Destiny trilogy - speculations

[Therin of Andor]

Defcon wrote:

---

That doesn't change the fact that we were talking about the casual reader in the book shop, when you came in with your media hype and mentioned the magazines as part of the hype.

So you reckon a person turned off by a blurb will never be influenced to have a go at it anyway if/when they hear a book is good?

Please explain what Pocket can do to create media hype? They can't really. If a ST book causes controversy, they'll get their hype.

I didn't realise it was a private conversation that allowed no deviations whatsoever. I still say that a casual browser originally turned off by a blurb can be convinced otherwise by word of mouth. The problem is, where do your never-read-ST-mags browsers plan to be to hear any hype?

What will reach them?

No, because it is a bad thing to maybe bring in new people who could become regular readers. Just lets try to keep the same cadre of people over years and decades, it's not as if they could become older, get tired of the books or die sometime down the road.

So tell Pocket Books they're doing it all wrong, not me. And offer them some useful solutions. I can't do anything to help, except spreading my own word-of-mouth about the ST novels I read.

I'd always support attempts to bring in new ST readers. As ST: TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" proved, what brings new readers to the ST fiction is a well-hyped, successful ST movie. Pocket will just go with the flow. Roll on JJ's "Star Trek".

I never bought a ST magazine in my life, and the last Sci-Fi magazine I bought was more than five years ago.

When did I saw they bought the magazines? I was actually responding to your comment that you deliberately avoided buying Dreamwatch imports, but still looked at it every now and then. I talked about ST fans reading the extracts and articles about ST books in ST mags, not buying them.

ST books discussed in ST mags will still reach the casual ST browser, even if they don't buy the magazine.

Normal promotions and press releases don't equal media hype in my opinion.

Then where does this hype come from? The reporters have to start somewhere.

[Defcon]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

So you reckon a person turned off by a blurb will never be influenced to have a go at it anyway if/when they hear a book is good?

No, all I say that it is unlikely that they will even see the "hype" in the Star Trek magazine. Not more.

Please explain what Pocket can do to create media hype? They can't really.

Again I have to ask you if you have read my post above, where I wrote:

And Pocket Books has little influence on the chance if their promotions/press releases/ etc. will lead to a media hype or not.

I didn't realise it was a private conversation that allowed no deviations whatsoever.

Stop quoting (part of) posts you don't really want to talk about, just post what you want to say and everythings fine.

I still say that a casual browser originally turned off by a blurb can be convinced otherwise by word of mouth.

And I agree, all I disagree on is your opinion that there is some kind of media hype that will reach them. It is far more likely that they buy the book after maybe one of their friends has read it and recommends it.

So tell Pocket Books they're doing it all wrong, not me. And offer them some useful solutions. I can't do anything to help, except spreading my own word-of-mouth about the ST novels I read.

I'd always support attempts to bring in new ST readers. As ST: TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" proved, what brings new readers to the ST fiction is a well-hyped, successful ST movie. Pocket will just go with the flow. Roll on JJ's "Star Trek".

Again all I'm disagreeing about is that there will be any special media hype for the books. They may or may not profit from the hype that will likely surround the new movie if it isn't a total failure, but that's only a side effect and not really something you could consider media hype for the books. I doubt the books will be mentioned when there are article about the movie in the regular magazines/newspapers.

When did I saw they bought the magazines? I was actually responding to your comment that you deliberately avoided buying Dreamwatch imports, but still looked at it every now and then. I talked about ST fans reading the extracts and articles about ST books in ST mags, not buying them.

ST books discussed in ST mags will still reach the casual ST browser, even if they don't buy the magazine.

O.K., you have a point there.

Then where does this hype come from? The reporters have to start somewhere.

All I doubt is that any reporters who aren't working for a ST related media will do something with it to create your media hype.

[Therin of Andor]

Defcon wrote:

---

Stop quoting (part of) posts you don't really want to talk about, just post what you want to say and everythings fine.

