Is it time for Peter David to go?
- Thread starter Ktrek
- Start date
Regardless of whether PAD's in a creative slump, the question of whether the series should continue indefinitely in the same way as it has so far is hardly beyond the pale. PAD himself may decide he's no longer interested at some point, or he may simply become too busy. What happens then?
Personally, I don't think I'd be terribly interested in seeing New Frontier continue with new writers, but that's because I don't like many of the characters. Though I've liked some of the books, it's not a series I'd miss.
So, for the people who love PAD and NF: if, for whatever reason, PAD was no longer going to be available to write NF, would you prefer a book or books by PAD wrapping the whole thing up in his own style, or would you prefer NF continued by other writers?
The point of New Frontier was creative freedom. It was developed at a time when the TV-based series were going through changes that the books had a hard time keeping up with, and the books themselves couldn't make any significant changes. In New Frontier, the status quo could change dramatically, because Sector 221-G and most of the characters were new creations; the TV series were extremely unlikely to establish anything about Calhoun or Xenexians or Thallonians that would cause problems for the books. Worlds could be destroyed, empires could fall, characters could die or go through transformations, all without concerns of being overwritten by events in the TV series.
That kind of creative freedom is no longer unique to New Frontier. DS9, TNG, Voyager, and Enterprise novels are now forging ahead and making the kinds of dramatic changes to the status quo that weren't possible a decade ago. So, do we need New Frontier now?
I hope PAD will continue NF for a VERY long time but if it happens that he wants to stop writing the series I hope Pocket Books will ask him what he prefers. If he doesn`t want a successor (singular or plural) for NF, I hope he will write one last book in order to give the series a satisfying ending.
Otherwise, if it is ok with PAD, I certainly hope other authors will be interested to continue NF. I could see from "No Limits" that some authors have a good grasp of the characters and could write more NF I am also likely to enjoy. KRAD as "PAD`s second coming" would be great but David Mack and NF would be a very interesting combination, too. I could see that he would be able to write very humorous parts which is what makes NF so much fun sometimes but also the more serious and action aspects of the series. I am sure, the two authors of the Calhoun story in "No Limits" would be able to write more good NF, too.
Otherwise, if it is ok with PAD, I certainly hope other authors will be interested to continue NF. I could see from "No Limits" that some authors have a good grasp of the characters and could write more NF I am also likely to enjoy. KRAD as "PAD`s second coming" would be great but David Mack and NF would be a very interesting combination, too. I could see that he would be able to write very humorous parts which is what makes NF so much fun sometimes but also the more serious and action aspects of the series. I am sure, the two authors of the Calhoun story in "No Limits" would be able to write more good NF, too.
I would prefer New Frontier to end with Peter David (but I don't want it ending anytime soon). Don't get me wrong, I loved No Limits, but I prefer to have Peter David being the overall architect of the series.
Other than BD I've liked the stuff that he's written recently. I'll admit, I didn't think the newer NF were quite as awsome as some of the earlier ones, I still enjoyed them, and would like to see PAD contine the series. Personally, I feel that if PAD decides to stop writing them, that we the series should stop. That's not to say I don't think other writers could do a good job, I just feel that it's PAD's series, and it should stay with him. Now, I don't mind an occaisonal short story collection with non-PAD stories, I just feel the series proper should stay with him.
I concur. I would, however, prefer that he stays in his corner of the universe or else writes material set earlier in the series; after years of writing New Frontier like Star Trek meets comics books, it seems that he can't pull his perspective back to a more rational mindset, his judgment about what is keeping in spirit with TNG Trek and what isn't is shot, and I don't want another Before Dishonor determining the future of the Trek universe as a whole.
Creditorly yours, the Rent Woman
Actually, only one author wrote the Calhoun story. Dayton Ward did that one by his lonesome, while his usual writing partner, Kevin Dilmore, wrote the Arex story. It was Kevin's first time on his own with a piece of fiction, and he performed magnificently.
Ok, I'm going to have to counter this, all my own opinion of course.
Ex Machina did not feel like a standalone, more like the first in a series that never took off. Orion's Hounds is the third novel in the Titan series and therefore not a standlone. That also discounts Sword of Damocles (fourth in the Titan series), Death in Winter (TNG Relaunch), A Burning House (fourth in the Klingon Empire series) and Day of the Vipers (prelude to a duology). The Buried Age specifically states it is a novel of the Lost Era so it is therefore an addition to a miniseries, as is Forged in Fire, though again that could also be the beginning of a series that hasn't taken off.
I cannot believe I forgot about Articles of the Federation, my favourite book, being a standalone, though not for much longer as it will be added to with A Singular Destiny.
As for the MU and MyrU collections, IMO they count as anthologies and I personally would put them as a series in their own right.
if NF were to continue sans PAD, i wouldn't object to Wardilmore, Mack and KRAD continuing it as they wrote 4 of the 5 best stories in No Limits, the fifth being PAD's own.
