Star Trek: The Fate of the Phoenix by Sondra Marshak and Myrna Culbreath (1979)

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Yes. But I was speaking hypothetically: I did say, IF she and the authors had been of the same gender, she would have qualified as a type of Mary-Sue. And even if she had been a Mary-Sue, and still written the way she was, she still would have been a sex object.

It's remarkable how low the standards were for ST fiction back in the Bantam era (especially the early Bantam era), and even into the early Pocket era. Some of the Bantam issues make one wonder, "What was Pohl THINKING?!?"

 

[Christopher]

Yes. But I was speaking hypothetically: I did say, IF she and the authors had been of the same gender, she would have qualified as a type of Mary-Sue. And even if she had been a Mary-Sue, and still written the way she was, she still would have been a sex object.

No, that doesn't make sense. Sara was written the way she was in order to satisfy the fantasies of the male writers and their presumed male audience. It makes no sense to assume a female writer would approach a self-insertion character in the exact same way that a pair of men would write a sex object character.

Anyway, I think the desire to make up excuses to stick the label "Mary Sue" on characters is a pointess and facile excuse for criticism. Labels are at best a rough beginning for understanding things, and I detest it when people assume that the entire goal of analysis is to stick a label on something and then defend the labeling. And "Mary Sue" is a label that has long since become abused and stretched to the point of uselessness. Using it doesn't demonstrate any great insight; it merely demonstrates a lack of anything original to say.

 

[Damian]

Anyway, I think the desire to make up excuses to stick the label "Mary Sue" on characters is a pointess and facile excuse for criticism. Labels are at best a rough beginning for understanding things, and I detest it when people assume that the entire goal of analysis is to stick a label on something and then defend the labeling. And "Mary Sue" is a label that has long since become abused and stretched to the point of uselessness. Using it doesn't demonstrate any great insight; it merely demonstrates a lack of anything original to say.

I do learn quite a bit coming on trekbbs. I'll be honest, I never gave much thought to the term "Mary Sue". I've heard it here and there before but until I came here I never gave much thought to it's meaning.

I read "Spock, Messiah" about 2 years ago. I found it to be a bit bizarre. I too find myself thinking of the Bantam era as a bit uneven. There've been a lot of stories like that over the years in Star Trek, where a character is taken over by another consciousness or brainwashed. But back then there was less of that. I've tried to be a bit more forgiving of certain things since they were written years ago. And in general I try to take a book on it's own merits. And I find sometimes others opinions of certain things vastly differ from others. When I read "Vulcan!" for instance and noted my thoughts here a lot of people referred to the female character (I forget her name) as a 'Mary Sue' character. I thought it was an average book personally, though I was a bit put off by her outright bigotry toward Vulcans. It seemed out of place even for the original series time period (though I guess you could point out the same thing about Lt Styles in "Balance of Terror"). I remember in her case there was some reason presented, and she overcame it at the end, which helped. But I didn't really think of her in Mary Sue terms. I looked at her as sort of the 'special guest star.' And perhaps because of all the original characters seen in todays Trek lit, I didn't give her presence much thought.

But I have yet to read a Bantam book that has blown me a way, or that even compares in quality to most novels over the last 20-some years. I still have Perry's Planet, Devil World and Death's Angels to read and maybe one of those will fit the bill. As a horror film fan the titles of Devil World and Death's Angels maybe hold some promise , though I know not to judge a book by it's cover. I also may re-read the Galactic Whirlpool at some point. I got that as a gift way back in the 1980's and read it around that time so it might be worth a re-read.

 

[Damian]

Anyway, I think the desire to make up excuses to stick the label "Mary Sue" on characters is a pointess and facile excuse for criticism. Labels are at best a rough beginning for understanding things, and I detest it when people assume that the entire goal of analysis is to stick a label on something and then defend the labeling. And "Mary Sue" is a label that has long since become abused and stretched to the point of uselessness. Using it doesn't demonstrate any great insight; it merely demonstrates a lack of anything original to say.

I do learn quite a bit coming on trekbbs. I'll be honest, I never gave much thought to the term "Mary Sue". I've heard it here and there before but until I came here I never gave much thought to it's meaning.

I read "Spock, Messiah" about 2 years ago. I found it to be a bit bizarre. I to find myself thinking of the Bantam era as a bit uneven. I've tried to be a bit more forgiving of certain things since they were written years ago. When I read "Vulcan!" and noted my thoughts here a lot of people referred to the female character (I forget her name) as a 'Mary Sue' character. I thought it was an average book personally, though I was a bit put off by her outright bigotry toward Vulcans. It seemed out of place even for the original series time period (though I guess you could point out the same thing about Lt Styles in "Balance of Terror"). I remember in her case there was some reason presented, and she overcame it at the end, which helped. But I sort of thought of her as a 'guest star', as opposed to a Mary Sue. I guess part of it may be that among current Trek lit there is a lot of original characters. I guess back in the 1970's it was a lot more unusual to focus on anyone other than the original series characters.

