Bad Review of ENT: Kobayashi Maru at Pink Raygun

[RookieBatman]

It always rubs me the wrong way when people use the word “we” in comments. I am part of the “entire Trek Lit community” but I am not part of that “we”. A writing style is a matter of taste.

As per my last post, I agree completely that writing style is a matter of taste. I didn't say that "we" should all collect M&M's new book and burn it, I said that We shouldn't settle for mediocrity. If you don't find it to be mediocre, then you go enjoy it. But if you do find a book to be mediocre, don't just grit your teeth and say, "this is a Trek book so I need to be supportive of it even though I didn't enjoy it."

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'm trying to be nice/tactful and not say to a specific author that I think their work is rubbish. I know I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of such a statement.

I'm sure no professional author would be upset about constructive criticism.

What do you want me to say, that I'm sorry for being so disgusted by them? Do you want me to cite which books have made me so disgusted, so you can post an argument about why I should've enjoyed them more? What's the point of that?

I don't know. You're hiding your opinions about books you didn't enjoy to protect the authors' feelings? How noble.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But if you do find a book to be mediocre, don't just grit your teeth and say, "this is a Trek book so I need to be supportive of it even though I didn't enjoy it."

I've never been supportive of JW Jeter's "Warped", even though I had enjoyed his previous ST novel, "Bloodletter" and have bought his "Blade Runner" sequels.

I have never been supportive of "The Laertian Gamble", although I was taken to task for saying so the week Robert Sheckley died. I understand his regular science fiction is excellent, but I've never felt like chasing any up.

Aren't you supporting the ST fiction you dislike by not discussing it?

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

As per my last post, I agree completely that writing style is a matter of taste. I didn't say that "we" should all collect M&M's new book and burn it, I said that We shouldn't settle for mediocrity. If you don't find it to be mediocre, then you go enjoy it. But if you do find a book to be mediocre, don't just grit your teeth and say, "this is a Trek book so I need to be supportive of it even though I didn't enjoy it."

If I don`t like a Star Trek book or part of a Star Trek book, I say so. That applies to other novels as well and not only to novels.

I certainly don`t buy all Star Trek books. I am not in the habit of buying books I know are not my cup of tea, like the Shatnerverse.

 

[thesadpanda]

I'm happy for you that your tastes in prose fiction allow you to enjoy more Star Trek literature than my tastes allow me. What do you want me to say, that I'm sorry for being so disgusted by them? Do you want me to cite which books have made me so disgusted, so you can post an argument about why I should've enjoyed them more? What's the point of that?

Considering the reaction the Pink Raygun blogger got for his opinion, I understand why RookieBatman is walking on eggshells...

 

[Therin of Andor]

Considering the reaction the Pink Raygun blogger got for his opinion, I understand why RookieBatman is walking on eggshells...

Pink Raygun is getting exactly the reaction it was seeking. It wasn't fair criticism in any way.

 

[thesadpanda]

Pink Raygun is getting exactly the reaction it was seeking. It wasn't fair criticism in any way.

I think you're right on the first point.

 

[David Mack]

I, for one, appreciate RookieBatman's tact and discretion in this thread, regardless of whether I would be one of those so named. His reluctance to name names in no way diminishes the validity of his criticism, in my opinion.

 

[RookieBatman]

I'm trying to be nice/tactful and not say to a specific author that I think their work is rubbish. I know I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of such a statement.

I'm sure no professional author would be upset about constructive criticism.

But the blogger's criticism wasn't constructive, so your attitude towards it seems to indicate. So how would mine be any moreso? All I could offer them would be "make your writing style more like what I enjoy reading," and I'm not hardly arrogant enough to say simply that.
I think the blogger's criticism was justified, but as I said, he shot himself in the foot by purporting to know more about the writing craft than published authors. I don't make such a claim, and don't understand why my opinion (as opposed to your opinion) shouldn't be valid just because I can't back it up with specific examples.
What I'm saying is that the things that the blogger mentioned as having bothered him in that excerpt have also bothered me in other Trek books. If you want to find out which Trek books or authors I don't like, just look for those elements that the blogger talked about, and there's a possibility that those might be the books I dislike.

What do you want me to say, that I'm sorry for being so disgusted by them? Do you want me to cite which books have made me so disgusted, so you can post an argument about why I should've enjoyed them more? What's the point of that?

I don't know. You're hiding your opinions about books you didn't enjoy to protect the authors' feelings? How noble.

Not solely for their sake. If you're castigating me this much for having a general negative opinion, how much more so if I were to direct my negativity at whoever happens to be your favorite author? But I do think that I might by now have built up a reputation as a bit of a negativist, and I was trying to be more tactful this time. I'm not by nature a negative person, it's just that most of the positive opinions I hold have already been expressed, and so it sometimes seems like I only have something unique to contribute when it's a dissenting opinion. So, I've been trying not to be so hard-edged in my dissent.

Considering the reaction the Pink Raygun blogger got for his opinion, I understand why RookieBatman is walking on eggshells...

Yes, I did take the reaction to the original blogger into account when I perhaps overcompensated for tact in my post.

Pink Raygun is getting exactly the reaction it was seeking. It wasn't fair criticism in any way.

Considering the fact that I agree with Pink Raygun, you won't be surprised if I disagree with you. I understand that he wasn't reviewing a whole book, but I don't think he'd be the first person in the world to judge a book by the first few paragraphs. Isn't that the point of those paragraphs, to make a reader decide whether they are going to be sucked into the book or not?

I, for one, appreciate RookieBatman's tact and discretion in this thread, regardless of whether I would be one of those so named. His reluctance to name names in no way diminishes the validity of his criticism, in my opinion.

Thank you, David, I appreciate that very much.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

All I could offer them would be "make your writing style more like what I enjoy reading," and I'm not hardly arrogant enough to say simply that.

