^I understand, but remember I said "young me". I think I was about 7 at the time, and those were the impressions I grew up with, true or not.
Continuity
- Thread starter PrimeDirective
- Start date
One of his biographies (might even be the authorized one) made a mention of his feelings toward "the damn books." I don't think it was a dislike of the relative quality of them so much as that he kept having these things thrown in his face while developing TNG and putting together his own version of what happened in between the movies (which he also had a love/hate relationship with) and the new show. There might have been a matter of his not having any real control over what was produced to that point, and, with Richard Arnold as his attack dog, his attempts to remedy that situation.
Perhaps Michael A Martin in his book Star Trek Online: The Needs of the Many the story development and plot threads from the novel series will be reconciled with the universe of Star Trek Online in 2409. It was annoying that Cryptic was picking and choosing novel events and characters in their "Path to 2409". It might have been better if they had just done their own thing as a backstory for their 25th century Star Trek universe. It misled some of us into believing that Star Trek Online was connected to the novel universe and vice versa.
That's what I think I'm going to have to do. Lol. As I come across a novel, movie, episode, or comic book, I'm going to read it and if there are any inconsistencies that disrupt the overarching storyline that I'm adherig to, then I'll just consier it part of an "alternative universe."
I'm not expecting that to be the case. In fact I hope it's not what's planned. Just seems like a big kludge trying to shoe horn both story lines together especially since not that many people playing the games have read the books. Kind of like expecting the movies to follow the novels.
I don't know how anyone could have been "misled" into thinking the game was going to follow the novels. I honestly don't, unless it's just wishful thinking gone wild. If you read the path to 2409 you'll see they don't match. And there's no reason they should. The purpose of the novels are to tell good stories. The purpose of the game is to be fun to play and the back story is was meant to be a device to tell people how they went from the series and movies to the point where the game takes place. I can totally see the game wanting war between the Federation and Klingon for PvP and general game play purposes but that's not the direction I hope the novels go in. It just doesn't sound all that interesting to read another war novel.
I can only describe what my expectations were for Star Trek Online and how I felt when I found out that the novel universe and the game universe were not connected. In retrospect, it might have been naive or unrealistic on my part to expect that the two would be connected, but I was annoyed and disappointed at the time.
It might be a kludge to reconcile the two story lines and fans certainly have different tastes or wishes for where these story lines should lead. Or perhaps Martin will come up with some clever ideas to the reconcile the two so that they lead up to the game universe.
It might be a kludge to reconcile the two story lines and fans certainly have different tastes or wishes for where these story lines should lead. Or perhaps Martin will come up with some clever ideas to the reconcile the two so that they lead up to the game universe.
It's not as if the game and the novels are entirely unrelated - wern't people posting pics of New Frontier's Calhoun on K7, Admiral Akkarr and Luna-class ships a few weeks ago? There's a list on Memory Beta as to exactly which novels are and arn't part of the STO universe, and more can be added if you just mix a few dates around.
I said it before, but it would be cool if STO or the novels established a Nero-style divergence point shortly prior to Destiny.
I said it before, but it would be cool if STO or the novels established a Nero-style divergence point shortly prior to Destiny.
Different works of fiction can borrow characters and concepts from one another yet still be in separate continuities, as I said recently in the "Star Trek: Year One" [sic] thread. For instance, Batman comics incorporating characters created for Batman: The Animated Series. STO (which I just realized has the same acronym as the terrorist organization on Caprica) has borrowed freely from the books and comics for material, but that's not a suggestion of shared continuity, it's just one fictional construct borrowing ideas from related fictional constructs. It's a game; it's meant to be fun and give people the chance to pretend they're part of the Trek universe. So it includes characters and ships from the books to appeal to their fans.
It would have to be well before that, because the discrepancies go all the way back to the end of the Dominion War. A lot of things in STO's "Path to 2409" contradict the DS9 Relaunch.
I wasn't even going to post in this thread, because it seemed like it was winding down, but then it came back to life. 
I have read through most of it, though, which leads me to:
That's what a bunch of people in the thread have been SAYING you should do the entire time! "Personal continuity", I believe, was the term used (by Christopher, among others). I've been working my way through the DS9 relaunch and the Destiny related stuff (including Destiny itself, obviously). Now, given how much time I (don't) have for reading, Trek or otherwise, I have to pick and choose what I'm going to take the time to read. So, there are many continuity branches I haven't read much (or even any) of, and that's ok. That would be a problem with having ALL the books and comics and what have you being together under the same continuity umbrella: I'd always feel like I was missing something relevant to the story I'm interested in, since there's no way I could ever read EVERYTHING. This way, I can just not worry about the Shatnerverse, for example. There may well be some well-written stories in it, but as I only have so much time to read, I've decided not to concern myself with that continuity.
