Wow to think I almost started to read the Shattner books.

[Cadet49]

Nothing wrong with "The Ashes of Eden". A great standalone novel that also enhances "Generations". While the rest of the Shatnerverse is either hit or miss, at least try the one that kicked it all off.

I dunno ...

Spoiler: A Spoiler about Ashes of Eden.

I found the whole idea of Starfleet selling off a Contitution-class heavy cruiser to a world in Klingon space they know almost nothing about seemed a bit far-fetched, even if a corrupt admiral was involved. I don't think the Fleet would just lend out its vessels like that, especially with Prime Directive and Interstellar treaty issues. I mean, what if the Chal had decided to go all pirate-like and attack the Klingons with it? Wouldn't look good after the Khitomer Conference to have a Constitution-class ship attacking Klingon worlds! And Sulu's behavior, hunting down Kirk after he risked his career to save him, even at the risk of war with the Klingons in ST VI, seemed out of character.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think "deliberately started to refute" may be putting it too strongly.

I think I recall an item by PAD where he gloated that he'd added a brief line refuting Shatner's resurrection of Kirk, which he could do because no novels are canon.

John Ordover said expressly in the late-90s that it was not.

But this was just after "The Return" came out, IIRC. "The Ashes of Eden" didn't have that "alternate universe" feel to it.

 

[Christopher]

I think "deliberately started to refute" may be putting it too strongly.

I think I recall an item by PAD where he gloated that he'd added a brief line refuting Shatner's resurrection of Kirk, which he could do because no novels are canon.

Well, that's one author, not "some authors." And it doesn't count as excluding that specific book from an existing inter-novel continuity, because at the time, none of the novels were expected to remain consistent with one another. Books refuted each other all the time.

 

[Dukhat]

Star Trek books are not cannon(sic)...

You know, it always irks me when I read this kind of thing from people. The authors of Trek novels (especially the current batch) have more love for Star Trek than the producers of the actual shows ever did. And yet they seem to be treated with contempt by people such as the OP.

Yes, we all know the books aren't canon. So what? If it's that big a deal to you, then don't read any of them. But let me tell you something: I've been reading Trek novels since Pocket Books first got the license for them, and now couldn't be a better time to start reading them, as there is more consistency between various authors than there ever was in the past (although I will say that the Shatner novels are inconsistent with the main group of novel writers, but hey, it's the Shat...).

 

[Christopher]

You know, it always irks me when I read this kind of thing from people. The authors of Trek novels (especially the current batch) have more love for Star Trek than the producers of the actual shows ever did.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it's really not fair to the producers. There have been plenty of Trek producers who were devoted fans of the show even before they became producers, and I'm sure that even those that weren't put just as much love and pride into their work as any professional. After all, we tie-in novelists are just borrowing someone else's creation. That's never as deep and abiding a love as you have for your own creations.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Well, that's one author, not "some authors." And it doesn't count as excluding that specific book from an existing inter-novel continuity, because at the time, none of the novels were expected to remain consistent with one another. Books refuted each other all the time.

I'm not spoiling for a fight here, Christopher, but there was at least one other author who discussed it in print somewhere. I saw it. I don't recall who or where now, so I said "some" in my post because I knew it wasn't "one". (If I'd said "one" I'm sure someone would come along and say, "No, it was more than one.)

Is it really necessary to go down to the garage and start riffling through hardcopies of Starlogs and fan newszines for proof of all anecdotes before making any posts here?

And I'm not discounting anything. I know that the ST novels refuted each other all the time. But "The Ashes of Eden" wasn't shunted off as part of a private Shatner-written its universe until after "The Return". TAoE was just a regular ST hardcover in its day.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Although non-canon, the novels have influenced Trek over the years:

George and Winona Kirk from STXI were based on characters from Diane Carey's Final Frontier and Best Destiny.

Sulu's first name, Hikaru, is from The Entropy Effect.

The recent novels were a huge influence on Star Trek Online, going so far as to borrow characters like Akaar, Bacco and Calhoun as well as several events from the novelverse.

Also according to an old trekmovie.com inteview, Chris Pine and Zach Quinto auditioned by reading lines from Prime Directive.

