Why The Huge Gap Between TMP & WOK?

[Christopher]

To be fair, the Okuda's did preface their book with a piece basically explaining their policy on conjecture and how it isn't meant to be taken as definitive. And an astonishing amount of the book's entries have the tag 'Conjecture' next to them, making them suspect.

Yes, but everybody always ignores that part and takes it as gospel anyway. And the tie-in authors are required to accept the Chronology's conjectures as fact unless they're overwritten by subsequent canon.

Generations explicitly dated Kirk's time with Antonia -- during at least part of which he was retired -- from 2282-84 (11 to 9 years prior to the Nexus incident in 2293). That pretty much rules out TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF taking place during that span. And TWOK can't really come earlier than 2282 (because that's 15 years after "Space Seed"), so it has to be after 2284. The most logical place to put that relationship and retirement is before TWOK -- Kirk tries a life with Antonia, it fails, he goes back to Starfleet, and in the wake of that he feels old and depressed and trapped by his career. So to me, it pretty much verifies the Okuda dating of TWOK as 2285, however much I wish that weren't the case.

I had an idea so I made a trip to a book shop to have a look. The recently published Autobiography of James T Kirk has this to say on the matters post TMP (this is a pretty rough précis): Kirk says, and I quote, 'after our second 5YM ended', Kirk then decides to resign from Starfleet rather than be promoted again, he travels and moves onto a farm before eventually going back prior to WOK! I know it's not strictly canon but where does the official autobiography fit?

None of the tie-ins are any more "official" or binding than any of the others. They're all equally conjectural. (They're all official, but that just means they're published with the contractual consent of the property owner and are being sold legally.)

 

[J.T.B.]

Of course they don't. But these are fictional characters. Again, what alternative do you propose? How could they have continued telling action-adventure stories starring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and the rest under the scenario where Kirk went back to a desk job and stayed there? You want to talk about reality -- the reality is that these were movies made for the entertainment of the audience, and Shatner was their primary star. That's the reality that everything else has to bend to.

I don't feel I need to put forth an alternative as all I am doing is trying to explain why those choices don't work for me. I understand the reasons, and that not everyone will agree with my opinions, but I do think they are defensible.

On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no greater responsibility than starship command. TOS was based on things like the British Navy in the 19th century, when ship captains would be out of touch with their home bases and completely on their own, unable to call home for instructions, and thus would have the sole responsibility to make crucial diplomatic, military, or political decisions. We often saw in TOS how it would take days or weeks for Starfleet to receive Kirk's reports, so that the weight of the decisions fell solely on his shoulders. In "Balance of Terror," he had to make the choices that would decide whether or not a new war with the Romulans began, and Starfleet's approval of his plan didn't come through until after it was all over. So in that case and others like it, he had more responsibility than any admiral back home, because his choices actually shaped events, while his superiors back home could only try to deal with the consequences.

But follow that through: Starship command is the greatest responsibility, so getting the right ships with the right commanders in the right places in good repair with enough supplies etc. is a lesser responsibility? Of course not, the greater importance of the one makes the other more important still. You would want your best former starship commanders in the positions to make those kinds of decisions, and they would want their fellow service members to benefit from their experience.

And of course what happened in the 18th and 19th Century Royal Navy was that flag officers were forward-deployed closer to the action, and a foreign station commander-in-chef had vast responsibilities and legal powers nearly on par with an act of Parliament back home. Those would be more like starbase commanders than admirals back at Starfleet Command.

He wasn't in the same pool. And until his cure he WAS the boss (along with Slayton). It's actually a very comparable situation, even if Cooper and Shepard were contemporaries and Decker and Kirk were not.

Chief of the Astronaut Office was basically assigned to him because he was grounded. On flight status, he was another assignable astronaut. In Trek terms it would be more like two captains competing for the same assignment than a captain and an admiral.

 

[Tallguy]

Generations explicitly dated Kirk's time with Antonia -- during at least part of which he was retired -- from 2282-84 (11 to 9 years prior to the Nexus incident in 2293). That pretty much rules out TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF taking place during that span. And TWOK can't really come earlier than 2282 (because that's 15 years after "Space Seed"), so it has to be after 2284. The most logical place to put that relationship and retirement is before TWOK -- Kirk tries a life with Antonia, it fails, he goes back to Starfleet, and in the wake of that he feels old and depressed and trapped by his career. So to me, it pretty much verifies the Okuda dating of TWOK as 2285, however much I wish that weren't the case.

Then Generations is wrong and leave TWOK alone. Like Captain Rogers said "You move."