Which I think is totally valid. The essence I get from what you're saying isn't that the Trek books you dislike are necessarily badly written, they're just not the kind of books you tend to enjoy reading. And there isn't anything at all wrong with that. There are plenty of Books/TV Shows/Movies that are well written or well made that just aren't my cup of tea & plenty that I enjoy a great deal that others loathe. I would hesitate to criticize them for that, since not every book/show/movie can appeal to everyone.

 

[Zane Gray]

I very much agree with what Therin said, I just want to add another thought:

It always rubs me the wrong way when people use the word “we” in comments. I am part of the “entire Trek Lit community” but I am not part of that “we”. A writing style is a matter of taste. As I said, I like the excerpt and most definitely don`t want to see that authors take this criticism to heart and change their style to that of the boring, lifeless text the reviewer wrote. In my opinion, there is no problem and no need for any fixing.

I like the language in Trek books to be interesting and lively. I actually enjoy plays with words. OK, the “crunchy tidbit” got my attention, too – but it made me laugh. I thought it was a fun way to use language.

Not to mention, writers like Martin and Mangels and others here work for a year or more on these Star Trek books for very little pay, and then some fanboy online has the nerve to review and summarily dismiss not only the entire book, more than five months before it comes out I should add, but also the entire Trek writing community in one fell swoop, based on a teaser excerpt? At the very least, that reveals a stunning lack of tact. It isn't fair to Martin and Mangels, nor is it fair to other Trek authors. It isn't fair to potential readers of the actual novel either. If you're going to judge a book, at least have the courtesy to do it based on more than a handful of paragraphs. The Internet amazes me sometimes. Everyone's a blogger and everyone has an opinion. People like this guy contribute little that's actually constructive to the fan community overall.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Sorry but I suspect there's more at play here. If you didn't like ENT, then a book based on it, no matter how perfectly it brings those characters back to life isn't going to sway you. I read TGTMD and enjoyed it enormously. There's one scene where Archer's impatience at Trip interupting him, to address an Admiral onscreen without permission, conjures a perfect picture of Bakula and Trinner. To my mind, M&M's writing fits the series' style, including all those flaws fans are keen to pull it up on. We've effectively come full circle. Many complained about leaked plots on upcoming episodes before they even finished filming. Now it's moved onto the last refuge of ENT's adventures... Keep up the good work!

 

[Trent Roman]

^ That's jumping at shadows. The reviewer made no specific mention of ENT, but just said he was a fan of Star Trek generally. And his beef is quite obviously with the way it's written rather than what the subject may be.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Therin of Andor]

But the blogger's criticism wasn't constructive, so your attitude towards it seems to indicate. So how would mine be any moreso?

Forget it. I was not inferring that the Pink Raygun guy's criticism was constructive. Not at all.

I said that ST authors did appreciate positive criticism.

 

[Reanok]

I very much agree with what Therin said, I just want to add another thought:

It always rubs me the wrong way when people use the word “we” in comments. I am part of the “entire Trek Lit community” but I am not part of that “we”. A writing style is a matter of taste. As I said, I like the excerpt and most definitely don`t want to see that authors take this criticism to heart and change their style to that of the boring, lifeless text the reviewer wrote. In my opinion, there is no problem and no need for any fixing.

I like the language in Trek books to be interesting and lively. I actually enjoy plays with words. OK, the “crunchy tidbit” got my attention, too – but it made me laugh. I thought it was a fun way to use language.

Not to mention, writers like Martin and Mangels and others here work for a year or more on these Star Trek books for very little pay, and then some fanboy online has the nerve to review and summarily dismiss not only the entire book, more than five months before it comes out I should add, but also the entire Trek writing community in one fell swoop, based on a teaser excerpt? At the very least, that reveals a stunning lack of tact. It isn't fair to Martin and Mangels, nor is it fair to other Trek authors. It isn't fair to potential readers of the actual novel either. If you're going to judge a book, at least have the courtesy to do it based on more than a handful of paragraphs. The Internet amazes me sometimes. Everyone's a blogger and everyone has an opinion. People like this guy contribute little that's actually constructive to the fan community overall.

I re read that so called review and the comments about the Kobayashi Maru and of Andy's & Micheal's writing style was really rude.The writers take alot of time and effort to write these novels, I prefer to read a book first and then decide what I think about the story after I finished it.I like to discuss the novels some I may like better than others but I think you can get your point across without being rude.This guy meant to offend people and defintely rubbed people the wrong way.

 

[thesadpanda]

I, for one, appreciate RookieBatman's tact and discretion in this thread, regardless of whether I would be one of those so named. His reluctance to name names in no way diminishes the validity of his criticism, in my opinion.

Friends, David Mack is a class act.

KRAD was also pretty classy. He defended Trek lit in the comments at the bottom of the Pink Raygun post. (Follow the original link and look at the bottom of the page to read his comments.)

Care to beef up the defense, David?

 

[trampledamage]

KRAD was also pretty classy. He defended Trek lit in the comments at the bottom of the Pink Raygun post. (Follow the original link and look at the bottom of the page to read his comments.)

William Leisner's joined the fight too.

 

[Reanok]

Krad, dave and William bravo! I definitely agree with your comments a class act indeed.

 

[Newspaper Taxi]

I read the article but all it seemed to say to me was this: "Please, please, please let me write a Star Trek Book! I'm a good writer, honest!"

 

[David Mack]

Care to beef up the defense, David?

I'd rather not dignify the original "reviewer" with a response. Let it suffice to say that I disagree with his decision to use his dissatisfaction with one brief passage from a single work to impugn the quality of the overall TrekLit line, since it seems to imply that all Trek authors work in identical prose styles — an assumption that is readily falsifiable.