The Ending(s) of the Original Five-Year Mission

[Odo]

Forgive me if this is already a topic somewhere, but I haven't seen it.

It seems that the ending of the Enterprise's first five year mission is something of a favorite topic among writers. There are many alternate versions in comics and books describing how it ended, as well as the period right before and right after. I was wondering: how many different versions of the end of the Enterprise's original five-year mission are there?

By my count, there are eight novels, as well as several comics, that depict some version of this event (or events related to, such as the Enterprise upgrade and uniform change, or the events immediately before and after). They include:

Black Fire (Cooper, 1983, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Black_Fire_(novel))
The Final Voyage (Barr/Jurgens, 1986, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Final_Voyage)
The Lost Years (Dillard, 1989, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lost_Years)
The Alone Parts 1 and 2 (Ryan/Whigam, 1994, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/The_Alone)
A Bright Particular Star (Weinstein/Ketchum, 1995, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/A_Bright_Particular_Star)
The Crucible Trilogy (George, 2006-2007, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Crucible)
Forgotten History (Bennett, 2012, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Forgotten_History)
Mission's End (Templeton/Molnar, 2009, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Mission%27s_End)
Troublesome Minds, (Gallanter, 2009, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Troublesome_Minds)
Allegiance in Exile (George 2013, memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Allegiance_in_Exile)

(Am I missing any?)

Which version of these events do you prefer? Which are compatible with one another (even with minor tweaks) and which are fundamentally incompatible with one another?

 

[Christopher]

I never really saw Black Fire as the end of the 5-year mission, although it did have a partial refit and a uniform change. It seemed like it may have been meant as sort of an intermediate step before the TMP refit.

And "The Alone," Troublesome Minds, and Allegiance in Exile are all just near the end, not actually the concluding voyage.

To the best of my recollection, there are seven distinct novel and comics versions of the very end of the 5YM. You've listed all of them except one, the short story "Empty" by David DeLee in Strange New Worlds 10 (which oddly puts the end of the mission immediately after "Turnabout Intruder"). There may be another version in The Autobiography of James T. Kirk, but I haven't read it.

The version depicted in Forgotten History is an expansion of the version I referred to in my first novel, Ex Machina, which was based on Voyager: "Q2"'s scene indicating that rescuing the Pelosians from extinction was something Kirk did at the end of the 5-year mission. I took that to mean it was his very last action in the mission, but I suppose it could've just been the last one Icheb found notable for his report.

 

[Odo]

The version depicted in Forgotten History is an expansion of the version I referred to in my first novel, Ex Machina, which was based on Voyager: "Q2"'s scene indicating that rescuing the Pelosians from extinction was something Kirk did at the end of the 5-year mission. I took that to mean it was his very last action in the mission, but I suppose it could've just been the last one Icheb found notable for his report.

Christopher, how much tweaking would it take to reconcile Provenance of Shadows and your Forgotten History (if that's at all even possible)? It's been awhile since I read both books, but I remember really enjoying them.

I've also heard that Mike Barr's annual "The Final Voyage" is great.

 

[Leto_II]

Christopher, how much tweaking would it take to reconcile Provenance of Shadows and your Forgotten History (if that's at all even possible)? It's been awhile since I read both books, but I remember really enjoying them.

Crucible: Provenance of Shadows (and the other two books, as well) has the Enterprise severely damaged during a battle at Gateway planet (location of the Guardian of Forever) against Klingon forces, resulting in the loss of the bridge, and the ship is recalled home to Earth for refittting. Christopher's book has the starship returning home shortly after the Pelos-incident, and Kirk faces a tribunal over his actions there, but no mention of the Gateway battle is ever made, IIRC.

Basically, the Crucible books are in a separate continuity from the rest of the Litverse, although I have cherrypicked a few things here and there from them for use in my personal continuity, mostly stuff set AFTER the end of the 5YM (a lot of stuff during the Enterprise-A era, for instance) that can exist independently in any continuity, untethered from the greater Crucible storyline (plus a few vignettes that take place immediately before, during, or after the actual TV episodes themselves).

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, how much tweaking would it take to reconcile Provenance of Shadows and your Forgotten History (if that's at all even possible)?