The idea of a personal canon is also very important for someone (i.e. me) who actually has their own Trek story ideas, as well. I like the relaunch/Destiny novel continuity, and am incorporating it into my ideas as backstory (since my stuff is all set in the 2390s). But, as I go forward, I may have to pick and choose even within that continuity. Since I'm writing for the 2390s, and the novels are still coming out that deal with the 2380s, a divergence at some point is very likely. I write a bunch, then in, say, 2011, PocketBooks releases a new book that contradicts something I had used as an important backstory element. Takes it in a completely different direction. Unless I'm going to re-arrange my stories around that thing, I have to just say it didn't happen that way in my personal continuity. For this reason, it's not such a bad thing if EVERY BOOK isn't constrained to follow only ONE continuity path. Other ideas can be explored without having to say "Well, that little change means these six stories are completely invalid". This way, they don't have to be "invalid", they are just part of an alternate continuity. And what would be the alternative, for me? Not write any of my own Trek stories until the relaunch/Destiny continuity has completely run its course, for fear of running into a continuity divergence? Who KNOWS when that would be? Plus, I wouldn't really want to have a reason why I WANT novels in that continuity to stop being published, since I like reading them. "C'mon, guys, hurry up and run out of ideas, so you can announce that the relaunch/post-Destiny timeline is completely done and no more awesome books in it will be forthcoming, so I can write my story!"
That said, I agree with what ronny said: I, personally, think making the Klingons go from allies back to enemies again is stupid, but for a Trek MMO, it kind of makes sense. "Starfleet officers fighting Klingons" is a very iconic Trek concept at this point, so from the standpoint of making a video game that will sell well, I can't really call it a "bad idea". As has been said by others, even though having a good story can add a lot to a game, there is still a big difference between the manner in which a game aims to entertain you, and the manner in which a novel aims to entertain you.
I have read through most of it, though, which leads me to:Dude, what
That's what a bunch of people in the thread have been SAYING you should do the entire time! "Personal continuity", I believe, was the term used (by Christopher, among others). I've been working my way through the DS9 relaunch and the Destiny related stuff (including Destiny itself, obviously). Now, given how much time I (don't) have for reading, Trek or otherwise, I have to pick and choose what I'm going to take the time to read. So, there are many continuity branches I haven't read much (or even any) of, and that's ok. That would be a problem with having ALL the books and comics and what have you being together under the same continuity umbrella: I'd always feel like I was missing something relevant to the story I'm interested in, since there's no way I could ever read EVERYTHING. This way, I can just not worry about the Shatnerverse, for example. There may well be some well-written stories in it, but as I only have so much time to read, I've decided not to concern myself with that continuity.
The idea of a personal canon is also very important for someone (i.e. me) who actually has their own Trek story ideas, as well. I like the relaunch/Destiny novel continuity, and am incorporating it into my ideas as backstory (since my stuff is all set in the 2390s). But, as I go forward, I may have to pick and choose even within that continuity. Since I'm writing for the 2390s, and the novels are still coming out that deal with the 2380s, a divergence at some point is very likely. I write a bunch, then in, say, 2011, PocketBooks releases a new book that contradicts something I had used as an important backstory element. Takes it in a completely different direction. Unless I'm going to re-arrange my stories around that thing, I have to just say it didn't happen that way in my personal continuity. For this reason, it's not such a bad thing if EVERY BOOK isn't constrained to follow only ONE continuity path. Other ideas can be explored without having to say "Well, that little change means these six stories are completely invalid". This way, they don't have to be "invalid", they are just part of an alternate continuity. And what would be the alternative, for me? Not write any of my own Trek stories until the relaunch/Destiny continuity has completely run its course, for fear of running into a continuity divergence? Who KNOWS when that would be? Plus, I wouldn't really want to have a reason why I WANT novels in that continuity to stop being published, since I like reading them. "C'mon, guys, hurry up and run out of ideas, so you can announce that the relaunch/post-Destiny timeline is completely done and no more awesome books in it will be forthcoming, so I can write my story!"
At this point, it seems pretty much literally impossible (or as close as one can get to literally impossible in this context) to reconcile them into the same universe/continuity. The rifts between one continuity and the other are massive in some cases. And no, I'm not just saying that because of my dislike for most of what I've seen of The Path to 2409; while it's true that I'm just as happy if the novelverse and STO don't combine, since I kinda feel like "Keep your STO outta my novelverse!" about it, they really do seem fundamentally incompatible at this point.