Huh? Again, I do not comprehend. I thought it was bad netiqette to quote a whole post. (You said, "we were talking about the casual reader in the book shop, when you came in..." which makes me feel like I was somehow intruding on a private conversation.)

If I quote part of a post, it's simply to indicate what particular part of your post I'm addressing. Is that the wrong thing to do? Since when?

All I doubt is that any reporters who aren't working for a ST related media will do something with it to create your media hype.

Reporters use official media releases all the time, often as research for a current story, or to instigate an article. So, for example, Harlan Ellison goes on a bender about "Crucible", and any reporter writing that article is given the media release about "Crucible: McCoy" to back up his story. Or, a scientist creates a cybernetic hand and a media release about the latest Borg novel is handed to the reporter. Doesn't mean he'll use it, though.

How might "Destiny" trilogy make into the mainstream media? I dunno, i guess David Mack has to ensure he kills off a few really popular ST regulars in each volume.

[danjamesb]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

As ST: TMP, ST IV and "First Contact" proved, what brings new readers to the ST fiction is a well-hyped, successful ST movie. Pocket will just go with the flow. Roll on JJ's "Star Trek".

Fair enough, but with the novels as they are now, will the same really happen with "JJ's Star Trek"?

[Defcon]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Huh? Again, I do not comprehend. I thought it was bad netiqette to quote a whole post.

If I quote part of a post, it's simply to indicate what particular part of your post I'm addressing. Is that the wrong thing to do? Since when?

a) You yourself have said above you weren't talking about the people mentioned in the quote by TrekkieBez you used. All im saying is that you should stop quoting things you don't really want to talk about and just post what you want to say without adding a quote barely related or totally unrealted to what you're saying. That way the chances are reduced that people assume you are talking about what you're quoting and the chances of debates like this one are minimized.

b) I only added the (part of) because I have seen you doing it with both full quotes and partial quotes here and over at psiphi. Actually one of those cases led to your cute little disclaimer IIRC.

[Baerbel Haddrell]

Can people who are able to go to Shore Leave to me one big favour? Please ask if the Amazon blurbs are accurate or for the most part accurate. And if whoever is authorized is still not willing to answer this question, I would like to know why.

Controversy sells books but it depends on the controversy. I think this speculation about the available blurbs is not doing anybody any favours – not the fans and not Pocket Books. It would have been different if these blurbs were well written and if they really had a “wow” factor. But they don`t, the contrary. Well, at least to me.

I am not David Mack but I can imagine that the idea that he has to ensure he kills off a few really popular ST regulars in each volume in order to get into the mainstream media is definitely not a compliment, to put it mildly. I know that David Mack can write good action stories but he is not limited to that. And the idea that killing off popular characters means getting the kind of attention – wow, I want to read that! – is under estimating us readers. I don`t want to read such books and such publicity would do much more harm than good.

[LightningStorm]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

...the idea that he has to ensure he kills off a few really popular ST regulars in each volume...

Where'd you get this idea? I've seen nothing in anything (not even any of the outdated blurbs) that says (or even hints at) anything about killing off main or popular characters. In fact the blurbs to date insinuate he's resurrecting one, not killing one.

[Christopher]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

Can people who are able to go to Shore Leave to me one big favour? Please ask if the Amazon blurbs are accurate or for the most part accurate. And if whoever is authorized is still not willing to answer this question, I would like to know why.

It's probable that official information will be released at or shortly after Shore Leave. The reason why nobody's answered the question yet is that it's preferred to save such answers until the proper time for official announcements, and Shore Leave itself is always the big event for new book announcements. Also because it takes time to tweak and refine things like blurbs and covers, so they often go through changes, and just as a general rule, people don't like to release things that aren't ready to be released. (Would you want your date to see you while you're still half an hour away from being ready?) That's all there is to it.

Unfortunately, Pocket can't prevent Amazon from posting premature or inaccurate information, and the Internet makes it too easy for the general public to get hold of advance catalogues that are meant for retailers and are full of placeholder or rough content that's not ready for prime time.