As Leto said, those are in two deliberately separate continuities. My version is part of the larger novelverse, while Crucible was intentionally distinct from that.

 

[Odo]

I understand they're in two distinct continuities - I guess I like Provenance so much I try and reconcile it as much as possible.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Diane Carey's Dreadnought! is explicitly called the final mission of the 5YM a couple of times.

 

[Christopher]

Diane Carey's Dreadnought! is explicitly called the final mission of the 5YM a couple of times.

That can't be, because its sequel Battlestations! was set just a month later. Also, the plot of Dreadnought! begins with a whole group of young new crewmembers joining the ship's complement, which is not something they'd do right at the end of the mission.

Maybe you're thinking of the fact that The Lost Years referred to the "Rittenhouse incident" from Dreadnought! as a relatively recent event whose fallout was a factor in the decision to promote Kirk to the admiralty. But it wasn't specified just how recent.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That can't be, because its sequel Battlestations! was set just a month later. Also, the plot of Dreadnought! begins with a whole group of young new crewmembers joining the ship's complement, which is not something they'd do right at the end of the mission.

Maybe you're thinking of the fact that The Lost Years referred to the "Rittenhouse incident" from Dreadnought! as a relatively recent event whose fallout was a factor in the decision to promote Kirk to the admiralty. But it wasn't specified just how recent.

IIRC, there was supposed to be another Carey book, "The Federation Mutinies," that would have come before The Lost Years and showed the ending of the Five Year Mission. The reference to Rittenhouse and the fallout from that in The Lost Years may all that remains of that plan.

It's fanfic, but Jean Airey's The Doctor and the Enterprise, the early 80s crossover between Star Trek and Doctor Who, is also an "end of the Five Year Mission" story.

 

[Jbarney]

For what it is worth, I have always taken an "open door" policy with respect to some of the different versions of the end of FYM. I don't think my approach would work at all if you are holding a candle up to any of the inconsistencies, but I'm just speaking as one individual fan. I don't have this worked out and I'm not trying to convince anyone my way is best....but....

I think it is entirely possible (aside from the contradictions involved) that some of the stories are likely happening as the FYM is ending, and that the FYM "ends" weeks prior to the ship returning to Earth in late 2270. If the FYM ended with the Enterprise out in space....the way my job ends at work....and I have to drive home....then it is possible to slip a few more stories together....."at the end of" the FYM. The mission ends out in space.....then the ship has to travel home.

Just my thoughts.....this theory was developed during my "everything fits" stage.

 

[Damian]

Like a lot of things, there are several versions of the end of the 5 year mission and it's hard to say one is definitive. The Lost Years is an obvious pick since it was a conscious attempt to depict the Enterprise returning home--though I guess it's not technically the final mission since the mission is over at that point.

More recent novels over the last 10 years have tried to be more consistent, though with the original series I still notice a bit of divergence (even not including the Crucible novel). Christopher's Forgotten History is a good novel covering that late period.

As an aside, I have noticed over the last few years novels including characters and events from the animated series. There was one novel (the name escapes me at the moment) that even depicts Chekov leaving the Enterprise to begin his tactical training and Lt. Arex coming on board to take his place at navigation (and even some of the changes we see on the bridge design). This story takes place late in the 5 year mission.

There is a great amount of consistency among the spin-off novels. A definite attempt to keep a coherent storyline these days. That doesn't seem to be the case with the original series, with occasional exceptions. I have read numerous stories that are just incompatible with each other. I think that would go for the end of the 5 year mission.

 

[lawman]

For what it is worth, I have always taken an "open door" policy with respect to some of the different versions of the end of FYM. I don't think my approach would work at all if you are holding a candle up to any of the inconsistencies, but I'm just speaking as one individual fan...

Same here. I don't think everything fits, but a lot can. I'm inclined to treat Black Fire and the Crucible trilogy as "coloring too far outside the lines" to fit together with other accounts of the end-of-FYM period. (And as Christopher notes, "'The Alone,' Troublesome Minds, and Allegiance in Exile are all just near the end, not actually the concluding voyage" — weeks or months beforehand, in fact, along with a number of other tales — so I don't try to squeeze those in.)

