Frustrations with Trek lit...

[Overgeeked]

In the last few months I've tried and tried to enjoy different Star Trek novels, but I keep running into a few problems that just stop me cold. I know some writers frequent the board, maybe even an editor or two, so I'm hoping I can communicate this without it sounding like it's an attack or a shit post. I'm not naming writers or individual books that I don't like, that would be counter productive and lead to pointless arguments about taste. Maybe those more well-versed in Trek lit can help me out...

1. I want stand alone books, not continuity porn. Just once in awhile, maybe...please? Not every book needs to be part of a duology, trilogy, or push some tiny piece of the ever evolving meta-plot. Just gimme a novel I can pick up and enjoy that doesn't require reading a dozen other novels (or summaries) first just to know what the hell is going on.

And please, the terribly done info-dumps at the start of a given book just have to go. If you start in a scene and stop all forward momentum (dialogue, description, action, narration, etc.) to drop in an info-dump to explain the meta-plot, you're doing it wrong.

The vast majority of Trek stories on screen are stand-alone stories, give us more novels like that. You know, more stories that actually feel like a Star Trek episode, which really is...

2. I want something that feels like an expanded episode, not something wildly different than 99% of Star Trek that happens to occupy the same universe and use some familiar character names. Yes, I know it's a mandate from the publisher to do bigger, broader, and more far-reaching stories than could possibly have fitted into an hour or two of television, but that's missing the bloody point. I'm reading Trek tie-in novels because I want to get more of what I've seen on screen. I want Trek tie-in novels to feel like longer versions of episodes I've watched and loved. And yes, I know a done-in-one 45-minute episode doesn't have enough story to fill a novel, but a two- or three-part story could.

Just look at the Star Wars and Doctor Who tie-in novels. They feel like a story from their respective franchises. Why? Because they actively emulate their source franchises. But most Trek tie-in novels don't feel like Star Trek because they actively askew the feel of the franchise. Gimme a novel-length planet of the week story any day over the sprawl of multiple planets, multiple crews, multiple eras, and multiple timelines that's dominated most of the novel lines, which is really...

3. I want something that's not trying so damned hard to be EPIC!!! Really, I get it. We all love the franchise and when a writer gets their hands on a beloved franchise like this they want to really blow out the training wheels, but calm down, this isn't Game of Thrones. I don't need 17 different time periods, with 20 different viewpoint characters, with planets from across half the damned galaxy to enjoy a story.

I don't want sprawling, epic science fiction. I get that it's fun, sure it is. But it's only fun once in a while. Not constantly. Gimme one ship, with one crew, in a story that's told in chronological order, with one or only a few viewpoint characters, on one planet, with one basic problem to solve, that doesn't push or refer to a meta-plot...and one that's well-written. Tall order, I know, but come on.

I can hear the objections already, "So you want a small Trek story? That's no fun." Well, yes, I do want a small Trek story. You know, just like the 726 episodes of Star Trek that we've had. You know, the very heart of the franchise that we love and is the whole reason we'd like to read Trek lit in the first place. Only I can't seem to find any novels that actually feel like an expanded Star Trek episode.

#

What it comes down to is I'm having a hell of a time finding even a single Trek novel that actually feels like a Star Trek story. I love the franchise, and am generally a fan of tie-in novels in general, but I can't seem to click with anything Trek lit is putting out. And no, I'm not saying they're objectively bad books because I don't happen to like anything I've read lately. Simply that it's puzzling to me why so many Trek books just don't feel like Star Trek stories.

 

[Christopher]

Standalone novels within just the past year include TOS: Miasma and The Latter Fire and DS9: Force and Motion, as well as the upcoming TOS: The Face of the Unknown.

 

[Greg Cox]

Most of the TOS books are still standalone adventures featuring the original characters from the show. And even the recent LEGACIES trilogy had a beginning, a middle, and an end that took place smack in the middle of the original five-year-mission.

 

[JD]

Aren't most of the 24th century books between The Fall and Prey smaller, stand alone stories?
I'm also just wondering, and I don't mean to be snotty, but have you read all of the books Trek books written before the turn of the millennium? Most of them are exactly what you're looking for.

 

[Jarrod]

I agree with the Original Poster 110%. I would do anything to have more stories set in the 24th century that were set during the original run of the series. And before someone asks, Yes, I have read every book put out by Pocket up until now.. and am in the process of re-reading them all now.

 

[OverlordSpock]

I love the meta-continuity that has been built in the 24th Century books. I love how things have progressed and characters have grown. I will admit that it does sometimes feel like stories skew toward the epic level a bit much, but overall I'm enjoying the expanded universe.

Although there are some good standalone stories, I feel like they are so limiting. We had 15-20 years worth of mostly standalone stories in the TV series and the original Pocket novel line. There are a ton of good stories there, but I just feel that pushing the reset button at the end is frustrating at this point. That's the main reason I like the current narrative.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally okay with a stand-alone tale from time to time (and think we have gotten those), but my favorite, by far, are the continuing narrative stories.

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

I love the ongoing 24th century books, but I do kinda wish that there were occasional dips back into stories told during the shows' runs - It's great seeing the characters grow and evolve further over time, but sometimes, I want the proverbial comfort food of going back to the old familiar settings with the versions of the characters from that time, and while I CAN go back to the books published prior to the modern Trek Lit era, I sometimes want something new, in the same way that I enjoy new five year mission TOS novels. It'd be nice to get a standalone set during the 24th century shows, not just a TOS standalone, or a standalone story set in the "present day" period of 24th century novels.

