Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST?

[Tachyon]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

And I promise, if "OMG not ANOTHER Borg story" is your only reason for avoiding Destiny, that you really really need to get over that and give it a shot. The heart and soul of the story is another tale that only intersects with the Borg invasion at the end, and that story is perhaps the greatest thing TrekLit has produced in many years. I cannot recommend it highly enough, and I'd say that to pretty much anyone without hesitation.

I have heard others praising the trilogy too. But like I said, I'm still on the fence so there is a good change I just might read them someday.

 

[shanejayell]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I dunno if I'd go THAT far in recomending Destiny....

I will say it's a good yarn, with interesting characters and a almost disaster movie kinda feel. Four stars out of five.

 

[Claudia]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Not to mention a couple of books that were the most tedious, sledgehammer Iraq war parallel I could imagine. They made "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" look subtle.

We did have that in TV-canon with the whole Xindi-arc as well... so it gets a little tiresome, indeed.

Before Destiny, I haven't read any of the TNG-relaunch novels (and I don't plan to, save perhaps for Death in Winter). I was aware of the main plot so far and I was able to follow the proceedings of Destiny without problems. TNG will ever consist of (and be about) the TV-characters to me, so I doubt I'll ever warm up to Kadohata etc... I'd really love to read more standalone novels set before Nemesis - I doubt that there're no stories left to tell...

As to the current direction of TrekLit: I wonder whether the many story arcs, within series or combining them, actually manage to attract new or casual Trek-readers. I consider myself a casual Trek reader, meaning I don't pick up every Trek-book that's published, meaning also that I'm cautious about jumping into a series half-way in (I did so with Destiny because I at least had some prior knowledge having read the Titan books). I'm not privy to the sales-numbers, of course, but I do fear that current TrekLit is mainly written for those who already follow the books, but not for those who'd like to read a Trek-book every now and then starring the characters they know from TV...

 

[Thrawn]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

It's a trade-off, I think, Claudia. At this point, all the Trek novels are really written to add different facets to a larger unified whole, and that means that those who follow any particular series are probably more likely to follow the others, increasing brand loyalty across all the series and driving up sales numbers in that regard.

But like you said, it does make them less accessible for newcomers, and that probably drives down sales. But then if all they did was publish standalones that were easy to jump into, people wouldn't buy a TNG book and think "man, this whole universe is fascinating nowadays, I should really get Articles Of The Federation and A Singular Destiny and maybe try out the recent Voyager books" either. I personally bought KRAD's Gorkon series mostly just so I could make sure I understood any Klingon Empire plots in Destiny; I wouldn't have otherwise. (And I'm glad I did!)

I figure those in charge, if they're pursuing this avenue, are probably fairly convinced that it's a profitable one. They might be going for artistic integrity above that, and it might be backfiring, I have admittedly no evidence on this point at all. But as a gut instinct, I find it hard to believe that they'd deliberately pursue an avenue they knew would be less successful.

And in any case, there is still the occasional standalone; a TOS standalone, Troublesome Minds, will hit in June this year for instance.

 

[USS Intrepid]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I have to say that I have not read many post Nemesis novels. I know I am in the minority when I say that "Death In The Winter" is one of the best TNG/Trek books I have read and I have read it twice already. I like it a lot.

I like Death in Winter too.

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I go backwards and forwards on this - overall I think the quality of the books have never been higher and the stories have depth and meaning but... I just can't seem to get into them in the same way.

Destiny was a fine series but it all seems a bit star wars like the way we constantly go from war to war, conflict to conflict. I mentioned in this in another thread, I enjoyed Destiny but got to the end and thought "yep that's it" and have no plans to buy any more TNG books - I just don't have the interest.

The DS9 relaunch started strong but seems to be spinning it's wheels a bit now. I'll pick up the next one and if seems to be going somewhere, I'll carry on but otherwise...

Voyager - I've read a couple of them but I cannot remember much about the content and I was never sold on the series to start with.

Enterprise - no interest at all.

 

[Steve Roby]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Over time, I think that same tendency for some truly outlandish plotlines spilled over into the other series. I was able to handle the parasite-invasion thing, but the whole Mirror Universe arc in the DS9 relaunch, I can't stand.

So far, it seems to be a lot more thoughtful and interesting than what happened to the Mirror Universe arc in the TV series. How outlandish can a storyline be, if it's coming straight out of stuff established by the actual TV series (i.e., the Iliana Ghemor storyline, the Mirror Universe storyline)?

I also find that I miss the freedom the older books had...especially some of the oldest like Diane Duane's TOS works. Even in Duane's own work, I can tell the difference between how she wrote when she truly had creative freedom and when she was under excessive restrictions (i.e. Intellivore). I think it would be nice to see someone get that kind of freedom again (NOT Peter David, thank you--he abuses it).

The writers have more freedom now than they've had since 1987, at least. For that matter, they're able to do things they wouldn't have thought of doing back when no one at Paramount really cared what went into the books.

Oh I didn't care about Janeway being killed.