Psst, you forgot the best story in the collection, bringing in the Klingon, the Q, and the Vulcan. Finally.
uh?
I'm only commenting on these, since these are the only ones with which I've had any involvement, but the MU novels were each written as standalones (a few obviously took their cues from TV episodes, but that's a different discussion). Just because they were packaged together doesn't make them any less standalone stories in and of themselves. Neither does sharing the same umbrella title. They each were written without much, if any, consultation between the authors, and storylines originating in earlier novels don't get resolved or even expanded in the successive volumes.
Just sayin'.
For me Peter David's writing (what few I've read) has seen both extremes. I've read Cold Wars, which I didn't hate but very much disliked. I've read Before Dishonor which left an aftertaste that was so bad I wonder what I was smoking/drinking when I first read it and thought it had even the slightest value. But then I've also read his Mirror Universe NF story in Obsidian Alliances -- loved it. Also read the NF short story in Tales of the Dominion War, and loved that too.
Thanks, however, to Before Dishonor and Cold Wars I've left older books that are allegedly some of the best Trek books ever on the shelf to gather dust until I find time to maybe read them some day. such as Imzadi I and II, Vendetta, Q-Squared, I, Q, and Q-in-Law.
Also, regarding what is stand-alone and what isn't. It's an argument that is unwinnable as it's all a matter of definition of what you consider standalone. I'd agree that Orion's Hounds, Sword of Damocles, and Death in Winter are NOT standalone, however I think Ex Machina, The Buried Age, and Forged in Fire are. The recent Mirror Universe stories I'd argue are not, but the Myriad Universe stories are.
What does standalone mean exactly? As in it can be read all by itself? Technically every Trek book is standalone then. Does it mean standalone doesn't share continuity? Then most Trek books are NOT standalone. Is it simply a title sharing? So are all Lost Era books are considered non-standalone? For me it's none of those. For me it's more of a does this book both share continuity as well as have repercussions or deal directly with the story line of another book (so more than simply "remembers a prior event"). And that is uber general and not always fitting, because I would consider the Voyager Dark Matters trilogy to be a stand alone trilogy, but each book in them not standalone themselves. And then things like the A Time To Series really screw with things because it's a set of 9 books, that has 4 duologies and other whole series that deal in some cases directly with the events within it.
Thanks, however, to Before Dishonor and Cold Wars I've left older books that are allegedly some of the best Trek books ever on the shelf to gather dust until I find time to maybe read them some day. such as Imzadi I and II, Vendetta, Q-Squared, I, Q, and Q-in-Law.
Also, regarding what is stand-alone and what isn't. It's an argument that is unwinnable as it's all a matter of definition of what you consider standalone. I'd agree that Orion's Hounds, Sword of Damocles, and Death in Winter are NOT standalone, however I think Ex Machina, The Buried Age, and Forged in Fire are. The recent Mirror Universe stories I'd argue are not, but the Myriad Universe stories are.
What does standalone mean exactly? As in it can be read all by itself? Technically every Trek book is standalone then. Does it mean standalone doesn't share continuity? Then most Trek books are NOT standalone. Is it simply a title sharing? So are all Lost Era books are considered non-standalone? For me it's none of those. For me it's more of a does this book both share continuity as well as have repercussions or deal directly with the story line of another book (so more than simply "remembers a prior event"). And that is uber general and not always fitting, because I would consider the Voyager Dark Matters trilogy to be a stand alone trilogy, but each book in them not standalone themselves. And then things like the A Time To Series really screw with things because it's a set of 9 books, that has 4 duologies and other whole series that deal in some cases directly with the events within it.
Being a sequel to a movie and a TOS episode, surely places it in exactly the same category as "Hollow Men"? To get maximum benefit from "Hollow Men", your own example, you really needed to have seen the DS9 episode that set off the consequences of the novel's plot.
"Ex Machina" is a standalone. A very rich one, that begs for a followup with the same large cast. You say that about many standalones.
"Uhura's Song" is part of a long-running series of TOS novels. Is that a standalone?
In which case "Hollow Men" is also not standalone.
But reading all of them is certainly not "required", or even necessary. There are very few shared characters, and the stores are scattered along a very long timeline.
Last edited:
You agree that Articles of the Federation is a standalone, but not Ex Machina or Forged in Fire? Can you explain the distinction?
I have to echo Turbo's question: What in your view counts as a standalone? I'm not clear on the criteria you're using when you claim that "no one seems to be doing standalones." It sounds as if you consider the mere act of branding a book a disqualifying factor.
At the risk of playing mind-reader...
Could it be that Ex Machina is a sequel to "For the World Is Hollow" and Forged in Fire is a prequel to "Blood Oath," meaning that books are connected strongly to previously told tales, while Articles isn't a sequel or prequel to anything in particular? That's the only real distinction I can see. *shrug*
^But that's not the case. Articles is a direct follow-up to A Time For War, A Time For Peace.
Thank you for the correction!
I very much agree, which means that part of my statement was correct: They would both be able to write more excellent NF!
