Continuity

[PrimeDirective]

I've been a fan of Star Trek for as long as I can remember, but it wasn't until January of 2009, when I the read Star Trek: Destiny trilogy books, that I was transformed into a Trekkie. Ever since I've read a total of 15 novels, the last one being Star Trek Enterprise: Kobayashi Maru, and I can't wait to read Star Trek Enterprise: The Romulan War: Beneath the Raptor's Wings.

But there is one thing that has recently grinded my gears(to paraphrase Peter Griffin), is the unnecessary and totally disrespectful treatment of Star Trek by Hollywood(Star Trek), publishing companies( Star Trek Online:The Needs of the Many), and the videogame company who created Star Trek:Online. Any Trekkie would be upset at how the culprits mentioned above have taken too much artistic liberty, regarding the people and events that have taken place in the timeline that has been established by the series, movies, comic books, and novels that have remained consistent with each other. Consistency is what makes a story(either told orally or in written form)to be cherished and remembered by people. I ask anyone who thinks like me to join in rejecting anthing that doesn't have consistency, so it can be stopped from being considered "cannon." I don't think that anyone would like if somebody came along and changed things that happened to them; that would change who the person is. The soul of Star Trek is being changed.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Well, you're starting out from a false premise, in that the novels, comics, and video games are not "canon." Only the television episodes and movies qualify for that designator. Everything else is "extra," "gravy," "additional toppings," etc.

As for consistency between the novels, comics, and video game(s), it's important to remember that each of these ventures does not necessarily appeal in a broad way to the same audience. There's some overlap amongst the hardcore fans, of course, but that's a very small percentage overall. An individual licensee, while required to remain consistent with the "canon" source material (TV episodes and films), still needs the freedom to create their product such that it has the greatest possible appeal to their target audience, without being hamstrung by something somebody wrote in a novel that a minor percentage of their potential customers may have read. The same goes for novels and the comics, which are read by a very small number of people who watch the TV series or the films.

As much as I can appreciate the internal consistency the novels have worked for over the past decade+ or so, something I've come to believe in recent years is that Star Trek, like other properties such as Marvel or DC superheroes to name two prominent examples, can exist with versions and variations which don't necessarily reconcile with each other. I don't need for it all to fit into one box, continuity-wise. I can watch The Dark Knight on DVD, before reading the latest issue of Batman: The Widening Gyre, and then sit down to watch an episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold with my daughter, and worry not one bit that each of these versions of Batman is incompatible with the others. I could do the same with Star Trek, enjoying what I like and dismissing whatever doesn't float my boat.

[DennisMiller]Of course, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.[/DennisMiller]

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As much as I can appreciate the internal consistency the novels have worked for over the past decade+ or so, something I've come to believe in recent years is that Star Trek, like other properties such as Marvel or DC superheroes to name two prominent examples, can exist with versions and variations which don't necessarily reconcile with each other. I don't need for it all to fit into one box, continuity-wise. I can watch The Dark Knight on DVD, before reading the latest issue of Batman: The Widening Gyre, and then sit down to watch an episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold with my daughter, and worry not one bit that each of these versions of Batman is incompatible with the others. I could do the same with Star Trek, enjoying what I like and dismissing whatever doesn't float my boat.

Hell to the yeah.

 

[Paris]

As someone who absolutely loves the inter-connectivity of the trek-lit verse, I think the soul of Star Trek is perfectly intact. In the grand scheme of things, I don't need every last iteration of trek to be completely compatible with each other. I'll echo Mr. Ward's sentiments...Trek much like Batman is and should be open to different interpretations in different mediums.

 

[AuntKate]

As much as I can appreciate the internal consistency the novels have worked for over the past decade+ or so, something I've come to believe in recent years is that Star Trek, like other properties such as Marvel or DC superheroes to name two prominent examples, can exist with versions and variations which don't necessarily reconcile with each other. I don't need for it all to fit into one box, continuity-wise. I can watch The Dark Knight on DVD, before reading the latest issue of Batman: The Widening Gyre, and then sit down to watch an episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold with my daughter, and worry not one bit that each of these versions of Batman is incompatible with the others. I could do the same with Star Trek, enjoying what I like and dismissing whatever doesn't float my boat.

Hell to the yeah.