Yeah, the novels aren't canon, but who's gonna tell me the 1701-A didn't burn up in the Chal sun, or that Kirk Prime's first mission on the Enterprise involved the Space Circus, or that Picard didn't find another, bigger Doomsday Machine, or that Quark and Rom weren't stuck in Gallitep for a few months? Probably a few, but since none of it's real anyway who cares?

 

[Therin of Andor]

George and Winona Kirk from STXI were based on characters from Diane Carey's Final Frontier and Best Destiny.

Sulu's first name, Hikaru, is from The Entropy Effect.

And Nyota Uhura comes from "ST II Biographies" (William Rotsler discussed the name with Nichelle Nichols before using it) and the name was picked up by novels such as "Uhura's Song".

 

[Christopher]

Although non-canon, the novels have influenced Trek over the years:

George and Winona Kirk from STXI were based on characters from Diane Carey's Final Frontier and Best Destiny.

Actually the names George and Winona for Kirk's parents were coined by Vonda N. McIntyre in Enterprise: The First Adventure, and subsequently adopted by Carey. And ST XI uses only the names, not the characterizations developed by Carey. In fact, I believe E:TFA depicts a scene alluded to in the movie: George (and Winona) Kirk proudly watching Kirk take command of the Enterprise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: QUINTO'S SPOCK SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING!!!

Although non-canon, the novels have influenced Trek over the years:

George and Winona Kirk from STXI were based on characters from Diane Carey's Final Frontier and Best Destiny.

Actually the names George and Winona for Kirk's parents were coined by Vonda N. McIntyre in Enterprise: The First Adventure, and subsequently adopted by Carey. And ST XI uses only the names, not the characterizations developed by Carey. In fact, I believe E:TFA depicts a scene alluded to in the movie: George (and Winona) Kirk proudly watching Kirk take command of the Enterprise.

They used the characters the same way most remakes, reboots or films based on comic books do - i.e. new interpretations of them, not exact carbon copies.

Besides, we saw George and Winona for ten minutes - hardly long enough to get much for comparison (except to say George is an officer this time).

 

[vess]

Funny story, I actually started reading The Return this weekend without having even seen this thread.

Coincidentally, I really like it. Read 16 chapters (about a fifth of the book) in one sitting.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I think "deliberately started to refute" may be putting it too strongly.

I think I recall an item by PAD where he gloated that he'd added a brief line refuting Shatner's resurrection of Kirk, which he could do because no novels are canon.

Whereas Keith DeCandido has said that in one of his novels -- I want to say The Brave and the Bold, but I don't recollect precisely -- he was asked to not make a direct reference to Kirk's permadeath so that the Shatnerverse novels weren't outright contradicted.

John Ordover said expressly in the late-90s that it was not.

But this was just after "The Return" came out, IIRC. "The Ashes of Eden" didn't have that "alternate universe" feel to it.

What does it matter that J.J. said that after The Return had been published? (He said it after Spectre was published, as I recall.) What does matter is that J.J. said that The Ashes of Eden didn't "count" in the post-Star Trek VI continuity, such as it was. It doesn't matter that it doesn't have an "alternate universe feel to it," what matters is that, by editorial fiat, it doesn't count.

Ian, don't misunderstand. I don't disagree with you that The Ashes of Eden can "fit." I think it can and does, quite easily. I'm just pointing out that the editor, at the time, didn't want it to "fit."

 

[Stevil2001]

Actually the names George and Winona for Kirk's parents were coined by Vonda N. McIntyre in Enterprise: The First Adventure, and subsequently adopted by Carey. And ST XI uses only the names, not the characterizations developed by Carey. In fact, I believe E:TFA depicts a scene alluded to in the movie: George (and Winona) Kirk proudly watching Kirk take command of the Enterprise.

It's just Winona, I believe. Or rather there's a George Kirk, but it's Jim Kirk's brother, not his father.

Besides, we saw George and Winona for ten minutes - hardly long enough to get much for comparison (except to say George is an officer this time).

George was an officer in Carey's novels, too.

 

[Defcon]

George was an officer in Carey's novels, too.

It's ages since I read Carey's novels, but wasn't he even April's first officer at some point?