I think most of the other accounts can be more-or-less "smudged together" into a semi-consistent account of the end of the FYM. As I have it in my timeline, FWIW, you have the Enterprise rescuing the Pelosians (from DTI:Forgotten History and Ex Machina) as the next-to-last mission. Then you have the mission to Archernar IV, as depicted in Mission's End from IDW (one of the relatively few non-DC comics I bother with). After that they set out for Earth, but find themselves briefly redirected to Talos IV, per "Final Voyage" from DC's Star Trek Annual #1. Then they continue the trip back, per "A Bright Particular Star" from DC's Star Trek v2 #75; in this story they're still expecting redeployment, but then learn of the planned refit and promotions. Then you get the procedural wrap-up of the Pelosian incident in Forgotten History, and Nogura's formal decision to promote Kirk, moving on into the events depicted in The Lost Years, with other crew promotions and people moving on.

That's a very rough sequence, of course; several of these stories would actually overlap a lot, but I haven't tried to do a scene-by-scene chronological breakdown. There are inevitably some inconsistencies — e.g., concerning the exact timing and circumstances of how the characters learned of the refit and promotions and made their decisions about what to do next — but nothing too radical, like (e.g.) major damage to the ship.

FWIW the first fully "post-FYM" novel on my timeline is The Captain's Daughter, set in 2271.

It's interesting to me that this period has gotten so much attention from writers, whereas the beginning of Kirk's command has been relatively neglected. (Really, the whole pre-FYM period leading up to "Where No Man" remains fairly uncrowded, a fertile period for still-untold stories.) The only real contenders for the kickoff are Enterprise: The First Adventure, which I strongly dislike and find a poor fit for continuity, and therefore ignore, and "All Those Years Ago" from DC's Star Trek Annual #1, which as far as I'm concerned is a perfectly good version of how it all started.

 

[Christopher]

My intention in Forgotten History was basically that the ship was called back right after Pelos, but on re-reading what I wrote, I suppose there could be room to cram another mission or two in there, though I'm not sure the details of the other accounts can align. As for "The Final Voyage" (which is DC Annual 2, not 1 -- that was the first voyage), it could almost fit with Forgotten History except for the last two pages, unless those pages somehow happen after the Pelos hearings and Nogura's decision to promote Kirk. Its references to the upcoming refit are a bit iffy, since FH establishes that the decision to do a full refit was made during the Pelos hearings, but the mentions in the comic are vague enough that they could've referred to a less extensive, more routine post-mission refit. I'm not sure how well it can fit with other Talos IV stories like Burning Dreams, though.

"A Bright Particular Star" seems completely irreconcilable with FH, though, since it gives a totally different explanation for the events that led to Kirk's promotion and the Enterprise's refit.

Looking over Mission's End again, I don't think it fits with FH either. For one thing, Nogura's already pushing for Kirk to accept a promotion before the mission ends, and Kirk accepts the promotion in a final scene that's explicitly just 2 days after the climax of the story, so there's no way to fit the hearings in between them. I suppose it's possible that Nogura had already considered promoting Kirk before the Pelos hearings and just used Delgado's argument as an excuse. And I suppose you could gloss over the date reference and make it 2 weeks or longer. But it's an awkward fit. And you'd have to choose between this version of "Kirk, Spock, and McCoy announce their plans and say their farewells" and the one in "The Final Voyage," since it wouldn't happen twice. I think that, once you get to the point that you have to cut out whole scenes in order to fit stories together, it's better just to let them be themselves separately.

For me, though, one thing that makes Mission's End problematical is that it explicitly accepts the premise that there was an unofficial rule against female captains during TOS. I've never wanted to accept that interpretation of Janice Lester's lines in "Turnabout Intruder," and I see no way to reconcile it with the Vanguard novels, let alone with Discovery.

I could also never get past that "Archernar IV" howler. The star's name is Achernar (pronounced "ake-er-nar"). And the Achernar/Alpha Eridani system is already established in Trek canon and the novelverse in a way that's incompatible with the system in Mission's End.

As for The Lost Years, I see that as being of a piece with the '80s continuity, since it directly continues the supporting character threads from Dillard's previous three novels and also references Dreadnought!

 

[lawman]

As for "The Final Voyage" (which is DC Annual 2, not 1 -- that was the first voyage)...

Whoops, good catch! Just a typo.