QFT

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've always believed tv/film Trek is only "half the story" and I couldn't care less about what's canon and what's not.
I love reading and seeing the different versions of people and events in Star Trek, like the various versions of George Kirk (Starfleet officer, Back to Earth anti-alien activist etc) or the different origin stories (the first adventure, collision course, stxi etc). Although i want the modern books to add up (and wished the Shat books fitted in with the regular stuff), I wouldn't hold that to a videogame (which would be more interested in shooting things)

 

[Greg Cox]

As much as I can appreciate the internal consistency the novels have worked for over the past decade+ or so, something I've come to believe in recent years is that Star Trek, like other properties such as Marvel or DC superheroes to name two prominent examples, can exist with versions and variations which don't necessarily reconcile with each other. I don't need for it all to fit into one box, continuity-wise. I can watch The Dark Knight on DVD, before reading the latest issue of Batman: The Widening Gyre, and then sit down to watch an episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold with my daughter, and worry not one bit that each of these versions of Batman is incompatible with the others. I could do the same with Star Trek, enjoying what I like and dismissing whatever doesn't float my boat.

Hell to the yeah.

QFT

Amen.

 

[Christopher]

Continuity is nice, sure, but why must there be only one continuity? That would be too limiting. It's fun having multiple different interpretations, different variations on the theme.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Continuity is nice, sure, but why must there be only one continuity? That would be too limiting. It's fun having multiple different interpretations, different variations on the theme.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read down the thread. Each continuity should be as internally consistent as is possible, but each version should be free to do whatever they want to. As long as its all entertaining, I don't care much.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Of course, I personally love as much continuity as possible, because I like my fictional worlds big and consistant; it's just the way I seem to approach things. I'm a bit like the Borg; I like everything pulled into one collective which ideally should be growing bigger and bigger, and getting better and better through its growing bigger and bigger. Distinctive voices and approaches are good, so long as their distinctiveness can all be assimilated into my whole. Were I the centre of the universe and Trek produced solely for me alone, I would demand it all tie together into one coherent whole, everything matching up into a big internally consistant web. Which is what I do in my *mumbles, embarrassed* big Trek encycopedia I write up in my spare time *mumbles, embarrassed*. Of course, out in the real world everything Dayton Ward, KingDaniel, Christopher, etc, are saying here is entirely right and proper.

 

[garamet]

Continuity is nice, sure, but why must there be only one continuity? That would be too limiting. It's fun having multiple different interpretations, different variations on the theme.

Q.v. the Arthurian legends. One man's Malory is another man's T.H. White is another man's Stewart is another woman's Clive Owen.

Um, sorry...what were we talking about again?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Continuity is nice, sure, but why must there be only one continuity? That would be too limiting. It's fun having multiple different interpretations, different variations on the theme.

Q.v. the Arthurian legends. One man's Malory is another man's T.H. White is another man's Stewart is another woman's Clive Owen.

Um, sorry...what were we talking about again?

The Left Hand of Destiny?

 

[Christopher]

And one advantage of a loose continuity is that it lets the experience be interactive. As a reader, you aren't just a passive sponge absorbing what's fed to you; you get to apply your own creativity, to decide for yourself which stories you want to count as part of your personal continuity and which ones you don't.

Heck, over the decades when there was no systematic continuity within the novels, I got to do that all the time, constructing my own model of the Trek continuity and constantly readjusting it as new materials came along and contradicted old stories or old assumptions. I didn't find it frustrating to have to make such changes; on the contrary, every time something major changed, I got to use my imagination again and come up with new ideas for how things fit together. That kept it fresh and involving. If I hadn't needed to keep rethinking and readjusting it, if it had all been absolutely consistent from the start, I would've gotten bored with it. Today, there's a lot more consistency in the novels, but there are still the comics going their own ways, so there's still room to use my imagination.

So I'll never understand the attitude of fans who feel they won't be satisfied unless there's some higher authority telling them what to accept or reject, or unless they're able to accept everything without needing to apply any independent thought or creativity to make it work. Where's the fun in just obeying instructions?

 

[Csalem]

I love to read older Trek books now to see their interpretations of the Trek-verse. I may not agree with them but they are fun to read. Sometimes I approach them as I do history texts: reading different versions of events and trying to find the "truth".

 

[Deranged Nasat]

So I'll never understand the attitude of fans who feel they won't be satisfied unless there's some higher authority telling them what to accept or reject, or unless they're able to accept everything without needing to apply any independent thought or creativity to make it work. Where's the fun in just obeying instructions?

