. Yep, like he said, just Edward Gibbon with starships.

As for James Dixon, his view of the Trek universe became ossified in the '70s. He got so deeply invested in the reality of it as it was defined then, including all the tie-in and fan material of the day, that he was never able to accept the legitimacy of any later productions that contradicted those texts. I'd say he basically considers everything from TNG on to be heresy, and I don't mean that figuratively.
 
James Dixon!

One of my goals in writing "Make-Believe" was, strange as this sounds, to write a story that would give James Dixon a stroke. I wonder if I succeeded in that; he hasn't updated his fan chronology since that was published.

Oh, and Crucible would definitely have given Dixon a stroke.

In a lot of ways, I applaud Dixon's approach to Trek history. I like the all-inclusive nature, much like Lance Parkin uses in Ahistory for the Doctor Who universe. But where Parkin doesn't offer value judgments on how things fit together, only that they happened and it's up to the reader to decide how they fit together, Dixon has strong opinions on anything that violates his view of Star Trek, which is anchored to the Franz Joseph Technical Manual. As a resource I've used Dixon's work, because it's so exhaustive, but I wouldn't dream of relying upon it entirely, because of Dixon's editorial view.
 
I knew that name sounded familiar. A couple years back, I stumbled on a version of his timeline that I downloaded as a text file (version 17 I believe). When I saw the name, that timeline popped into my head, and I found I still have it on my computer, and sure enough, James Dixon's name is at the top.

Though it has some useful information, what I remember most were his notes and so-called explanations for his reasonings in his timeline. It took hours to get through the timeline, but it was great for a good chuckle, especially when I found some of his reasoning to be based in as little fact as the works he was criticizing.
 
he pissed me off so much with the crap he spouted I had him on ignore after about 4 weeks of being here.

if he'd read my Romulan War fan-fic i think it'd've killed him. he was as bad as TGT and Warped9...
 
That's not fair to The God Thing or Warped9-- they generally have the sense to not read things that they know will annoy them. James Dixon just keeps on buying books regardless.
 
Though it has some useful information, what I remember most were his notes and so-called explanations for his reasonings in his timeline. It took hours to get through the timeline, but it was great for a good chuckle, especially when I found some of his reasoning to be based in as little fact as the works he was criticizing.

I had a similar reaction to his notes on the timeline. I sometimes wonder if he knows its all fiction..
 
In a lot of ways, I applaud Dixon's approach to Trek history. I like the all-inclusive nature...

...But where Parkin doesn't offer value judgments on how things fit together, only that they happened and it's up to the reader to decide how they fit together, Dixon has strong opinions on anything that violates his view of Star Trek, which is anchored to the Franz Joseph Technical Manual.

Probably my biggest gripe with dixon's work. He goes on and on about inclusiveness and "IDIC" on the one hand, and then spends page after page scragging Okuda and Sternbach's work.

As a resource I've used Dixon's work, because it's so exhaustive, but I wouldn't dream of relying upon it entirely, because of Dixon's editorial view.

Agreed. One should be very careful when using Dixon's chronology as a reference. He altered the dates and substance of a lot of otherwise canon references to make them fit into his odd little Trek sandbox.

I ask this out of morbid curiosity: whatever happened to him? Having a new Trek movie coming out just ain't the same without his ranting in the background.
 
I ask this out of morbid curiosity: whatever happened to him? Having a new Trek movie coming out just ain't the same without his ranting in the background.
he was banned from TBBS a few years ago.

Now that you mention it, I do recall such. However, he was still making appearances on some other Trek-related BBS sites. then he seems to have evaporated all together.
 
Wow...

I've been exposed to James Dixon's...idiosyncratic take on Star Trek continuity for a long time as a result of my own site (and I've been meaning to "demote" his links for a while now), but I had no idea there were such strong opinions about him around here--or that he had a(n apparently unpleasant) history with this site as well.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top