New Trek Descriptions in PB Spring '09 Catalog Desiny/Post De Spoilers

[William Leisner]

OmahaStar wrote:

---

You knew they weren't accurate, you said so in your original post, yet you re-posted them to Memory Beta anyway?

You say that as if wikis had standards...

[HIj'Qa]

Emh wrote:

---

Damn, I hope the Treason blurb is completely off. Another three-year jump seems completely unnecessary.

PAD said Teason follows immediately after the IDW comic Turnaround, which follows Missing In Action.

So it is the same three year jump all over again

[Baerbel Haddrell]

I am very much aware of it that also these descriptions are preliminary and subject to change but nevertheless, I find them very interesting to read. Therefore, thank you for posting them!

It seems in the age of the Internet these descriptions leak out one way or the other. Also, these preliminary descriptions are often used at Amazon and probably not only there without telling anybody that they are not the final version. I think keeping that in mind it is a good idea to post them here too where people can see what description is the right one at the end and how reliable and accurate the preliminary ones actually are.

On top of that, me personally, I like speculating and find it interesting to compare later between the final version and the early one.

I don`t know if that would help but why not start each description in this catalogue with something like “This is a preliminary description and subject to change”. When these catalogues and individual texts start circulating there is a better chance that this information is distributed with the text and not lost. I think it would also help when writing these texts to think about it not only how attractive it is to booksellers but also already to fans who buy them.

Looking at these preliminary texts, the ones I don`t find appealing are for “Full Circle” and “Treason”. As some people already said, I am also not in favour of another jump forward in time. I also don`t find the topic of what is going on in the Thallonian Protectorate after Si Cwan`s murder that interesting. I already felt that way when reading the comic “Turnaround”. Although Robin Lefler improved she is still one of my least favourite characters in NF.

But the description for “A Singular Destiny” is already making me very curious and I am now even more looking forward to that book. I wonder what species Sonek Pran is. It sounds Bajoran to me.

[BrotherBenny]

Sounds like a Vulcan-Bajoran hybrid to me.

[OmahaStar]

HIj'Qa wrote:

---

PAD said Teason follows immediately after the IDW comic Turnaround, which follows Missing In Action.

I would say some of it must take place in Boston, and there are parties involved ... And the Earl of Grey makes a cameo.

[Christopher]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

I don`t know if that would help but why not start each description in this catalogue with something like “This is a preliminary description and subject to change”.

Because the people that the catalog is meant to be read by already know that -- and so should any reader who's ever read one of those descriptions and then found the final book to be different from what it claimed. And because it would be annoying and redundant to put the same disclaimer at the start of every one of the dozens and dozens of entries in the catalog.

Ultimately, it's caveat emptor. Individuals should be capable of applying skepticism as a matter of course, without needing constant disclaimers to remind them of what should be common sense. People who just uncritically swallow what they hear have only themselves to blame when they get it wrong.

Looking at these preliminary texts, the ones I don`t find appealing are for “Full Circle” and “Treason”.

Which are also apparently the most inaccurate descriptions of those listed.

[captcalhoun]

what i don't understand is, why create a catalogue of new product for potential customers (the retailers) and then fill it full of inaccurate crap?

[KRAD]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

I wonder what species Sonek Pran is. It sounds Bajoran to me.

Xeris wrote:

---

Sounds like a Vulcan-Bajoran hybrid to me.

[Marco Palmieri]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

what i don't understand is, why create a catalogue of new product for potential customers (the retailers) and then fill it full of inaccurate crap?

Because bookvendors need the solicitation process to begin as early as possible, and publishers can't always offer final information that far in advance for every project on the schedule. For many books, they can and do provide accurate info. For others, it's not always possible. So they simply do the best they can at the time when solicitation info is due.

This is especially true for media tie-in lines like Star Trek, which can be impacted negatively by planning too far ahead.

[William Leisner]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

what i don't understand is, why create a catalogue of new product for potential customers (the retailers) and then fill it full of inaccurate crap?

Because they are not the end customers. They don't give a flying fuck if Treason is set three years in the future or three years in the past or 373 years ahead in a parallel timeline. All they care is, Does this sound like something my customers are going to want?

Plus, what Marco said.

[Baerbel Haddrell]

Christopher wrote:

---

Because the people that the catalog is meant to be read by already know that -- and so should any reader who's ever read one of those descriptions and then found the final book to be different from what it claimed. And because it would be annoying and redundant to put the same disclaimer at the start of every one of the dozens and dozens of entries in the catalog.

Ultimately, it's caveat emptor. Individuals should be capable of applying skepticism as a matter of course, without needing constant disclaimers to remind them of what should be common sense. People who just uncritically swallow what they hear have only themselves to blame when they get it wrong.

The problem is, when people look at descriptions for example at Amazon they read the text and it does not even occur to them that this is not necessarily the final version. Without reading the Trek BBS and Psi Phi, I wouldn`t even know that such catalogues exist.

Yes, of course, you can see the real version after you bought the book. But I think you should not underestimate how important first impressions can be. An interesting, appealing cover is no less important than a backcover description that grabs people`s attention. I pre-order most of my books on the Internet instead of waiting until I can read the real back cover text in a bookshop before buying it.

[William Leisner]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

The problem is, when people look at descriptions for example at Amazon

How is that a problem when it's not an Amazon description?

[Defcon]

William Leisner wrote:

---

How is that a problem when it's not an Amazon description?

Because Amazon tends to post false/outdated informations (placeholder/early covers etc.) and never change it after more accurate informations are available? I can't really say if they ever have posted things from the catalogs since I don't tend to read either, but it certainly is something I think they would do.

[Christopher]

Baerbel Haddrell wrote:

---

The problem is, when people look at descriptions for example at Amazon they read the text and it does not even occur to them that this is not necessarily the final version. Without reading the Trek BBS and Psi Phi, I wouldn`t even know that such catalogues exist.

That doesn't change a thing. Caveat emptor is an idea that's been around for millennia, which you can tell from the fact that it's in Latin. It applies in every transaction. Consumers should have the sense to be skeptical of everything they're considering spending money on, regardless of what it is. That's just a basic, universal principle of life.

Besides, anyone who's used Amazon.com for any length of time should already know better than to trust it.

[OmahaStar]

Christopher wrote:

---

Consumers should have the sense to be skeptical of everything they're considering spending money on, regardless of what it is. That's just a basic, universal principle of life.

Besides, anyone who's used Amazon.com for any length of time should already know better than to trust it.

Even you should know better than that. Oh, I forgot who I was talking to.