...I'm not sure how well it can fit with other Talos IV stories like Burning Dreams, though.

Hmm, good point. I haven't actually read either one in ages. Anyone else want to weigh in on this with some details, pro or con?

"A Bright Particular Star" seems completely irreconcilable with FH, though, since it gives a totally different explanation for the events that led to Kirk's promotion and the Enterprise's refit.

Looking over Mission's End again, I don't think it fits with FH either...

I would have to do a close reread of all these stories again, side-by-side, to really form a strong opinion on whether or not they're compatible, and if so how. (And if not, which version I prefer.) As much fun as that might be, it's just not in the cards any time soon!...

I suppose it's possible that Nogura had already considered promoting Kirk before the Pelos hearings and just used Delgado's argument as an excuse...

Could be. Perhaps it's just hindsight talking, but I'm kinda inclined to treat the refit, and the promotions (Kirk's especially), as more-or-less inevitable and overdetermined events. That is to say, they were bound to happen, as they were motivated by more than one reason. The exact reasons expressed and the timing of the decisions may vary from one set of characters' conversation to another, but all of this stuff must have been discussed and the options batted around by the Starfleet brass for some time in advance.

...you'd have to choose between this version of "Kirk, Spock, and McCoy announce their plans and say their farewells" and the one in "The Final Voyage," since it wouldn't happen twice.

Yeah, probably. Then again, at certain points in my life I have in fact had multiple farewell gatherings with the same set of people, so who knows?...

I think that, once you get to the point that you have to cut out whole scenes in order to fit stories together, it's better just to let them be themselves separately.

Most of the time, I'm inclined to agree. In the various timeline discussions around here, there seems to be a broad spectrum of approaches, from "if a given story doesn't fit as a whole, it doesn't fit at all; just consider it part of an alternate continuity" at one end (which seems to be your preferred approach; correct me if I'm wrong) to "pick and choose individual scenes and bits of character backstory from any and all sources, regardless of the actual stories they're situated in" at the other extreme. I suppose I take a middle ground, trying to limit my headcanon to stories that I can keep relatively intact, while remaining willing to fudge specific non-plot-critical bits of dialogue, backstory, and chronology in order to make them fit — at least to the same extent that I would for stories from actual on-screen canon, which often require massaging of the same sort in order to fit.

For me, though, one thing that makes Mission's End problematical is that it explicitly accepts the premise that there was an unofficial rule against female captains during TOS. I've never wanted to accept that interpretation of Janice Lester's lines...

Same here: I've never thought that was a plausible reading of her exchange with Kirk, which struck me as all about their personal relationship, not Starfleet policies. I don't recall taking notice of it in Mission's End, though... refresh my memory?

As for The Lost Years, I see that as being of a piece with the '80s continuity, since it directly continues the supporting character threads from Dillard's previous three novels and also references Dreadnought!

All of which I also include in my timeline, so no problem there! I dunno, maybe I just like Ingrit Tomson?...

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, probably. Then again, at certain points in my life I have in fact had multiple farewell gatherings with the same set of people, so who knows?...

But I assume those people didn't completely forget what they'd told each other the first time so that they were equally surprised by it the second time.

Most of the time, I'm inclined to agree. In the various timeline discussions around here, there seems to be a broad spectrum of approaches, from "if a given story doesn't fit as a whole, it doesn't fit at all; just consider it part of an alternate continuity" at one end (which seems to be your preferred approach; correct me if I'm wrong) to "pick and choose individual scenes and bits of character backstory from any and all sources, regardless of the actual stories they're situated in" at the other extreme. I suppose I take a middle ground, trying to limit my headcanon to stories that I can keep relatively intact, while remaining willing to fudge specific non-plot-critical bits of dialogue, backstory, and chronology in order to make them fit — at least to the same extent that I would for stories from actual on-screen canon, which often require massaging of the same sort in order to fit.

There are some slight tweaks I'm willing to make on a detail level, like glossing over date references that don't fit (I find it saves a lot of headaches if I just don't take numbers in Trek too literally). There are rare cases where I disregard a whole scene; for instance, I accept most of The Best and the Brightest by Susan Wright, but the first scene in Ch. 6 purports to be just before the Dorvan V incident from "Journey's End" but is set months too early -- and would also require the Enterprise to make a whole trip back to Earth between Nechayev's scene with Picard and their arrival at Dorvan V, which makes no sense. Fortunately, it has no impact on the rest of the narrative, so I just skip those few pages.

