Discussion in 'Trek Literature' started by Enterprise1701, Oct 27, 2016.
Due out on 31 January 2017 is Dayton Ward's upcoming TNG novel Headlong Flight.
Sounds like the season 3 DS9 episode where Dax fell in love with that guy, but then ended up almost tearing the planet apart when it tried to shift universes because she was "grounded" to our universe. But with the E-, D- and TOS-era Romulan Warbird, I wonder if time travel is also involved.
Maybe it's just because the starship team-up on the cover of the first "Prey" novel ended up being figurative, but my instinct is that it's more a case of the storyline taking place over multiple time-periods than literal time travel between the 2260s, 2360s, and 2380s.
Did you read the last part of the write-up? The planet appears in different planes and dimensions! That doesn't exactly rule out time travel!
Ha, the comparison to DS9 - "Meridian" has popped up everywhere I have seen!
I 've been looking forward to getting this book for a few months. I really like the cover art.
It could be travelling to other universes where the Ent-D and the Warbird were never destroyed.
Where which warbird was never destroyed? That's not a specific ship, is it? All of them from the TOS era looked like that, I thought.
Are you talking about TNG - "Timescape"? Neither ship was destroyed in that episode. And the cover of Headlong Flight features a 23rd century bird of prey, not a 24th century warbird.
^ No, I was just referring to this book.
The E-E looks very small compared to the E-D there. It's a great cover, but the scale seems off.
The Sovereign class is actually smaller than the Galaxy class in terms of height, width and internal volume. The Sovereign has greater length, though.
Yeah, but the forced perspective of the cover makes it look like the saucer and engineering hull fit within the saucer of the E-D, which doesn't seem right. It's been bugging me since I first saw the cover on Amazon.
The arrangement of the ships seems very slapdash.
Seems fine to me. The ships are at different distances from our viewpoint. The E-E is above and behind the E-D. Looking from above, the E wouldn't throw a shadow on the D.
I don't think the objection is that it isn't physically possible, but that it was poorly laid out so as to give the illusion of size mismatches. That they could have done better and arranged things so as to not even generate that sort of optical illusion. They're evaluating it on aesthetic principles, not accuracy ones.
It's like explicitly choosing to make a map with a Mercator projection nowadays: yeah, it's technically valid, but that doesn't mean it's worth introducing the size confusion it causes when there are so many better options.
Are you trying to tell me that Greenland isn't bigger then Africa?
Since the book should start to appear in the wild soon I've posted a review thread:
Separate names with a comma.