I mean, I understand that there's a lot more limitations on the way that the TOS crew can be played with, given that there are characters there that actually have set-in-stone, must-be-adhered to fates after the show, or after the movies, while the 24th century, and even to an extent the Enterprise characters, are more flexible in the realm of 'what comes next,' but I just kinda think it'd be nice to see an occasional step back.

 

[Mage]

I'm also one of the people that has no interested in novels set during the shows. Everything needs to be status quo at the end, and I find that boring. Some stand-alones set after the shows that were published in the last few years were pretty good, but I prefer the grand stories spread over several novels.

 

[Jinn]

Have you read Corps of Engineers? It seems like the exact thing you're looking for.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

I kinda sympathise with the OP, kinda. I'm not really au fait with current Trek lit and do think that the books can be a little intimidating when looking for one to buy if you're not a committed follower. I would like to be able to go to a book shop look at the Trek books and think 'I'm gonna buy that'. Yet, what usually happens is I go to the book shop and often all I find is 'Book 2 of 4' or somesuch. They don't even have book 1 for me to start with. I know that's not your fault but it happens. I don't really know what I need to know before I start reading something so often I pull back from actually buying a book.

 

[USS Firefly]

I also prefer the continuity in the novels

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

It's definitely a case where you aren't going to be able to please all the people all the time. However, I do wonder if the internal continuity is putting off new readers. I find I tend to stick to 2nd hand copies of old Pocket Book titles rather than invest in the new lit. I'd like to read new titles but I have neither the money or the sense that I know where to start.

 

[Jinn]

I'd like to read new titles but I have neither the money or the sense that I know where to start.

From what I've heard this is quite helpful: http://www.thetrekcollective.com/p/trek-lit-reading-order.html

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

From what I've heard this is quite helpful: http://www.thetrekcollective.com/p/trek-lit-reading-order.html

Call me crazy but I don't really want to have to read a guide to what I should read before I start reading.

 

[Jinn]

Call me crazy but I don't really want to have to read a guide to what I should read before I start reading.

Fair enough.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

Fair enough.

I sounded like a bit of a dick in my last response, that wasn't my intention. However, I do think it's a serious issue. Since the BBC brought Doctor Who back in 2005 nearly every tie in novel has been a standalone. The linked stories are the exception, Trek seems to be the other way around.

 

[stardream]

I like the 'new' connected universe but there have been a couple of books who spend too much time explaining past events. I don't mind the occasional 'the incident reminded Picard (or whoever) of that thing that happened in a particular episode or in an earlier book'. Now it could be the editors make suggestions that the writers NEED to do this so someone who just picked up this particular book can catch up. All I can tell you is I usually just skim over those parts and I hate to do it because I know they spent time writing and re-writing all those paragraphs.

A good book that I recently enjoyed reading was The Crimson Shadow. McCormack just got on with the story. There wasn't a lot of 'catch up' going on.

 

[Christopher]

I think that, even if you're telling a story that's part of a series, you need to write it so that it's accessible to people who didn't read the previous installments. I gave a lot of thought to that in writing DTI: Shield of the Gods just recently. It's a direct followup to the events of Time Lock, but I didn't want it to play like just the second half of a larger story; I tried to write it as if it were a self-contained story and the setup was being introduced for the first time. That's doable, since a lot of stories begin in medias res -- look at "The Cage" (the crew is licking its wounds from a recent deadly battle, and that informs Pike's arc through the story) or the original Star Wars.

I was influenced a bit by the season premiere of Elementary, which opened with Holmes wrapping up a case and monologuing to the killer about a different case, the main one he was investigating in the episode, which was being introduced to the audience for the first time through that monologue but was already known to the characters. I didn't do it that same way, but it helped me think about ways to tell a continuation of a story in a way that didn't depend on the readers' prior knowledge. For instance, starting the story from the perspective of a different set of characters who'd have a different angle on events. I also avoided going into any more depth about the events of Time Lock than I absolutely had to. Many of its details weren't relevant to this story, returning readers would already know them, and new readers might want to go back to Time Lock later and not be too badly spoiled (although one key surprise in Time Lock is established right up front in Shield of the Gods, inescapably).

 

[JD]

It's definitely a case where you aren't going to be able to please all the people all the time. However, I do wonder if the internal continuity is putting off new readers. I find I tend to stick to 2nd hand copies of old Pocket Book titles rather than invest in the new lit. I'd like to read new titles but I have neither the money or the sense that I know where to start.

It's hard for me to judge, since I read most of the 24th Century books, but as long as you pick up either the first book in a series, or a stand alone you should probably be able to jump in pretty easily. You just need to be aware that you are you are jumping into an ongoing series. So to me complaining that you can't jump into the 10th TNG Relaunch book completely blind is pretty much the same as complaining that you can't blindly jump into the 10th book of any ongoing series.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's a balancing act . . . and not just with regards to the current book continuity. If I'm writing, say, a sequel to "Conscience of King," I don't assume that everyone reading the book has seen the original episode or remembers it vividly, so I'll make a point of recapping Lenore's backstory and explaining who Kodos the Executioner was--even though lots of readers surely know this stuff already. Ditto for book continuity, I never want to assume that every reader has perfect recall of every STAR TREK novel, even my own. ("Rings of Time" has a couple of Easter eggs pointing back to my "Eugenics Wars" books, but I deliberately wrote that book to be perfectly accessible to people who hadn't the read the EW books.)

And, yes, you can't please everybody. I still remember getting two completely different responses to one of my 4400 novels. One reader complained that I spent too much time explaining stuff that every true 4400 fan already knew; another reader praised for me for making the book perfectly enjoyable even though he had never seen a single episode of the TV series!

Like I said, a balancing act. My own preference is to write standalones that can be read on their own, but I understand that some people prefer the whole mega-continuity thing.