But I have yet to read a Bantam book that blew me away. I still have Perry's Planet, Devil World and Death's Angels so maybe one of those will fit the bill. And I'd like to re-read "The Galactic Whirlpool" at some point. I received that one as a gift back in the 1980s and read it then so it's been a long time and it might be worth a re-read (I remember very little about it).

 

[Christopher]

But I sort of thought of her as a 'guest star', as opposed to a Mary Sue.

Here's the thing: In '60s and '70s TV, it was commonplace for TV series to take a semi-anthology approach where the guest stars of the week were the centers of the story and the main cast were more like supporting players in their journeys. The Western Wagon Train was a well-known example -- almost all its episodes were named "The [Guest Star] Story" -- and when Roddenberry pitched Star Trek to network execs as "Wagon Train to the stars," part of what he meant was that he intended to use that same semi-anthology approach (not just "Western in space," because half the shows on the air back then were Westerns, so that's not why he used that particular one as his example). You can see that in first-season episodes like "Mudd's Women" or "Charlie X." That subsided later when Spock became the breakout star and all the episodes ended up centering on him, Kirk, and McCoy.

So there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a story where the featured guest star is the central driving character in the narrative. That was normal enough in the series fiction of the era, and thus normal enough for Trek fan and tie-in authors to emulate. And it was natural enough to make those guest stars strong and impressive women, in order to compensate for the dearth of female lead characters in the show. The story that introduced the "Ensign Mary Sue" character was a parody of those fan fiction stories that did it badly, that were badly written author-insertion fantasies where the guest character was described as better than the main characters but never actually did anything to demonstrate that worth. The problem is that it's no longer common for fiction to center on guest stars instead of the leads, so people have gotten the mistaken idea that any guest character who's the center of attention is a Mary Sue, rather than just the failed attempts at that otherwise valid character type.

The featured guest in Vulcan! is definitely a Mary Sue, however, because the leads are written out of character in order to make her seem more impressive than she is. Spock is irrationally, blindly convinced of a theory that turns out to be wrong just so that the guest star can prove she's smarter than he is. And pretty much everyone on the ship is more forgiving of her rank bigotry toward Vulcans than they realistically would be, because they find her so charming and impressive in every other way.

 

[Damian]

The featured guest in Vulcan! is definitely a Mary Sue, however, because the leads are written out of character in order to make her seem more impressive than she is. Spock is irrationally, blindly convinced of a theory that turns out to be wrong just so that the guest star can prove she's smarter than he is. And pretty much everyone on the ship is more forgiving of her rank bigotry toward Vulcans than they realistically would be, because they find her so charming and impressive in every other way.

Yeah, ok, looking back I can see that as a valid criticism. I was put off by her bigotry myself, and was glad to see Kirk be disgusted by it (he was the only one that seemed to dislike her outright because of it--other characters were maybe a bit bothered, but you know, she was charming and beautiful to everyone else so ). I was back and forth on McCoy's reaction. He seemed charmed by her on the one hand but trying to get to the bottom of why she felt that way also. Some of that may be in character. But what was off is he basically allowed her to trick him into prematurely completing that Sigmund test, or whatever it was. He's smarter than that.

And yes, I was actually shocked that she turned out to be right. I thought part of the story would be that Spock was proven right and that would be part of what would lead to her reassessment of Vulcans. And he was a bit out of character in his stubbornness with his theory. Normally he'd give other options their due. Is it possible the aliens weren't sentient intelligence? He'd at least consider that. But he outright ruled it out. I guess it's not so much he was wrong, but just how stubborn he was about his theory. Had it been more opinion, that he considered it likely they were intelligent, but left open the possibility they weren't, then it would have been more palatable. Her reaction to him led him to a false conclusion and to not consider her expert opinion, which too is out of character. The story I thought was interesting. Were the aliens intelligent...then of course she and Spock are stranded on the planet in a life and death struggle (which is somewhat formulaic I'll admit). But it forces her to come to terms with her bigotry.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I will grant (indeed, take it as self-evident) that given that Spock, Messiah! was written by two men, Ensign George was clearly the sexual fantasy of one (or perhaps both) of the authors. In fact, I might even go so far as to use somewhat less polite terms.

I will note that in the hypothetical case I'd raised, it would raise some interesting questions about the self-image of this hypothetical female author.

