• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Star Trek: Enterprise The First Adventure by Vonda McIntyre

So I repeat: There is absolutely nothing ironic about M&C being both the biggest Trek fans and the weakest writers. Irony is when something is unexpected, and it is invalid to expect fandom to correlate with professional competence.

I get what you're saying.

It just seems a bit weird that the biggest Trekkies among the bunch arguable wrote the worse Star Trek books. I'm not saying they should have written the best Trek books at the time, just that it's a bit surprising they wrote the worse, at least IMHO.
 
It just seems a bit weird that the biggest Trekkies among the bunch arguable wrote the worse Star Trek books. I'm not saying they should have written the best Trek books at the time, just that it's a bit surprising they wrote the worse, at least IMHO.

Because writing is a skill. Star Trek is not a skill. It's a single topic to which an overall skill is applied. This should not be surprising. Liking the color blue does not qualify you to paint a good seascape. To do that, you have to know how to paint stuff in general, and then that will give you the skill to paint the specific thing you like.

If anything, fandom often gets in the way of good writing. To write well, you have to think like a professional, and that means being pragmatic and not letting self-indulgence and sentiment get in the way of quality. Professional writers have to learn to kill their darlings, and fandom is about embracing your darlings. Yes, you can incorporate your fandom into your writing, but only as long as it's secondary to the fundamentals of professional storytelling. It's bad if it becomes the dominant consideration.
 
^Which is why I find fan productions of Star Trek painful to watch

As with anything else, some are better than others. Of course, the difference is that in professional work, you have to sell your story or your pitch to an editor, a producer, etc. and outcompete others vying for the same slot, so there's a selection process that (in theory) weeds out the weaker entries; whereas in self-published or fan work, there's no such selection, so the ratio of bad stuff is likely to be higher. But there's still some stuff that rises from the pack, and some fan authors/filmmakers manage to graduate to pro work.

I admit, though, I've never understood people who will go to great lengths and expense to lovingly recreate an old TV show with professional skill, yet have no interest in creating anything original of their own. Heck, when I first started making up stories in the Trek universe as a kid, it was something like 6 months before I decided that conforming to Trek's ideas was too limiting and started creating my own original universe instead. Original fiction is much more liberating -- plus you can actually sell it for profit without getting sued by its owners. So I don't get why the people who complain about not being allowed to make elaborate 2-hour fan films because of the strict guidelines don't just write something original and shoot that instead.
 
Because writing is a skill. Star Trek is not a skill. It's a single topic to which an overall skill is applied. This should not be surprising.

I know. It's just you'd think the only actual bona fide Trekkies with Bantam wouldn't write the worse Star Trek books. But I get what you're saying.

^Which is why I find fan productions of Star Trek painful to watch

You know, I've never actually taken the time to watch fan productions or read fan stories. I did see a clip of one on trekmovie.com once--I didn't care for the acting on the clip too much but I have to admit they recreated the corridor set of the Enterprise pretty accurately.

I guess it's just that since it's not officially licensed I never felt the need to really seek them out. Part of it is I do have a lot of interests, Star Trek is at the top, but I also love many different genres of entertainment, music and I follow a couple sports teams, along with normal life and work events that I just don't have time to add in fan productions.
 
Original fiction is much more liberating -- plus you can actually sell it for profit without getting sued by its owners. So I don't get why the people who complain about not being allowed to make elaborate 2-hour fan films because of the strict guidelines don't just write something original and shoot that instead.

A good point. My guess is they are usually "super-Trekkies" that have something they really want to put together on screen. Usually it seems they are geared to a particular time frame so maybe it's an era in Star Trek history they feel needs a narrative on screen. Are there any fan productions of any of the spin-offs? The only ones I ever heard of are focused around the time frame of the original series.

The closest I ever came to doing anything like that was I tried my hand at writing a story when Pocketbooks used to do those fan anthology books (Strange New Worlds maybe). But I learned I'm a particularly bad fiction writer. It did give me a bit of an appreciation for authors though. It's not just action and conversation--you also have to communicate thoughts, ideas and you have to set the scene in words, but at the same time not bore people with too much detail. You have to be able to balance how much you want to tell your audience and how much you want to let their imaginations fill in the details.
 
As with anything else, some are better than others. Of course, the difference is that in professional work, you have to sell your story or your pitch to an editor, a producer, etc. and outcompete others vying for the same slot, so there's a selection process that (in theory) weeds out the weaker entries; whereas in self-published or fan work, there's no such selection, so the ratio of bad stuff is likely to be higher. But there's still some stuff that rises from the pack, and some fan authors/filmmakers manage to graduate to pro work.

I admit, though, I've never understood people who will go to great lengths and expense to lovingly recreate an old TV show with professional skill, yet have no interest in creating anything original of their own. Heck, when I first started making up stories in the Trek universe as a kid, it was something like 6 months before I decided that conforming to Trek's ideas was too limiting and started creating my own original universe instead. Original fiction is much more liberating -- plus you can actually sell it for profit without getting sued by its owners. So I don't get why the people who complain about not being allowed to make elaborate 2-hour fan films because of the strict guidelines don't just write something original and shoot that instead.

