Some people find it harder to comprehend than others, or they think it slows the pace of the story.
Does this have to be limited to Trek authors? Offhand, I can't think of any habits Trek authors have that annoy me, but there's a cozy mystery series I read where a variation of the same introduction to characters' backstories is worked into the book wherever they first appear, and I've read over 40 of these. I would rather this info be in its own section so I can skip it if I want.
As an initial matter, I don't generally have a problem with getting extended insight into the non-main characters' thought processes. (Recall that my comment was offered as the opposite of an earlier complaint about featuring new characters too much). These characters are wholly of the author's invention (or are elaborations upon existing characters only briefly viewed in the series) and so the author has a tabula rasa on which to work- to give them whatever motivations, habits of mind, pasts and futures they see fit. Go wild, as long as it's done well.I find this complaint mind-boggling. The one thing prose can do that no other storytelling medium does is internal point of view. It's one of the few things that tie-in fiction brings to the table that you can't get anywhere else. Why would you want to remove that bullet from a writer's gun?????
It's a story, not an almanac of interesting information. At some point, the addition of scientific explanations (or characters' back stories, or narrative asides, or anything else) may interfere with the overall flow of that story.While Bennett’s no more infallible than anyone else, I’m not sure how there can ever be too much use of real science to shore up seeming bs science in a science fiction novel?
Some people find it harder to comprehend than others, or they think it slows the pace of the story.
I enjoyed reading all of the 4400 novels over a decade ago, immediately after watching the complete series on Netflix as a new viewer.I'm reminded of two diametrically opposed reviews of one of my 4400 novels.
Ah, so there would've been four books set during the series, but the cancellation gave you the opportunity to create a postfinale duology instead!To answer the 4400 queries:
Pocket Books had a four-book contract to do 4400 books. When the series was cancelled, we used the last two books on the contract to wrap things up.
Yes, I remember now. Collier planned to expose the whole world to it.My memories are dim (those books were a long time ago), but I think fifty-fifty referred to some new drug that gave fifty percent of users super-powers, but killed the other fifty percent, resulting in massive casualties. So a bad time for party.
Cool! Did you read each other's (and Dayton Ward's) 4400 books?Thanks for remembering those books! I enjoyed writing them -- and I remember Dave Mack and I making plans for the last two books in a bar at Shore Leave one year.
It's a story, not an almanac of interesting information. At some point, the addition of scientific explanations (or characters' back stories, or narrative asides, or anything else) may interfere with the overall flow of that story.
It also allowed something to be done to a character that they likely wouldn't dare (at the time, or now) do to an onscreen series regular - make him an alcoholic.Pug Joseph is featured in a novel series which only features one character who has appeared onscreen, so, yeah, of course there's a majority of characters there created by the author.
Were you required to add, change, or remove anything?One more observation: my first 4400 book (written while the show was still being produced) had a much more rigorous approval process since it was set during the series.
Janeway did this once too and even shakes her head at the cringy wording her voiceover usesWell TOS tended to have Kirk's internal monologues contrived as "Captain's Logs" while events were unfolding, even when he was in a scene where he obviously didn't even have a way to do a voice recording like that.
Kor
Were you required to add, change, or remove anything?
I laughed out loud at Tess (played by Summer Glau in the show) asking about "Star Track."
I can think of one author who uses the word "smirk" as meaning "a wry smile" and that irritates me as it alters the meaning of passages. This might be a difference between American English usage and English usage.
My other general irritation is more to do with evolution of language across the years. For example "passed on" used to be the usage: now it's "passed". (As a snob, I think it should be "dead" anyway), But in universe the expression should not have changed.
Now I don't have as much trouble with some of those because they are "correct" usages and sometimes the preference for one or the other is different depending on your side of the pond.(I still say “passed away”, myself.). I get irritated at apparent linguistic shifts too, such as the apparently universal replacement of the “-ove” verb ending with “-ived” (and “-one”, as in “shone”, with “-ined/shined”). And good lord, “slain” becoming “slayed”…!).
Think differentLY, dammit.
Yet weirdly, I find these in copies of books that I’m -sure- are older than the word shifts themselves, which rather suggests somebody’s running around replacing my old books on the sly.
I bought all four as ebooks through the Kindle Store and recall Amazon notifying me via email years later that they'd all been removed for digital purchase but that I'd retain access to them in my library. Anticipating that this might not remain true indefinitely, I used free software to remove their DRM and create permanent offline copies, which is the only way to ensure that corporations can't commit legalized theft of your digital purchases.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.