In fact, I would be all for not only Janeway being dead and forgotten but Voyager, its entire crew and Ezri Dax as well.

They should've used the opportunity to eradicate Voyager from Star Trek in its entirety.

And your desire to "eradicate" Voyager is consistent with the tone if not the letter of most of the biased people who post on this supposedly Star Trek friendly board. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a Star Trek (not including Voyager) Board.

I hope you read the following:

You know, we make a point of never agreeing with Dayton3. Now I'm really confused 'cos he's tarred with the same brush.

For the record, Dayton3 should not be taken as representative of anyone or anything around here; he's consistently disagreeable and aggressive about most of his opinions, which are in general what I would call not fitting with Trek lore. He did recently, for instance, make a whole thread in which he complained about women being on board ships at all, since what he was really interested in was reading stories of male companionship, an opinion which not a single other person in that thread shared.

He has a right to his opinions of course, but using him as an example of any kind of trend around here is... doubtful, at best.

Believe it or not, AuntKate, you're much closer to the mainstream of opinion in this forum than Dayton3 is.

On the general topic at hand, I'm pretty happy about the state of the books. I'm still disappointed that Marco's gone, of course, and worried about how that will affect the DS9 books down the line. But in general, things seem okay.

The big change that's happened over the last few years is what appears to have been a conscious attempt on the editors' and writers' part to make the Star Trek books line a more unified line, one aimed at Star Trek (as in the whole phenomenon) fans more than fans of just one series. A few years ago, people who hated Enterprise were ticked off about Enterprise references popping up in other series books, and TNG fans who don't like TOS were grumpy about TOS references in TNG books. But it is one big universe, and it makes sense to me to treat it as such, rather than as a bunch of completely distinct and separate series. No, I wasn't a huge fan of either Voyager or Enterprise, but they're part of the fabric of the Star Trek universe and I don't want them excluded from my Trek reading. For that matter, some of the books from those series show more attention to and understanding of those series' premises and characters than a lot of the TV episodes ever did.

So if Tuvok is part of Titan, and Janeway's killed in a TNG novel, and Ezri Dax is on the Aventine instead of DS9... it's all still part of Star Trek: The Unified Universe, to coin a phrase.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

It's a trade-off, I think, Claudia. At this point, all the Trek novels are really written to add different facets to a larger unified whole, and that means that those who follow any particular series are probably more likely to follow the others, increasing brand loyalty across all the series and driving up sales numbers in that regard.

But like you said, it does make them less accessible for newcomers, and that probably drives down sales.

Years ago, when I first read the Foundation trilogy (not the Del Rey editions with the Michael Whelan covers, though I did pick those up, if only for the Arkady Darrell image on Second Foundation, but the edition before those), there was a "Previously" page the opened each volume, that recapped the previous book. And when Foundation's Edge came out, there was, again, a "Previously" page that recapped the trilogy.

Star Trek fiction could, I think, benefit from doing exactly that. Imagine if each volume of Destiny (to pull a recent example) had opened with a three or four page summary of what had happened to the characters since they were last seen on screen, which would bring new readers up to speed. Every book is someone's first book, to mangle a famous phrase from the comics industry.

 

[trekkerguy]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I think the best of Trek-Lit has been the post-Nemesis era.

 

[ialfan]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I think the best of Trek-Lit has been the post-Nemesis era.

Agreed. That and the Enterprise Post-Finale. Trek Lit can actually take risks and change characters now.

 

[Dayton Ward]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Star Trek fiction could, I think, benefit from doing exactly that.

Due to the length of time since Reap the Whirlwind came out, it was decided to do exactly that with Open Secrets, so I added a 2-page "Mission Briefing" to the front of the manuscript, hitting a few salient points about the station, the mission, and characters who would feature prominently in the book. Not a full-blown recap of the entire series...more in the style of "Previously on The West Wing" or other serialized/semi-serialized shows.

 

[trekkerguy]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I think the best of Trek-Lit has been the post-Nemesis era.

Agreed. That and the Enterprise Post-Finale. Trek Lit can actually take risks and change characters now.

From what I read they had some very very strict guidelines in the past.

Maybe they've been able to lighten them in the time since TV and movie material stopped and now?

 

[Claudia]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Trek Lit can actually take risks and change characters now.

The question is whether the casual reader actually wants that. I mean, why, as a newcomer, choose a ST-book if not because of the TV-characters? If I wanted to read of new characters and even new settings, I'd definitely not choose a ST-book but a original SF-book.

As JoeZhang here stated, ST threatens to go down the SW-lane, more action, more conflict - that might make for good and suspenseful books, of course. But IMO the feeling of what ST is all about, peaceful exploration - not only of the galaxy but also its peoples and the characters themselves -, is at risk.