 

[Christopher]

Then Generations is wrong and leave TWOK alone. Like Captain Rogers said "You move."

By that logic, Kirk's middle initial is R.

 

[Tallguy]

By that logic, Kirk's middle initial is R.

Ehhhh, only if the next time we heard Kirk's middle name was 11 years, 4 movies, and two TV series later.

Now "Vulcan" vs. "Vulcanian" (used for the entire first season) and you've got a leg to stand on.

I guess there's just so little that's thought out in Star Trek chronology, why do we have to break the one that WAS?

 

[Christopher]

I just don't believe in cherrypicking the data to fit our preferences. That's dishonest. The data are what they are. We have to adapt our conclusions to fit the data, not the other way around.

Of course any large canon will contain contradictions, but as a rule, the later information supersedes the earlier information, because it reflects how the current and future creators of canon will probably interpret things. The reference books and sites put TWOK in 2285, so future creators will probably just look it up and accept that date. I don't like it, but the world is not in the habit of conforming to what we personally wish were the case. It is what it is, and we have to take it as it comes.

 

[locutus101]

Ehhhh, only if the next time we heard Kirk's middle name was 11 years, 4 movies, and two TV series later.

Now "Vulcan" vs. "Vulcanian" (used for the entire first season) and you've got a leg to stand on.

I guess there's just so little that's thought out in Star Trek chronology, why do we have to break the one that WAS?

Maybe "Vulcan" is just a translation of the original Vulcan word, and that's why there are different versions. Because people couldn't agree on a unique translation for that word.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Maybe "Vulcan" is just a translation of the original Vulcan word, and that's why there are different versions. Because people couldn't agree on a unique translation for that word.

Vulcan refers to Vulcans. Vulcanian refers to anyone born there, whether of Vulcan species heritage or not. (Like Canadian does.)

 

[locutus101]

Laura Cynthia Chambers: What's your point?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Just sharing my post from "what's in your head canon" as my opinion on the subject.

Feel free to go back to the original topic.

 

[locutus101]

Just sharing my post from "what's in your head canon" as my opinion on the subject.

Feel free to go back to the original topic.

Ok.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Clever!

 

[locutus101]

Clever!

What is?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What is?

Oh, @Laura Cynthia Chambers's idea of how to resolve Vulcan vs Vulcanian.

I tried to quote her post, but the system pruned it, because it consisted entirely of quotations.

 

[locutus101]

Oh, @Laura Cynthia Chambers's idea of how to resolve Vulcan vs Vulcanian.

I tried to quote her post, but the system pruned it, because it consisted entirely of quotations.

I know I had the same problem.

But to me it doesn't work because people only use "Vulcanian" early in the TOS series, then I simply don't remember it being used even once, do you?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Clever!

Thank you.

 

[Lance]

To be fair, the Okuda's did preface their book with a piece basically explaining their policy on conjecture and how it isn't meant to be taken as definitive. And an astonishing amount of the book's entries have the tag 'Conjecture' next to them, making them suspect.

Yes, but everybody always ignores that part and takes it as gospel anyway. And the tie-in authors are required to accept the Chronology's conjectures as fact unless they're overwritten by subsequent canon.

Which was, of course, exactly my point. It gets treated as Canon, in the absence of official data, despite much of it having no basis in the TV programs or movies themselves.

At best, much of the Chronology's suppositions are ascended Fanon.

 

[Tim Thomason]

I would've liked to see a continuation of TMP, but I wouldn't have wanted it to be TWOK, which was too radically different. I mean, clearly that was never on the table, since Bennett and Meyer were there to replace the TMP team and start over from scratch. And I regret that we never got the chance to see more of the version of Starfleet and the Federation that TMP let us glimpse.

I heard there are some good books set in that time period. You might want to check some of them out.

 

[locutus101]

Which was, of course, exactly my point. It gets treated as Canon, in the absence of official data, despite much of it having no basis in the TV programs or movies themselves.

At best, much of the Chronology's suppositions are ascended Fanon.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave. When first we try to make sense of all that!

 

[WebLurker]

Which was, of course, exactly my point. It gets treated as Canon, in the absence of official data, despite much of it having no basis in the TV programs or movies themselves.

On the other hand, much of the later TV shows and movies used it for details, timeframes, etc., whether verbatim or loosely, so there's a lot of corroboration, before and after the fact. (They also do a very good job of citing their sources, so you know how they're reaching their conclusions.)

At best, much of the Chronology's suppositions are ascended Fanon.

See above.