The most extreme case is Pathways. I only accept one chapter of that book, the Kes backstory flashback. Since Kes was written out before Jeri Taylor left as showrunner, hers is the one backstory chapter that was never contradicted by later episodes. For another character, I might not even bother, but Kes was my favorite character and she never got enough development on the show, so I'm glad for whatever I can get.

Same here: I've never thought that was a plausible reading of her exchange with Kirk, which struck me as all about their personal relationship, not Starfleet policies. I don't recall taking notice of it in Mission's End, though... refresh my memory?

It's a little confusing, really... There's a guest character/Kirk love interest called Captain (later Ambassador) Cassady, but she's "just a survey captain," whatever that means, and she's envious of Kirk for getting to be a starship captain. At the end, he passes up a chance to get romantic with her because he's nominated her for a pilot program to revoke the "unofficial restrictions" on female starship captains, and he doesn't want anyone to think she didn't earn it legitimately.

All of which I also include in my timeline, so no problem there! I dunno, maybe I just like Ingrit Tomson?...

As I've said before, continuity isn't a matter of liking or disliking, since one made-up reality is just as valid as another. I just like keeping the '80s continuity intact as its own distinctive, pre-TNG take on the Trek universe. Maybe it's the historian in me, wanting an unsullied record of what ST looked like back when there was nothing to build on but the original-cast productions. Although it's also that it's just so different and I like to see it as an independent whole. The last book I held out on was Uhura's Song, which I kept in my "Prime" continuity because I like it so much, even though I had to tweak or rewrite certain details to keep it there. But eventually I realized it belonged with the other '80s books (notably in that it reused a character from The Entropy Effect), that it should be allowed to be part of its original context rather than forced into a different one. If we're talking about likes, I like it that the '80s continuity is its own distinct thing, that it offers a different perspective on the Trek universe and a different approach to the storytelling.

 

[lawman]

The most extreme case is Pathways. ...Kes was my favorite character and she never got enough development on the show, so I'm glad for whatever I can get.

Huh, mine too. Total agreement. I've never understood why Kes gets so little respect from VOY fans.

It's a little confusing, really... There's a guest character/Kirk love interest called Captain (later Ambassador) Cassady, but she's "just a survey captain," whatever that means, and she's envious of Kirk for getting to be a starship captain. At the end, he passes up a chance to get romantic with her because he's nominated her for a pilot program to revoke the "unofficial restrictions" on female starship captains, and he doesn't want anyone to think she didn't earn it legitimately.

Thanks. Sounds to me like a story beat that can hold up even without taking the "restrictions" bit at face value... easy enough to suppose that she just fell off the top-level command track at some point, for whatever reason, and he gave her a career boost with a referral to a program that put her back on it.

I just like keeping the '80s continuity intact as its own distinctive, pre-TNG take on the Trek universe. Maybe it's the historian in me, wanting an unsullied record of what ST looked like back when there was nothing to build on but the original-cast productions. Although it's also that it's just so different and I like to see it as an independent whole. ... I like it that the '80s continuity is its own distinct thing, that it offers a different perspective on the Trek universe and a different approach to the storytelling.

Sure, understood and fair enough. There are no iron-clad rules about this sort of thing. I prefer to keep most of it integrated into the overall continuity, probably because I don't really see it as "so different." Certainly I see less of a clean break. After all, most of the novels published in those years (1981 up to, say, the mid '90s) already postdated (and hence were consistent with) all of TOS and some or all of the original-crew movies, and often most of TNG as well. There's not much that they could explicitly contradict except later 24th-century events, which isn't really all that commonplace for stories set in the 23rd. To my eye, most of them fit.

(Honestly, most of them fit better than some of the early run of TNG-era novels, which had a much greater risk of running afoul of later-established bits of contemporary continuity from the shows they were based on, as for instance with your Pathways example. But I'd be the first to admit that I don't really give a fig about pre-litverse-vintage TNG novels, and I'd cheerfully disregard all of them if need be; it's the TOS stuff that's of greater interest to me. There's just a lot more canonical material in the 24th-century period, compared to the 23rd — certainly until post-DS9, at least — so I suppose I feel less of a need to "flesh it out" with licensed fiction.)