(I'm posting this in part as an answer to you in particular, Christopher, because while I'm not saying your post was in any way directed at me, I'm wondering if you had my recent comments about Kolinahrs and dandelion seeds in mind, and found it odd that I was opening myself up to a charge of contradiction, if not hypocrisy, here).

Oh, I agree, sort of. I have great fun choosing between two conflicting interpretations, using my imagination to glue two seemingly disparate "facts" together to smooth over apparent contradictions, and making jumps in creative logic to help tie it all together. I like the "aha!" moments, too; the bits where I read something and think "ah! That makes sense because in this book it mentioned this, and if you look at it in this particular way, that sort of explains this!"

Like in "The Red King" it mentioned Tiburonian funerals must be held within- I think- 32 hours of death. In "Warpath", it's noted that Tiburonian corpses seem to decompose unusually rapidly, even in freezing conditions where those of other races are being preserved. Aha! So that's why they have a custom for rapid funerals, so that the body is intact- oh, but they have cremations so they can eat of the ashes, so why does it matter if---oh!, maybe it wasn't always cremations! Maybe the funeral used to involve actual eating- and we can't have rotten corpses for eating, only fresh ones! Or perhaps the Tiburonians think the entire body has to be cremated, and cremating a mass of slimy decomposed flesh isn't the same thing and ruins the body, for whatever religious reason, so the ritual is unable to "work" properly, or....

So yes, I have fun. Maybe I would be losing a lot if it were all actually fully consistant. As it is, Trek lit makes me work hard to keep it consistant- and that's fun! But I still prefer it aims for consistancy, personally (and again, presuming here I'm the centre of attention). I don't see how aiming for consistency will deplete the number of slips and contradictions I can work on from getting in; after all, no-one's perfect- contradictions will always show up, giving me work to do in smoothing them over. But it will prevent those big, full-out contradictions that I can't resolve and just have to choose between. And of course, as I say, I agree it's good we have these different interpretations, but in the hypothetical world that revolves around me and me alone and where everything works as I see fit , it would aim for no massive continuity breakers.

And authors do it too, of course, this glue-disparate-interpretations-together-into-a-better-whole. The modern Trek lit Klingons and Romulans are so much better for being a combination of TNG-screen Klingons/Romulans and Ford/Duane Klingon/Romulans. Taking those bits of Ford and Duane's interpretations that can be welded to the screen races in interesting ways and doing so is rewarding to us readers. Duane and Ford have been assimilated. Their distinctiveness has been added to the collective. And our finished product is better for it.

I know, I know, the Borg are hardly a good role model, but...

 

[PrimeDirective]

I like consistency because I treat the Star Trek universe as another reality that exists alongisde the one I am a part of. The characters in the series, movies, and novels are as real to me as the people I encounter everyday in life, so it grinds my gears when somebody comes along and changes what I have accepted(due to the consistency of events and people in everything else I've encountered before), just to please the masses.

 

[seigezunt]

It's funny, I don't mind continuity lapses in TOS stuff, but I can't abide it in the other shows. I think of TOS as a "legendary" period, so the accounts might be off.

 

[Greg Cox]

I like consistency because I treat the Star Trek universe as another reality that exists alongisde the one I am a part of. The characters in the series, movies, and novels are as real to me as the people I encounter everyday in life, so it grinds my gears when somebody comes along and changes what I have accepted(due to the consistency of events and people in everything else I've encountered before), just to please the masses.

But what if it's not "to please the masses" (whatever that means), but to tell a better story? Should they have kept Scotty out of the GENERATIONS movie just because it didn't quite mesh with his appearance in "Relics"?

Or what about when TNG decided that Betazoids couldn't sense the emotions of Ferengi . . . even though Deanna had done so previously? It was a good idea, even though it meant tweaking the rules a little.

Consistency is a virtue, but it shouldn't be a straightjacket. Sometimes you just need to fudge things to make the story more exciting.

 

[PrimeDirective]

By "the masses", I mean anyone who is okay with changing the lives of the people who are part of the Star Trek universe. Regarding the contradictions in the movie Generations and the TNG episodes, they only wrote those episodes as seperate stories that didn't affect the primary timeline, and the movie stays true to said timeline.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There are some brilliant videos on YouTube of the continuity blunders in tv/film Trek. I'd include links, but I'm on my phone at the mo and it won't do copying and pasting.

Anyway - since when was real life free of continuity blunders?