Author Habits That Annoy You

[Christopher]

Is this part of the reason why the Star Trek books stopped being numbered? I remember when I was buying in the 90s, the vast majority of them were numbered in each series, other than the giant or hardbacks, then they all stopped being numbered.

Sort of, I think. As I recall, part of it was concern that new readers were being scared off by the high numbers, thinking they'd have to read 97 previous books before the current one. So taking off the numbers made it clearer that they could start wherever they wanted.

The irony was that this happened around the same time that the books started getting much more interconnected and serialized -- so the standalone books were numbered and the series books mostly weren't!

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Sort of, I think. As I recall, part of it was concern that new readers were being scared off by the high numbers, thinking they'd have to read 97 previous books before the current one. So taking off the numbers made it clearer that they could start wherever they wanted.

Was part of it also that there were a lot more subseries in Star Trek by that point? It was pretty easy to keep track of the order and the numbers when only TOS novels were being done. It gets a lot more complex when there are TNG, DS9, VOY, and other, novel-only, series like New Frontier on top of that.

 

[Stevil2001]

Also the proliferation of miniseries and trilogies and stuff meant some books ended up being double numbered: Star Trek #79: Invasion!, Book One: First Strike or Star Trek: The Next Generation #49: The Q Continuum, Book Three of Three: Q-Strike. It's a lot of numbers! Later in the numbered era, some of the so-called "numbered books" didn't actually have the numbers on them; the My Brother's Keeper trilogy, if I recall correctly, is numbered #85-87 on the official list, but those numbers don't appear anywhere on the actual books.

 

[Christopher]

Later in the numbered era, some of the so-called "numbered books" didn't actually have the numbers on them

Also earlier. They didn't begin numbering the books until The Final Reflection (#16). Any copy you see of a book numbered 1-15 on the cover is a reprint.

And when they started, they retroactively counted the TMP and TWOK novelizations as #1 and #7, and counted the near-contemporaneous TSFS adaptation as #17. But later, they started limiting the numbering to the main line, excluding novelizations, giant novels, and hardcovers.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Soapbox Mary Sues, who, instead of being universally loved and genuinely smarter than everyone in the room, exist only to tell everyone what's wrong with them and how stupid they are, with no character development or humanity.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Soapbox Mary Sues

Hmm. DC's Piper certainly had a soapbox (namely hard libertarianism, a soapbox that DC's Sarda shared), but she was more of a subversion of the Mary Sue trope, given that she was constantly getting hard lessons in how she wasn't the cleverest one in the room. I think it's the subversion of the Mary Sue trope that makes her endearing enough to wade through DC's hard libertarian rhetoric.

 

[Christopher]

Hmm. DC's Piper certainly had a soapbox (namely hard libertarianism, a soapbox that DC's Sarda shared), but she was more of a subversion of the Mary Sue trope, given that she was constantly getting hard lessons in how she wasn't the cleverest one in the room. I think it's the subversion of the Mary Sue trope that makes her endearing enough to wade through DC's hard libertarian rhetoric.

I keep saying, Dreadnought! wasn't Mary Sue, it was a proto-Lower Decks, the first attempt to tell a Star Trek prose story from a perspective other than that of the established captain and bridge crew. Mary Sue is when a guest character overshadows the lead cast, but Piper, Sarda, Scanner, and Merete were the lead cast of their novels, in the same way that Mariner, Boimler, etc. are the leads of LD instead of Freeman, Ransom, etc. If anything, Kirk was the Mary Sue in their book, the supporting character who was impossibly good at his job and three steps ahead of them at every turn as they struggled to catch up. (Although Battlestations! was a bit Mary-Sueish in how quickly Piper graduated to part of Kirk's core circle of friends, and helped defeat a second massive conspiracy of Starfleet flag officers in as many months.)

 

[Corran Horn]

Investigating, I discovered that the cover had been changed in response to comments at a sales meeting I hadn't been present at -- and where nobody present had actually read the manuscript. As a result, the cover now featured something that appeared nowhere in the book.

Reminds me of the curious case of Harry Dresden's hat.

 

[nightwind1]

Some authors have the final say on the cover design of their books. I don't know how often, though.

Rarely.

 

[JJMiller]

I've pitched in fairly often when it comes to the BACK covers at Trek; I suggested the excerpts and headlines that ran on the backs of my last two Trek novels, and when they use solicitation copy instead, usually that's something that started with me.

As to covers, I've more often been consulted for my Wars and Batman novels, but that's tends to come down to differences of production time and approvals. I did get S&S to redesign the Prey Book 3 cover to turn two random Klingons into Worf and Korgh; there was just enough time for that.

The only Trek novel where I got my cover request up front ended up being a miscalculation. We were far from Anson Mount's debut on Discovery when creating both the ENTERPRISE WAR cover and title; as there was concern he wouldn't be recognizable enough as Pike yet, I suggested we put the ship both in the title and also as the sole element of the front cover. By the time his image was everywhere, it was too late to change. It explains why every other country's release of that book has him on the front cover, but not the original!

