The only Borg story I would ever want, is one that takes place entirely in the Mirror Universe. As the very nature of the MU makes it unlikely that Destiny could have possibly taken place there, I'm sure it would be appreciably different.
the state of the Borg in Trek Fiction?
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
I've no doubt there will be more Borg stories. They may be set before Destiny. They might even be set after Destiny.
I don't expect a Borg story within the next two or three years, but it will happen and the Borg will be back. Just like the Daleks.
I wasn't saying anything about the long run. I was saying, what's the hurry? Why expect there to be "plans" to bring them back almost immediately after getting rid of them? If anything, stuff like Doctor Who and comic books have made audiences far too ready to expect any death or "final story" to be reversed within a year or so, and I think that undermines the impact of such stories. Surely if something is worth bringing back, it's worth taking some time to build up the desire for its return. In our culture of instant gratification, where plans to resurrect a character are already in play before the death story is even published, it becomes simply going through the motions, one more contrived "event" to grab for ratings or sales.
Heck, after Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, it was over seven years before he brought the character back in a "flashback" novel, and ten years before he undid Holmes's demise. Good things are worth waiting for.
Not that I personally consider the Borg a good thing. I'll be happy if we never see them again.
For what it's worth, I agree with what Christopher said, too.
Well, with a qualification on the last line. I agree with Christopher that the Borg themselves are not a "good thing." They're a force of nature, and forces of nature are very difficult to write about well. But I do think the Borg are interesting in the effect they have on others.
Otherwise, I agree with Christopher entirely, too.
Well, with a qualification on the last line. I agree with Christopher that the Borg themselves are not a "good thing." They're a force of nature, and forces of nature are very difficult to write about well. But I do think the Borg are interesting in the effect they have on others.
Otherwise, I agree with Christopher entirely, too.
I agree with all of Christophers remarks on this, David Mack and everyone and pocket went to great lengths to ensure that the borg had there final hurrah and in the processs they killed a gazillion people and changed the franchise beyond repair. The Federation is now not the utopia it used to be. Although the Borg are gone, The federation is a beaten empire and i want to hear stories about that empire being healed and Starfeet being rebuilt, not how the borg suddenly reappear.
They are gone, Just like the days are gone of me getting away with watching Thomas the tank
Let it be
They are gone, Just like the days are gone of me getting away with watching Thomas the tank
Let it be
see this is why I don't like the "one continuity" change they made to Trek fiction. I didn't like the Borg origin story in the Destiny Trilogy anyway, even though the overall trilogy was good.
I think the Borg are very effective when written well. TNG used the Borg very sparingly and "I, Borg" and "Descent" weren't even straight-up "battles against the Borg Collective" stories.
Oh well, maybe they'll do an "elseworlds" type story with the Borg at some future date.
I think the Borg are very effective when written well. TNG used the Borg very sparingly and "I, Borg" and "Descent" weren't even straight-up "battles against the Borg Collective" stories.
Oh well, maybe they'll do an "elseworlds" type story with the Borg at some future date.
But there isn't just one continuity to Trek Lit. Plenty of novels have been published in the past few years that had no connection to the "Destinyverse" at all, including Star Trek Online: The Needs of the Many, The Children of Kings, the Crucible trilogy, Inception, Unspoken Truths, Myriad Universes, and the Starfleet Academy novels.
^Right. The interconnected novel continuity is widespread but not universal or mandatory. Of the novels published in 2010 (or from February '10 to January '11, which counts as a publishing year), only four, the Typhon Pact novels, were part of the main "novelverse."
Not really. AFAICR, it takes place in the 2250s, when Carol is a young doctor and Kirk is a Commander. It helps set the scene as to how and why she was eventually working on Project Genesis. There's still plenty of time between the events of Inception and the Vanguard series.
^I'm speaking more of when David Marcus is born. Vanguard makes him nearly 6 years old in early book 4, which is in 2266, so he would've had to be born in 2260. Inception is set in 2261 and David hasn't been born yet.
And yeah, maybe that could be reconciled with a bit of fudging. But the overall point, which I don't mean to distract from, is that these books such as Inception are not specifically linked to the main book continuity, not that they necessarily contradict it.
And yeah, maybe that could be reconciled with a bit of fudging. But the overall point, which I don't mean to distract from, is that these books such as Inception are not specifically linked to the main book continuity, not that they necessarily contradict it.
Ah. I had completely forgotten about David Marcus.
So had Kirk.
Personally I would be more than glad to never see the Borg again.
And Alyn points out exactly what I hate about them. They are a force of nature and with just about ONE exception I hate frickin disaster movies.
Truly.