 

[Damian]

But I assume those people didn't completely forget what they'd told each other the first time so that they were equally surprised by it the second time.




There are some slight tweaks I'm willing to make on a detail level, like glossing over date references that don't fit (I find it saves a lot of headaches if I just don't take numbers in Trek too literally). There are rare cases where I disregard a whole scene; for instance, I accept most of The Best and the Brightest by Susan Wright, but the first scene in Ch. 6 purports to be just before the Dorvan V incident from "Journey's End" but is set months too early -- and would also require the Enterprise to make a whole trip back to Earth between Nechayev's scene with Picard and their arrival at Dorvan V, which makes no sense. Fortunately, it has no impact on the rest of the narrative, so I just skip those few pages.

The most extreme case is Pathways. I only accept one chapter of that book, the Kes backstory flashback. Since Kes was written out before Jeri Taylor left as showrunner, hers is the one backstory chapter that was never contradicted by later episodes. For another character, I might not even bother, but Kes was my favorite character and she never got enough development on the show, so I'm glad for whatever I can get.




It's a little confusing, really... There's a guest character/Kirk love interest called Captain (later Ambassador) Cassady, but she's "just a survey captain," whatever that means, and she's envious of Kirk for getting to be a starship captain. At the end, he passes up a chance to get romantic with her because he's nominated her for a pilot program to revoke the "unofficial restrictions" on female starship captains, and he doesn't want anyone to think she didn't earn it legitimately.




As I've said before, continuity isn't a matter of liking or disliking, since one made-up reality is just as valid as another. I just like keeping the '80s continuity intact as its own distinctive, pre-TNG take on the Trek universe. Maybe it's the historian in me, wanting an unsullied record of what ST looked like back when there was nothing to build on but the original-cast productions. Although it's also that it's just so different and I like to see it as an independent whole. The last book I held out on was Uhura's Song, which I kept in my "Prime" continuity because I like it so much, even though I had to tweak or rewrite certain details to keep it there. But eventually I realized it belonged with the other '80s books (notably in that it reused a character from The Entropy Effect), that it should be allowed to be part of its original context rather than forced into a different one. If we're talking about likes, I like it that the '80s continuity is its own distinct thing, that it offers a different perspective on the Trek universe and a different approach to the storytelling.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. It's futile to try to come up with a coherent timeline including all the books dating back to the 80's. Some of it just can't be reconciled together. But taking the continuity of the 80's (and maybe early 90's books) and later books as separate, it's a little easier to make it all work (not perfect of course--but the pieces fit together better). And as you noted productions starting with TNG started to create a somewhat different vision then what came before (it's still all based on Star Trek--but the interpretations started to change and the novels started reflecting that change in vision in the 90s). I kind of like looking at the Star Trek universe that way--I was always a bit frustrated at all the contradictions in the earlier novels compared to the novels since about 2000 say. But looking at it at a pre-TNG viewpoint and post-TNG gives it a different perspective.

One can even place events in different timelines, if you will. There is a basis for that canon even, with TNG episode "Parallels" (there are other examples of course--but that's one of the best examples of an in-canon explanation of the multiverse).

On a side note--I do agree also about Kes. She is sort of the forgotten character of Voyager. I always loved hearing her speak too, she had such a soothing, peaceful sounding voice.

 

[Christopher]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. It's futile to try to come up with a coherent timeline including all the books dating back to the 80's. Some of it just can't be reconciled together. But taking the continuity of the 80's (and maybe early 90's books) and later books as separate, it's a little easier to make it all work (not perfect of course--but the pieces fit together better). And as you noted productions starting with TNG started to create a somewhat different vision then what came before (it's still all based on Star Trek--but the interpretations started to change and the novels started reflecting that change in vision in the 90s). I kind of like looking at the Star Trek universe that way--I was always a bit frustrated at all the contradictions in the earlier novels compared to the novels since about 2000 say. But looking at it at a pre-TNG viewpoint and post-TNG gives it a different perspective.