That said, I agree with what ronny said: I, personally, think making the Klingons go from allies back to enemies again is stupid, but for a Trek MMO, it kind of makes sense. "Starfleet officers fighting Klingons" is a very iconic Trek concept at this point, so from the standpoint of making a video game that will sell well, I can't really call it a "bad idea". As has been said by others, even though having a good story can add a lot to a game, there is still a big difference between the manner in which a game aims to entertain you, and the manner in which a novel aims to entertain you.
Exactly how much bearing does the "path to" stuff actually have on the game world? If it's just pre-release hype and marketing, perhaps it (or at least aspects of it) could be ignored? Are there things in-game that directly conflict with New Frontier (for Calhoun's background) or whatever? It's not as though a single game since Deus Ex has had a story that really made a difference to the game itself, and from what I hear, STO (haven't managed to sit though a single episode of Caprica, btw) is all about flying places and shooting things.
And talking to the Guardian of Forever.
And talking to the Guardian of Forever.
No, because I asked anyone if the "path to..." stuff is used in the game itself. That won't be answered in the novel.
I don't see the point of trying. The world of the game proper is fundamentally irreconcilable with the novels -- the Borg are still present, planets destroyed in Destiny are still inhabited, etc.
Besides, the books and the game are most likely going to keep on doing their own independent things without feeling constrained by one another. So even if you could construct a way to fit them together now (which I don't think you reasonably could), it could be undone by some subsequent contradiction.
I'm glad I came on here because by doing so, it has allowed to realize that I can "Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before", and remain loyal to the strict rule of consistency that is so important to me
I may have waivered a bit in my belief that consistency in Star Trek movies, series, and novels doesn't really matter, but I've realized that it's the most important thing to me. I will never waiver. Consistency makes a story believeable, which in turn allows me to enjoy it more
While it is nice in the current series', I don't see the need for everything to add up entirely all the time. I personally see Star Trek as more of a mythology then as a strict, only-one-correct-answer canon. For example, I see the novel Final Frontier as what George Kirk (prime) did next after serving on the USS Kelvin. It makes perfect sense to me that after the birth of his second child, he'd take a job (as security chief of Starbase 2) that's a few days from Earth rather then a five-year mission away. That doesn't entirely work flawlessly: The Duchess' (Enterprise's) technology is inconsistant with what we've seen in Star Trek: Enterprise (which established that the Trek universe has been technologically stagnant for 200 years) and the Kelvin was armed with phasers and all the TOS stuff too. But do these things really disqualify Final Frontier from having "happened" (in the pretend Star Trek universe)? Eliminate the whole story just for that?
Bingo.
We reach. Yay brother. You are not Herbert*.
(* = Not meant as a knock against Herbert the poster, in case someone doesn't catch the reference. And if you don't catch the reference, then shame on you.
)
(Post continued - I'm not spamming, my phone ran out of characters)
I love that the Kinshaya are a part of the Typhon Pact. Why? They're from The Final Reflection. Do the novels spend ages and ages "fixing" TFR so it fits in with modern stuff? No. It's left up to the reader to decide for themselves how to reconcile TFR with modern Trek, if they choose to do so at all. You could just as easily ignore TFR if you want to. I keep thinking of Krenn's old servent, and what those bastards did to him whenever the Kinshaya come up. It's nice added depth for me. I don't care that in TFR transporters were scary and new in 2230-something, or that TFR Klingons age quickly or any of that stuff. It still "happened", as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.
I love that the Kinshaya are a part of the Typhon Pact. Why? They're from The Final Reflection. Do the novels spend ages and ages "fixing" TFR so it fits in with modern stuff? No. It's left up to the reader to decide for themselves how to reconcile TFR with modern Trek, if they choose to do so at all. You could just as easily ignore TFR if you want to. I keep thinking of Krenn's old servent, and what those bastards did to him whenever the Kinshaya come up. It's nice added depth for me. I don't care that in TFR transporters were scary and new in 2230-something, or that TFR Klingons age quickly or any of that stuff. It still "happened", as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.
Of course, both The Final Reflection and Strangers From The Sky were presented as works of literature within the larger fictional universe, so any "discrepancies" could simply be "mistakes" on the part of the "author". This also applies to The Romulan Way as the historical portions of the book were "written by" a Federation historian.
Last edited:
Similar threads
