Charles Phipps wrote:
A tough question but I was reading "The Eternal Tide" and was thinking about a tough question--how much is too much change from the status quo? What is the "line" for you guys in terms of altering the setting?
Obviously, we've had some really big changes to the SQ but other people think the destruction of the Borg was a bad thing. Others still love the return of fan-favorite characters while others believe death should remain sacred.
Is it a "as long as it's done well" for you or do you like seeing the novels shake it up?
I'm definitley of the "as long as its done well" opinion. I never used to like trek books, because there was no growth or real character/plot development, as it had to reset at the end of the book so as not to contradict the tv shows.
Thats one of the reasons I liked New Frontier when it came out, it was a new setting so stuff could actually happen, characters could grow, there could be an ongoing narrative, etc.
I like the modern trek novels because
they change the status quo.