It seems to me that it's hard not to. TNG and the later shows fleshed out so much of what had been a pretty vaguely defined universe before. Pre-TNG, there was so much open space in the universe that writers could fill in anything they wanted about the history of the Federation, the culture of the Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans, and so forth. But the post-1987 shows and movies systematically filled in so much more and established one "true" version that was different from the various conjectures that had preceded it. So post-TNG Trek Lit is a very different beast. There's still plenty of room to create within the gaps in canon -- like I've been lucky to get to do with so many of my books -- but there's also much more established canon to build on and stay consistent with. It's like... TOS was a frontier town in a vast uncharted wilderness, while modern Trek is a network of large cities and elaborate infrastructure.

One can even place events in different timelines, if you will. There is a basis for that canon even, with TNG episode "Parallels" (there are other examples of course--but that's one of the best examples of an in-canon explanation of the multiverse).

That's a justification I'm only occasionally willing to use, because it doesn't work for every inconsistency. Logically, an alternate timeline would still have the same laws of physics, the same evolutionary history for the various species, the same stars and planets in the same places, the same overall chronology of when events happened and people were born, etc. There are a lot of books that just interpret things too differently to be plausible as alternate timelines. Of course, that doesn't stop DC and Marvel and the like from using alternate timelines as an excuse for all sorts of random changes, but I hold Star Trek to a higher standard of credibility (though it gets increasingly hard to do so when more and more film and TV producers approach it as fantasy).

On a side note--I do agree also about Kes. She is sort of the forgotten character of Voyager. I always loved hearing her speak too, she had such a soothing, peaceful sounding voice.

Jennifer Lien had a promising career in animation voice work for a few years during and after VGR. Her most prominent role was Agent L in the first three seasons of Men in Black: The Series, a coolly sexy character that let her do amazing things with that voice of hers. She was also Dr. Fate's wife Inza in Superman: The Animated Series. Unfortunately, her personal issues put an end to her career before long.

 

[Damian]

It seems to me that it's hard not to. TNG and the later shows fleshed out so much of what had been a pretty vaguely defined universe before. Pre-TNG, there was so much open space in the universe that writers could fill in anything they wanted about the history of the Federation, the culture of the Klingons and Romulans and Vulcans, and so forth.

I became a Trekkie just before TNG started (around the time TVH came out) so that probably altered my perspective a bit. I was watching the original series as I started watching TNG.

I agree the multiverse idea shouldn't be used for every inconsistency. I think it's better used for larger plot inconsistencies--macro-inconsistencies if you will--like how the 5 year mission ended. Some of the inconsistencies can be reconciled with minor adjustments to stories and then taken together. Others are just too divergent to put together (the Lost Years vs. later stories for example). That may be an area that you can attribute a multi-verse theory too--mainly to stories that are so different that it's almost impossible to tie them together during significant events, like the end of the 5 year mission. The comic books usually run on their own timeline (with some exceptions), so those can be considered their own unique universe (though there's certainly nothing stopping readers from trying to tie those in as well). I'm not much of a comic book reader, so I don't really follow those storylines, making it easier for me in a way.

 

[Christopher]

I think there's an odd tendency among fans today to treat "universes" as somehow a more primary concept than just stories. Every different adaptation or variation on a fictional franchise has to be classified as a "real" alternate reality within that franchise's multiverse. I think that's getting it backward. Ultimately these are all just make-believe stories. Alternate universes are a useful plot device within certain stories, but they're not bigger or more fundamental than the fiction itself. Different stories are just different stories. Whether they're treated as part of the same universe or as facets of the same multiverse is a function of whether there's a reason to do so within a given story. I don't have a problem with treating different interpretations of a fictional concept as just different interpretations. I don't need to believe that the Adam West Batman exists in a parallel universe from the Christian Bale Batman. They're just different ways of telling stories about the same imaginary character. So by the same token, I don't feel the need to use the "alternate timeline" excuse for all the different Trek tie-in continuities out there. I only use it for stories that would fit into my primary continuity except for one or two minor inconsistencies. And generally I only do it for stories that can fit into the same alternate timeline, as a creative exercise in building a larger alternate reality, rather than just treating each inconsistent novel or comic or whatever as a separate timeline. The latter would just be way too messy, but it's an interesting exercise to try to establish one or two significant continuing alternate histories.