And likewise, it's pretty self-evident that Cdr. Tremain, from Vulcan! (I've always wondered if the name was some kind of allusion to Disney's Cinderella) was a Mary-Sue. And while I like Death's Angel and Trek to Madworld, I always found Vulcan! to be down there among the worst of the Bantam novels.

 

[trampledamage]

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/tos...hak-and-myrna-culbreath-review-thread.287549/

(Why does a review for a 35+ year old book have a “Spoiler” on it?)

Mostly because I like things to look the same and the review threads with the polls all have the spoiler markers.

I mean, it's not wrong - the review threads do all have spoilers in them for someone who hasn't read the book.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

And these days, there are probably more people around who haven't read the early Pocket releases than there are who have read all (or indeed any) of the Bantam releases, so there are plenty of people for whom there could be meaningful spoilers for "a 35+ year old book."

Given that out of the entire output of Charles Dickens, I've only read the Christmas novellas (and only fairly recently!), I would not appreciate somebody handing me an unprotected, untagged spoiler for Great Expectations or A Tale of Two Cities.

 

[marlboro]

)I would not appreciate somebody handing me an unprotected, untagged spoiler for Great Expectations .

Spoiler

Pip was Keyser Soze the whole time!

 

[Christopher]

I would not appreciate somebody handing me an unprotected, untagged spoiler for ... A Tale of Two Cities.

It was the best of times, it was the

Spoiler

worst of times.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Very funny. But I thought Pip was Flinx's minidrag, and . . .

Spoiler

. . .mother to Scrap, Clarity's minidrag.

Oh. Wrong Pip. <Emily Litella>That's very different. Nevermind.</Emily Litella>

 

[Mysterion]

It was the best of times, it was the

Spoiler

worst of times.

Every time I see this line I think of the episode of Cheers where Frasier was trying to bring culture to the bar by reading Great Expectations to the group:

Frasier: 'It was the best of time, it was the worst of times..."
Norm: C'mon, Doc! Which was it!? You can't have it both ways.

Thirty-plus years later and it still makes me smile.

EDIT TO ADD: Whoops! I of course meant A Tale of Two Cities. Been a long, cold day.

 

[marlboro]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Mysterion]

And I'd like to re-read "The Galactic Whirlpool" at some point. I received that one as a gift back in the 1980s and read it then so it's been a long time and it might be worth a re-read (I remember very little about it).

You definitely should give it another look. For my money, the best of the Bantam books.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I would not appreciate somebody handing me an unprotected, untagged spoiler for Great Expectations

It wasn't what I hoped for.

or A Tale of Two Cities.

Ah yes, the one about German sausages.
"It was the best of times, it was the Wurst of times..."

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

You definitely should give [The Galactic Whirlpool] another look. For my money, the best of the Bantam books.

Well, Trek to Madworld was a fun romp (if you like the idea of "Willy Wonka Meets Captain Kirk," which I do), the best ST comedy novel until Ford wrote How Much for Just the Planet, and I have a soft spot for Death's Angel, because of the delightfully bizarre shipload of ambassadors it introduced, even if it abused a few canon characters to benefit a guest star whom Mr. Bennett correctly describes as a really obvious Mary-Sue, but yes, The Galactic Whirlpool (David Gerrold, based on his first ST spec outline) is about as good as Bantam (or early Pocket, for that matter) gets.

 

[Christopher]

My favorite Bantams are The Galactic Whirlpool and Planet of Judgment.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I liked Planet of Judgment back when all we had were that, The Price of the Phoenix, Spock Must Die!, and Spock, Messiah! (and the first eleven volumes of Blish TOS adaptations, and the first nine volumes of Foster TAS adaptations, and the first New Voyages anthology), but eventually, well, as more novels were written, and the franchise transferred to Pocket, it seemed like Planet of Judgment was one of those works that was good science fiction, but not necessarily good Star Trek.

Addendum: I just noticed this when I looked it up on Memory Beta
Planet of Judgment was the book that had a throwaway bit about a character who subsisted on ethanol, and got drunk on orange juice?!? I thought that bit of throwaway came from one of ADF's TAS adaptations.

 

[Christopher]

it seemed like Planet of Judgment was one of those works that was good science fiction, but not necessarily good Star Trek.

That depends on how you define "good" Star Trek. Sure, it wasn't perfectly accurate to Trek as we know it, but it added elements that were smart additions, like some improvements on landing party procedure and equipment that would've been nice to see in the show (no doubt informed by Haldeman's military experience). As I've said before, part of the fun of the early Trek novels was the freedom authors had to filter Trek through their own creative visions and sensibilities, because the canon was so much smaller and less well-defined so there was a lot of room for filling in the blanks with the writers' own imaginations. It was the idiosyncratic variations on the theme that made those books so interesting.