[Defcon]

LightningStorm wrote:

---

Where'd you get this idea? I've seen nothing in anything (not even any of the outdated blurbs) that says (or even hints at) anything about killing off main or popular characters. In fact the blurbs to date insinuate he's resurrecting one, not killing one.

I think she is refering to one of Therin's comment above.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

LightningStorm wrote:

---

Where'd you get this idea? I've seen nothing in anything (not even any of the outdated blurbs) that says (or even hints at) anything about killing off main or popular characters. In fact the blurbs to date insinuate he's resurrecting one, not killing one.

I remember the first few times I heard about Destiny, it was supposedly going to be something like the Crisis on Infinite Earths of Trek: it would basically toss all current novel series into a blender, mix it up, then spit it back out again in a completely new fashion - it would affect all, and perhaps even *end* all, current series, and begin something totally new.

I find myself hoping this isn't the case.

[Christopher]

Babaganoosh wrote:

---

I remember the first few times I heard about Destiny, it was supposedly going to be something like the Crisis on Infinite Earths of Trek: it would basically toss all current novel series into a blender, mix it up, then spit it back out again in a completely new fashion - it would affect all, and perhaps even *end* all, current series, and begin something totally new.

I don't know where you could've gotten that impression, but it certainly didn't come from the authors and editors. All that was stated was that it would shake up the Trek universe as we know it; if you heard anything about a DC-style continuity reboot, you must've heard it from a fan who was speculating way beyond the evidence. It just goes to show how easy it is to read huge amounts of stuff into small amounts of information.

I find myself hoping this isn't the case.

Why are you hoping when you should already know? It's been announced that there's a new Titan novel and a new Voyager novel coming out in the months following Destiny, so clearly all current series are not being ended. Definitely affected, but not ended.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I definitely hope that the one rumor I heard, does not turn out to be true:

that Destiny will destroy the Earth

[David Mack]

Lots of rumors, few if any facts. I'll simply say again what I've said all along:

None of you have any idea what's coming in the Destiny trilogy.

[Trent Roman]

It's worth noting that change doesn't necessarily equal destruction. Speculating with no basis whatsoever, one could imagine a scenario wherein the Borg armada said, by the blurbs, to be assaulting the Federation is cut off from the Hive, or perhaps even the Hive is wided out entirely. That leaves a massive population of suddenly re-individualized people within or right on the Federation's doorstep. What do you do with them? Where do you find the resources to help them acclimatize themselves to a life without the collective? What factions and ideologies might emerge from within the morass. Can even a society the size of the Federation accomodate such a massive influx of immigrants from untold number of species and cultures? Something like that might even be more in keeping with Trek's tradition of optimism and (social) self-exploration than Star Wars-style mass destruction.

Not saying that any of the above will happen, of course; just hypothesizing in the dark like everybody else. But I just wanted to make the point that change, even radical change, can be accomplished via addition as well as substraction.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

EDIT: Come to think of it, I know of a better example: the appearance of the Eav'oq at the Gamma Quadrant terminal of the wormhole. The line has yet to pick up on the storyline, but it obviously plunks down a new player in very close proximity to DS9 and Bajor.

[Therin of Andor]

Defcon wrote:

---

You yourself have said above you weren't talking about the people mentioned in the quote by TrekkieBez you used. All im saying is that you should stop quoting things you don't really want to talk about and just post what you want to say without adding a quote barely related or totally unrealted to what you're saying.

As far as I was concerned, it was a related comment. But you read my comment as being strictly specific to one or two words in a whole sentence. The sentiment of my original post stays: People who read blurbs and then reject the book aren't worth going after. My point was that people who previously rejected a book because of a blurb may well come back to a book after hearing positive word of mouth (or indeed "media hype", of some kind). But, if they are not members of a ST club, readers of ST magazines, or frequenters of ST bbs's, then they'll probably never get that message. Pocket Books can't waste money going after them.

So why are we even talking about these people? Is the point that Pocket Books must write better blurbs?

I have seen you doing it with both full quotes and partial quotes here and over at psiphi.

Pardon me for not posting to your personal high standards.