Furthermore there is a part of me that really wishes there had been about a year or so (storytime) between the TNG "relaunch" novels and Destiny. I think I would have enjoyed the big D more (and I enjoyed it plenty as it was) if there had been just a wee bit of a break from the Borg.
Now having said all that to touch on continuity.
For the determined fan any story can be set in any continuity one likes. Okay not really but for stuff that's kind of nebulous it can if you want it to. Plus ultimately if you are getting hung up on the age of David Marcus and that is preventing you from enjoying either Inception or the Vanguard novels, then you need to step back and re-evaluate your approach to this stuff IMALTHO.
Personally as a long time superhero comic fan I am into what I call Pastiche Continuity. Which is basically taking the best bits from the portrayal of a character or event and including it in my personal continuity.
Take Superman.
Now for me the baseline for Superman is the first movie, also for Jor-El and the way that Krypton looks. But Lex Luthor is mostly based on the late 80's reboot. Lois is mostly based on that comic era as well. Perry, is from Lois and Clark, plus a really neat character bit or Clark having a cupboard stuffed full of junk food.
It's no different with Trek. My baseline for say Vulcan is Spock's World, with bits of the Sherman/Shwartz novels and some of the better bits of Enterprise.
This pastiche continuity gets added to and revised as I see different things that I like. But in the end since it lives in my head that means it's all mine.
And I feel quite certain there is a Rule Of Acquisition about No Refunds.
And Alyn points out exactly what I hate about them. They are a force of nature and with just about ONE exception I hate frickin disaster movies.
Truly.
Furthermore there is a part of me that really wishes there had been about a year or so (storytime) between the TNG "relaunch" novels and Destiny. I think I would have enjoyed the big D more (and I enjoyed it plenty as it was) if there had been just a wee bit of a break from the Borg.
Now having said all that to touch on continuity.
For the determined fan any story can be set in any continuity one likes. Okay not really but for stuff that's kind of nebulous it can if you want it to. Plus ultimately if you are getting hung up on the age of David Marcus and that is preventing you from enjoying either Inception or the Vanguard novels, then you need to step back and re-evaluate your approach to this stuff IMALTHO.
Personally as a long time superhero comic fan I am into what I call Pastiche Continuity. Which is basically taking the best bits from the portrayal of a character or event and including it in my personal continuity.
Take Superman.
Now for me the baseline for Superman is the first movie, also for Jor-El and the way that Krypton looks. But Lex Luthor is mostly based on the late 80's reboot. Lois is mostly based on that comic era as well. Perry, is from Lois and Clark, plus a really neat character bit or Clark having a cupboard stuffed full of junk food.
It's no different with Trek. My baseline for say Vulcan is Spock's World, with bits of the Sherman/Shwartz novels and some of the better bits of Enterprise.
This pastiche continuity gets added to and revised as I see different things that I like. But in the end since it lives in my head that means it's all mine.
And I feel quite certain there is a Rule Of Acquisition about No Refunds.
Who said anything about enjoyment? I'm only talking about continuity. It is entirely possible to enjoy two mutually contradictory works equally. I enjoy Batman: The Animated Series and I enjoy The Dark Knight, even though they're in incompatible realities. I enjoy the '90s FOX-Network Spider-Man animated series and the more recent The Spectacular Spider-Man animated series even though they're radically different takes on the character and continuity. I enjoy John Byrne's Romulan comics for IDW and I enjoy the Vanguard novels, even though they present incompatible versions of Romulan/Klingon history and politics.
Someone asked what kept Inception from fitting into the main novel continuity. I answered that question. That's all. Purely a matter of continuity, no criticism intended. There are many different continuities currently or formerly in play in Trek literature. There is the current main novel continuity. There is the Shatnerverse. There is the Crucible trilogy. There is the Mirror Universe and the various Myriad Universes tales (although the current iteration of the novels' Mirror Universe is tied in with the main novel continuity). There is the Abramsverse as represented by the Starfleet Academy young-adult novels. There is Star Trek: Online as represented by The Needs of the Many. Over in the comics, there is IDW's John Byrne continuity. There were several notable continuities in the past that are no longer compatible with canon, such as the DC Comics continuity and the '80s novel continuity which was anchored by The Final Reflection, the Rihannsu novels, and others. And there have always been assorted standalone tales unconnected to any particular continuity.
So saying that two works occupy different continuities isn't meant to say that one is better than the other or that they can't both be enjoyed. It's merely a matter of categorization, keeping track of what goes where.
First Rule of Acquisition:
"Once you have their money, you never give it back."
"Once you have their money, you never give it back."
And keeping track of everything in trek literature is becoming a full time job. Im glad tho beacuse it is what trek needed with to weekly tv show on
Similar threads
