Which is my point -- that it has nothing to do with the word "timeline."
Which is my point -- that it has nothing to do with the word "timeline."
Which is why my post did not contain that word.
Why do you think this is about you? The conversation for the past day has been in response to Enterprise1701's asssertion in post #369 that it was "incorrect" to use "timeline" instead of "timeframe."
OK, before this descends any further, let’s just say that it’s not an unreasonable assumption that when someone quotes a specific poster, it is not unreasonable for that poster to assume that the person is responding to them and the statement they made.
Hopefully this side argument has run its course, and we can get back to talking about 2026 book releases, as sparse as they may be.
*ahem*
So, yeah. I'm still hoping that we get another novel, announced for a December release.
So, yeah. I'm still hoping that we get another novel, announced for a December release.
^ I’m not entirely certain, but there might be a chance you‘ll get your wish. *fingers crossed* (Don't worry, it won’t be another from me.)
Yeah, that's why I put "traditional" in quotation marks. Of course it's all one big continuity, no question about it, but to me it feels as separate as the JJ films. I guess I'd call the specific flavor "streaming shows in a post-MCU environment". But that's strictly a personal feeling and I did not intend to verse-ify things in general.
As for my original question: Was there a novel based on 1966-2006 Trek in hardcover after Death in Winter I'm forgetting?
We always define modernity relative to our own life experience, what we grew up with and take for granted vs. what's new and unfamiliar. Yeah, the Secret Hideout shows feel different to me than what came before, but I'm old enough to remember how different the TNG-era shows felt from TOS/TAS -- heck, even how different the movies felt from TOS/TAS, or how different the Harve Bennett movies felt from TMP.
Yeah, it’s kind of funny seeing people lumping TOS in with the TNG-Enterprise era now, when a few years back they were seen as very different eras, and some fans rejected one or the other.
Exactly. That's why I tend to think of TOS as its own thing, separate from the TNG era. Not in terms of continuity, but simply because they are each of their own time. TOS is very much a 1960s tv show, which looks and feels very different from TNG and its spin-offs. They're apples and oranges, despite the latter-day shows being a continuation of the 60s show.
And, to try to bring this back to books, one of the challenges of writing TOS books these days is trying to capture the feel of the Original Series while also writing for readers in 2026. Do you write the books as they would have been written back in the day, or do you write TOS as it might be written today?
This can be a judgement call. I mean, obviously you omit the casual 1960s sexism that occasionally surfaced in TOS, and we can reference previous adventures in the books more than TOS ever did, but what about slang expressions and idioms that postdate 1969, or bits of technology that modern readers might find conspicuously absent? (No security cameras in Engineering? Really?)
Staying true to a 1960s vision of the future while still appealing to modern audiences can be a trickly balancing act, at least in my experience.
Last edited:
Well, it's not *that* funny. To me it's A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to ... P.
And yet I'm fully aware, even happy that my P is another person's E.
That's just IDIC, to throw another four letters into the mix.
It's technically only two extra letters being throwm into the mix. You'd already said C, and the I is duplicated
I can certainly see what you're saying and from the perspective of a reader, I feel the last several TOS novels I've read feel both modern, while staying true to the spirit of TOS (compared, say, to the early Bantam titles which certainly reflected the era they were written in).
And that's not to say that I didn't enjoy the Bantam crop; very much so, but compared to modern Trek novels, there is a huge difference.
I can't ever really imagine myself not wanting to read a modern TOS novel.
Starfleet Academy ends at S2, SNW has two more series. But after that, if film / TV Trek is silent, is that an opportunity for Pocket Books?
Granted, be a while until it's known either way and, if silent, longer for any actual plans, but still, feeling curious about it.
Granted, be a while until it's known either way and, if silent, longer for any actual plans, but still, feeling curious about it.
Though the current shows are ending, there’s no chance some new Trek show won’t be coming soon after. This is more a slight pause than the end of all production for over a decade that we saw after Enterprise.
Yeah, the people at Paramount still keep how they have big plans for Star Trek, so even if the this is the end of Kurtzman's time in charge, it probably won't be that long before we see more Trek. If get working on them right away, we might even go pretty much right from SNW Season 5 into whatever is next.
I'm pretty far behind on the TOS books, the most recent I've read is No Time Like the Past, but I've always been impressed with how well the more recent TOS books like that has managed to give us books that feel like TOS but in a more modern style.
Which it may not be, since they're in discussions about renewing his contract. I've seen this happen multiple times with the Trek novel license -- when a contract is nearing its end, future plans are put on hold while renewal negotiations are ongoing, since there's no sense going ahead with a new project before you know for sure.
Had to read that a few times...
Similar threads
