Star Trek Into Darkness by Alan Dean Foster

[JD]

The Star Trek official website announced earlier today that Alan Dean Foster will be writing Gallery Books' hardcover novelization of the new movie.

[Therin of Andor]

JD wrote:

---

The Star Trek official website announced earlier today that Alan Dean Foster will be writing Gallery Books' hardcover novelization of the new movie.

So he's not holding a grudge about his original ST novel, based on the events of the last movie, still being on hold.

[King Daniel]

Gallery books, NOT Pocket books. It looks like Bad Robot are still keeping the Pocket branch of Simon and Schuster in the cold after whatever-it-was that led to the cancellation of the nuTrek novels in 2010. I wonder what happened?

[Christopher]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Gallery books, NOT Pocket books. It looks like Bad Robot are still keeping the Pocket branch of Simon and Schuster in the cold after whatever-it-was that led to the cancellation of the nuTrek novels in 2010. I wonder what happened?

That's a false distinction. All Trek trade paperbacks have been under the Gallery Books imprint since Seven Deadly Sins (the two most recent Corps of Engineers trades also bear that imprint). It's because of a bit of streamlining within the company; Pocket's trade paperback/hardcover division was merged with the Simon Spotlight Entertainment imprint and renamed Gallery. So everything in trade or hardcover that would've had the Pocket label (or the SSE label) before 2009 would have the Gallery label now, that's all. It's just a slight organizational/branding change. Different imprints don't necessarily represent a meaningful difference in who's handling or editing the books; for instance, my Marvel novels were published under the Pocket Star imprint rather than Pocket, but Marco Palmieri still edited them.

[King Daniel]

^Understood. My mistake, and thank you.

[shanejayell]

I wasn't terribly impressed with the first movie novel, so... eh.

[Greg Cox]

Christopher wrote:

---

Different imprints don't necessarily represent a meaningful difference in who's handling or editing the books; for instance, my Marvel novels were published under the Pocket Star imprint rather than Pocket, but Marco Palmieri still edited them.

Ditto at Tom Doherty Associates, where the same staff and editors put out books under the Tor, Forge, Orb, and Starscape imprints. What colophon goes on the spine is often just a matter of marketing.

Tor is sf and fantasy. Forge is mainstream thrillers, historical novels, mysteries, and such. Orb is trade paperback reprints of backlist titles. Starscape is aimed at the young-adult market. I've edited books under all four imprints . . .

True story: Forge was invented simply because bookstore clerks were automatically shelving all Tor titles in the SF section regardless of content. And newspapers were handing off Tor books to the SF reviewers, even if if they were actually spy thrillers or historical romances. Tor had become so associated with SF/fantasy that we realized we needed to put another name on the spines of our mainstream books just so they wouldn't be mistaken for SF.

And "Forge" was born.

But it was still the same people working in the same offices.

[thranx]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

So he's not holding a grudge about his original ST novel, based on the events of the last movie, still being on hold.

Nope. My only regret is that fans haven't (yet, he said hopefully) been able to read it.

[Therin of Andor]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Gallery books, NOT Pocket books. It looks like Bad Robot are still keeping the Pocket branch of Simon and Schuster in the cold after whatever-it-was that led to the cancellation of the nuTrek novels in 2010. I wonder what happened?

No, since the last restructure at Pocket, all the hardcovers and trades come out under the Gallery imprint, the MMPBs are Pocket and the YA lines are Simon Spotlight. Nothing sinister there.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

True story: Forge was invented simply because bookstore clerks were automatically shelving all Tor titles in the SF section regardless of content.

Similarly, it seems like the ST YA line lessens the cover/spine/title page credit for each author to encourage bookshops to shelve them under "S" for "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" rather than each author's surname, since some bookshops now have very large sections devoted to Teen Horror/Romance and these are often alphabetical by author.

[Greg Cox]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

Similarly, it seems like the ST YA line lessens the cover/spine/title page credit for each author to encourage bookshops to shelve them under "S" for "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy" rather than each author's surname, since some bookshops now have very large sections devoted to Teen Horror/Romance and these are often alphabetical by author.

Another example: the ALIAS novels only had "Abrams" on the spine in the hopes that the books would be shelved together.

That's not so much an issue with adult Trek, where bookstores have well-established Trek shelves, but if you're launching a new tie-in series, you don't want them scattered all over the shelves, alphabetical by author . . . .

[Valin]

^I thought that J.J. Abrams was your pen name.

[Greg Cox]

Valin wrote:

---

^I thought that J.J. Abrams was your pen name.

I wish!

[Timewalker]

thranx wrote:

---

Nope. My only regret is that fans haven't (yet, he said hopefully) been able to read it.

Would I be correct in thinking that Alan Dean Foster himself has joined the conversation?

[Ktrek]

thranx wrote:

---

Nope. My only regret is that fans haven't (yet, he said hopefully) been able to read it.

It's our regret also! It upsets me whenever I think about the several planned and finished novels sitting there and not being enjoyed by us fans. I think it stinks that Pocket was made to comply even if I do understand Abrams reasons.

Kevin

[Therin of Andor]

Timewalker wrote:

---

Would I be correct in thinking that Alan Dean Foster himself has joined the conversation?

Hahaha!

Never noticed that. Yes, if you look at the only other comment by thranx, October 26 2009, 04:27 PM, it's his comment to me about saving "Bem" and "The Slaver Weapon" till last, for novelizing as "Star Trek Logs", because they were episodes written by SF writers!

Welcome back ADF (aka thranx) and well spotted Timewalker!

Ktrek wrote:

---

I think it stinks that Pocket was made to comply even if I do understand Abrams reasons.

A different large group would say exactly the same if the books came out and were overruled by the next movie.