 

[Christopher]

They used the characters the same way most remakes, reboots or films based on comic books do - i.e. new interpretations of them, not exact carbon copies.

My point is that the names were coined by McIntyre and not Carey, and nothing specific that Carey did establish about George and Winona was used in the movie. So it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that the movie's characters were based on the characters from Carey's books. The credit for inspiring the filmmakers should go to Vonda McIntyre instead. Carey was building on her work.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: QUINTO'S SPOCK SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING!!!

George was an officer in Carey's novels, too.

It's ages since I read Carey's novels, but wasn't he even April's first officer at some point?

I can't remember the specifics (apologies if I get anything a little skewed), but Carey's George Kirk never went to Starfleet Academy. He was a security enlistee who rose to the rank of lieutenant and the position of security chief of Starbase 2.
Captain April brought him aboard the Enterprise as security chief and first officer, but it was more because April liked and trusted him than anything else.

The Lt. George Kirk in STXI was a command officer (he wore blue) and the XO.

I like to fudge it, ignore a few facts and say George Prime took a reduction in rank to have a posting closer to Earth after Jim's birth. Final Frontier says something about him being a days from earth instead of years on a starship.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm just pointing out that the editor, at the time, didn't want it to "fit."

And I never refuted that. As you said, Ordover didn't make that statement until "The Return" (and "Avenger") had resurrected Kirk, and several other ST novels had seemingly contradicted Shatner's second and third books.

From the stance of a regular ST fan buying and reading each novel as it was published, there was no outright contradiction of events when TAoE came out.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: QUINTO'S SPOCK SHOULD BE CONSTANTLY SHOUTING!!!

They used the characters the same way most remakes, reboots or films based on comic books do - i.e. new interpretations of them, not exact carbon copies.

My point is that the names were coined by McIntyre and not Carey, and nothing specific that Carey did establish about George and Winona was used in the movie. So it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that the movie's characters were based on the characters from Carey's books. The credit for inspiring the filmmakers should go to Vonda McIntyre instead. Carey was building on her work.

You're right, sorry.
I came to these books years later, so I'm fuzzy as to which order they were published. To me it's all "Trek novels from the 80's".

Best Destiny got a few mentions in interviews prior to the film's release, hence my linking George and Winona with Carey.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, I just think it's cool that of the four character given names coined in the literature and promoted to canon in films -- Hikaru, George, Winona, and Nyota -- three were coined by Vonda McIntyre. (William Rotsler coined "Nyota.")

 

[Destructor]

Well, in the timeframe of the DS9-R, perhaps that can work, but when you get to the Totality trilogy and the post-NEM novels, the discrepancies become insurmountable. In the Shatnerverse, Bajor still hasn't joined the UFP as of 2378; the starship Titan doesn't finish its relief work at Romulus and make its first new alien contact until a year later than it does in the TTN novel series; and Kathryn Janeway is still alive in 2381.

Yes, this is the 'mental gymnastics' I was referring to earlier. For example, 'Federation' is one of my fav. Trek novels, and it is utterly, utterly inconsistent with First Contact and Enterprise. They totally don't work together. Yet, somehow, I beat them into shape together and they both took place in the same continuity, for me. The first trick is to not remember, take note or, or really be aware of dates or stardates in any kind of specific form. 2381 does not mean a lot to me. Was that after TNG? I don't know. It's all 23-something to me. This makes it a lot easier to fudge stuff together. The second trick is to assume that all sources are from an unreliable narrator. This is the trick Neil Gaiman uses when he's watching Doctor Who. We're not ACTUALLY seeing Gallifrey! We're seeing a vision of Gallifrey, an interpretation, for our eyes. It's like Kirk said in 'The Cage': They were seeing images that couldn't be real. A camera didn't take them. They were an... interpretation. This sort of mindset is something a lot of Trek fans have to do by instinct. Was that alien really just a dog with a horn on it's head?

If Earth was nearly destroyed by the Borg, chances are that would be pretty big news on DS9. People probably talked about it quite a bit. As it happens, we only saw one brief line mention it in DS9, the show. That's fair enough, we only see 44 minutes out of their day. Likewise with a book. Shifting timelines in your head is pretty easy in comparison with direct contradictions.