 

[Therin of Andor]

Is this part of the reason why the Star Trek books stopped being numbered? I remember when I was buying in the 90s, the vast majority of them were numbered in each series, other than the giant or hardbacks, then they all stopped being numbered.

I remember an announcement that there would be a three-volume mini-series called "The Last Roundup" to follow TOS #97, "In the Name of Honor". On the old Psi-Phi bbs, fans were boasting that #100 would be their jumping off point. I guess word got back to the Marketing Department and the original plans for "The Last Roundup" were abandoned, with that title being used for an unnumbered hardcover novel by Christie Golden.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

And sometimes authors don't even know if they're going to write other books in the same series, or whether they'll write a book that takes place midway through book 1 in between books 3 and 4, which take place 10 years earlier and 100 years later, respectively.

I've seen people online debating in which order to read the Narnia books, for instance.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

I've seen people online debating in which order to read the Narnia books, for instance.

So have I. I ended up following what I'd perceived to be the general consensus: first time should be in order of publication; subsequent times in order of in-universe chronology.

 

[Christopher]

So have I. I ended up following what I'd perceived to be the general consensus: first time should be in order of publication; subsequent times in order of in-universe chronology.

That's how I generally feel about any series whose publication and chronological orders differ, and I remember doing it that way with the Narnia books back in my teens. In retrospect, though, I'm not sure chronological order for Narnia has much appeal beyond the academic. I think The Horse and His Boy and The Magician's Nephew work better in context of what was established in the earlier books. I still think it's worth trying both for the contrast, but I'm not convinced that a chronological read is worth doing more than once.

A year or so back, I finally achieved my longtime goal of doing a complete reread of Asimov's Robot/Empire/Foundation series in chronological order. (I've had all the necessary books literally gathering dust on my shelf for decades, but I just never got around to it until then, since I wanted to do it before watching the Foundation TV series.) But there were times that I felt chronological order maybe wasn't the best reading order, because the books written decades later fit awkwardly with some of the earlier ones (indeed, there are some significant contradictions), and they reference ideas and threads from books that are chronologically much later. I think if I read them again, I'd go with publication order.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Publication order, then in-universe chronological, is how I approached ADF's "Flinx" novels. Of course, the two were the same, initially, and they've been the same ever since he filled in all the backstory.

But of course, it all depends on the series.

 

[Greg Cox]

And sometimes authors don't even know if they're going to write other books in the same series, or whether they'll write a book that takes place midway through book 1 in between books 3 and 4, which take place 10 years earlier and 100 years later, respectively.

I've seen people online debating in which order to read the Narnia books, for instance.

I'm currently finishing up a non-Trek novel, and I have three different ideas for the follow-up volume: a prequel, a direct sequel set not long after the first book, or a sequel set a generation later.

Which idea will prevail? That's a conversation to be had with the publisher a year or so from now, after we see how the first book was received.

 

[Smiley]

You've done multiple stories across time and space in one volume in your previous work. The publisher may just say "Yes" in their best Kosh voice and tell you to make it a follow-up extravaganza.

 

[Greg Cox]

You've done multiple stories across time and space in one volume in your previous work. The publisher may just say "Yes" in their best Kosh voice and tell you to make it a follow-up extravaganza.

I have flirted with the idea that maybe the prequel could have a framing story set shortly after the first book, with an old adversary or issue from the past returning in the present . . . .

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

The Anne of Green Gables books were written out of order, too.

Anne of Green Gables series

The Anne of Green Gables series is an eight-book series by L. M. Montgomery, about Anne Shirley, and later her children. Centered on Anne for the majority of the series, this eight-book collection is prized and loved by many. Located in a lovely spot in Prince Edward Island, Canada, the first...

anneofgreengables.fandom.com

1. Anne of Green Gables (first pub. April 1908)
2. Anne of Avonlea (first pub. August 1909)
3. Anne of the Island (first pub. July 1915)
4. Anne's House of Dreams (first pub. August 1917)
5. Rainbow Valley (first pub. August 1919)
6. Rilla of Ingleside (first pub. autumn 1921)
7. Anne of Windy Poplars (first pub. August 1936)
8. Anne of Ingleside (first pub. July 1939)

Having a numbered set, I've only read them in chronological order.

 

[JD]

Hmm. DC's Piper certainly had a soapbox (namely hard libertarianism, a soapbox that DC's Sarda shared), but she was more of a subversion of the Mary Sue trope, given that she was constantly getting hard lessons in how she wasn't the cleverest one in the room. I think it's the subversion of the Mary Sue trope that makes her endearing enough to wade through DC's hard libertarian rhetoric.

Who's DC's Piper? I'm not a total expert on the company's history, but I know a fair amount of their big name writers and editors and I've never head of a Piper.