When I discovered fan fiction sites after the ST09 film came out, I was hooked! Some of the stuff is great, the plots are better than some of the movies, maybe those writers are professional writers indulging their version of events, others come across as written by teenage girls with particular fantasies lol Mine might be like that!
I write FF for the fun of it, I have no desire to be a professional writer, if I did I would leave the ST universe and create my own. For me its like buying box mix cake rather than baking me own stuff from scratch lol
I'm just glad to entertain a few fellow fans!
 
Not to mention that we know Nicholas Meyer wasn't a Trek fan, which makes it even less likely that he would've paid any attention to the tie-in books.
IIRC, I think Meyer's co-writer Denny Martin Flinn knew even less about Trek than Meyer did.
I know. It's just you'd think the only actual bona fide Trekkies with Bantam wouldn't write the worse Star Trek books. But I get what you're saying.
Since this is the third time you've responded to Christopher with some variation of "but it's weird that the biggest Trek fans wrote the worst Trek books," I'm not sure that you do. Liking something does not mean that you know how to do it well.
 
Well,I wasn't the one who found irony in M&C being walking, talking, "Trekkie" stereotypes, yet abominably bad writers.

Nor did I dispute your premise, Mr. Bennett, simply by stating that its converse is not true. Simply put, reading, as you say, does not guarantee success in writing (especially if you confine yourself to one genre), but not reading pretty much guarantees failure.

And I've taken a few creative writing classes, and in every one of them, the prime directive is to read voraciously, tastefully, and analytically, always on the alert for how good authors grab and hold their readers' attention.
 
Nor did I dispute your premise, Mr. Bennett, simply by stating that its converse is not true. Simply put, reading, as you say, does not guarantee success in writing (especially if you confine yourself to one genre), but not reading pretty much guarantees failure.

That was never in dispute, so I don't know why you feel compelled to point out something so obvious.
 
Since this is the third time you've responded to Christopher with some variation of "but it's weird that the biggest Trek fans wrote the worst Trek books," I'm not sure that you do. Liking something does not mean that you know how to do it well.

The point I was trying to make is that I agree just because someone is a Trekkie doesn't mean they'd write a good book.

I just found it initially surprising that the only actual Trekkies among the early Bantam writers wrote two of the worse Star Trek books (well at least IMHO). I don't know how others feel or what the consensus is, but I found the two Phoenix novels to be among the worse Star Trek books ever written.

I'm not saying being a Trekkie means you'd even write an average book necessarily. But the worse Star Trek book--well I wouldn't have expected that either. But the fact is they did, so obviously it CAN happen.
 
Aren't most of the issues with the M&C's books more general writing problems, than Trek accuracy issues?
 
That, and a tendency to get into material not necessarily suitable for a family audience.

And Mr. Bennett, what is obvious to you or me is not necessarily obvious to everybody else. To give an example in another field, I have personal friends who are working musicians (mostly church organists), and yet who rarely attend concerts, even when they're completely affordable (or free).
 
I'm about to read the last of my Bantam novels, 2 of which I believe are not considered very good ("Deaths Angel" is one of them and I forget the name of the other). I guess it's good I know going in, but who knows, maybe I'll feel different.

If I had to guess, I’d bet you won’t feel different about Death’s Angel.
 
That, and a tendency to get into material not necessarily suitable for a family audience.

Particularly in Price of the Phoenix. I remember reading that book and thinking, hmm, are they trying to hint at some romantic relationship between Kirk and Spock. Then I thought maybe I was just reading too much into it, until I posted something here about it and people pointed out that yeah, they were insinuating that. So I guess sometimes if it looks like a duck, it's a duck ;).
 
. . . I'm about to read the last of my Bantam novels, 2 of which I believe are not considered very good ("Deaths Angel" is one of them and I forget the name of the other). I guess it's good I know going in, but who knows, maybe I'll feel different.
While Death's Angel is hardly a favorite around here, I've always rather liked it, even if it does paint a minor but canonical continuing character into a corner.
 
The point I was trying to make is that I agree just because someone is a Trekkie doesn't mean they'd write a good book.

But does the fact that someone is a "Trekkie" necessarily mean they'd write a bad book? I don't think so.
 
It just seems a bit weird that the biggest Trekkies among the bunch arguably wrote the worse Star Trek books. I'm not saying they should have written the best Trek books at the time, just that it's a bit surprising they wrote the worse, at least IMHO.
What compounds this issue is that I doubt M&C had much awareness of anything amiss with their writing--not only were they already prominent fans, but (judging by contemporaneous references to the Phoenix duology in The Best of Trek) there were many corners of fandom who received the novels so warmly that they were describing them at the time (and into the Eighties) as amongst the very best Star Trek novels out there.
 
What compounds this issue is that I doubt M&C had much awareness of anything amiss with their writing...
If you ever read their quotes in Voyages of the Imagination, you won't have any doubts on that. They obviously thought that their Trek novels were really deep stuff.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top