I understand, it's a trade-off, Thrawn, between attracting a wider readership and catering to the wishes of the existing one. But right now, IMO the emphasis is on the latter aspect, too much so. I realize it's exciting to invent a continuation of TV-series - but not every TV-series actually needs a continuation/relaunch. I'd rather read more stories told within the canon-context... Knowing that the characters would survive a certain story (because we've seen them on screen) doesn't take away any of the suspense - in fact, the writer would have to create a suspenseful and exciting story without having to threaten the characters with death/extinction etc. (which in recent time has become the most favourite plot device...) And actually, the TOS-standalone is the one book I'm most looking forward to. *g*

Allyn, I'd love to have that "previously on XY" page... OTOH, I'd say it's not a coincidence there isn't one since it requires people who want to know more of what went on before to buy that book instead of just reading the summary...

 

[trekkerguy]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I don't think it's gone the way of SW at all.

The characters have gotten deeper and the plots have all taken more
risks when it comes to morality and ethics. I think this has to be one
of the richest times in Trek-Lit for high quality stories that aren't just
following a formulaic TV show that had to worry about being politicaly correct.

 

[elaithin]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Except, Claudia, aren't static stories essentially meaningless? What's the worth of a story where there is no character advancement or development at all?

 

[Claudia]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Except, Claudia, aren't static stories essentially meaningless? What's the worth of a story where there is no character advancement or development at all?

Puh, you realize that you're essentially calling all ST-novels meaningless that came before the decision to move beyond the canon-verse, don't you?!?

I'd definitely not call gems such as "Sarek" meaningless, neither would I call books like "Metamorphosis", "Q-Squared" or "Imzadi" meaningless, or the 2 Yesterday-novels... just to mention a few.

I think you're confusing standalone with static.

@ trekkerguy,

I'm sorry but I just don't see it that way. Possible that I just missed out on the real moral conflicts or the indepth characterization you mentioned. (And I don't count Deanna's baby or Picard's obsession with the Thalaron radiation as moral conflicts per se, since it was obvious which direction that "conflict" would go.)

I'm not questioning the quality of the books or the writers - I'm just wondering whether the direction TrekLit is going is the right one. To me it seems unbalanced right now - but I suppose it also depends on what you expect of TrekLit.

 

[elaithin]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

I have no problem at all with standalone stories - several of the ones you mentioned did in fact advance the characters. It's the ones that don't - the ones that exist just to sell another book - that I have a problem with.

 

[Trent Roman]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Star Trek fiction could, I think, benefit from doing exactly that. Imagine if each volume of Destiny (to pull a recent example) had opened with a three or four page summary of what had happened to the characters since they were last seen on screen, which would bring new readers up to speed. Every book is someone's first book, to mangle a famous phrase from the comics industry.

Agreed; and it would also have the benefit of keeping lengthy recaps out of the narrative itself, which was one of my issues with Greater than the Sum.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Over time, I think that same tendency for some truly outlandish plotlines spilled over into the other series. I was able to handle the parasite-invasion thing, but the whole Mirror Universe arc in the DS9 relaunch, I can't stand.

So far, it seems to be a lot more thoughtful and interesting than what happened to the Mirror Universe arc in the TV series. How outlandish can a storyline be, if it's coming straight out of stuff established by the actual TV series (i.e., the Iliana Ghemor storyline, the Mirror Universe storyline)?

The Mirror Universe is one of those few areas where I think Deep Space Nine made a serious mistake. The first MU adventure was OK, but it was downhill from there, and I kind of wish it could've been left alone.

As for the Iliana Ghemor storyline...believe me, I loved it as it was in the series, with all of the ambiguity, the unknowing that made what Tekeny was going through so much more poignant. (Even better would've been to go with the original ending of "Second Skin" rather than the final draft, but still.) I think that should've been left alone...I felt that diminished its power, which came from the unknown, not the answer.

 

[Lynx]

Re: Anyone Else Unhappy With the Post Nemesis Novels & Direction of ST

Trek Lit can actually take risks and change characters now.

The question is whether the casual reader actually wants that. I mean, why, as a newcomer, choose a ST-book if not because of the TV-characters? If I wanted to read of new characters and even new settings, I'd definitely not choose a ST-book but a original SF-book.

As JoeZhang here stated, ST threatens to go down the SW-lane, more action, more conflict - that might make for good and suspenseful books, of course. But IMO the feeling of what ST is all about, peaceful exploration - not only of the galaxy but also its peoples and the characters themselves -, is at risk.

I understand, it's a trade-off, Thrawn, between attracting a wider readership and catering to the wishes of the existing one. But right now, IMO the emphasis is on the latter aspect, too much so. I realize it's exciting to invent a continuation of TV-series - but not every TV-series actually needs a continuation/relaunch. I'd rather read more stories told within the canon-context... Knowing that the characters would survive a certain story (because we've seen them on screen) doesn't take away any of the suspense - in fact, the writer would have to create a suspenseful and exciting story without having to threaten the characters with death/extinction etc. (which in recent time has become the most favourite plot device...) And actually, the TOS-standalone is the one book I'm most looking forward to. *g*

Allyn, I'd love to have that "previously on XY" page... OTOH, I'd say it's not a coincidence there isn't one since it requires people who want to know more of what went on before to buy that book instead of just reading the summary...

Yes, imagine someone who recently have started to watch a re-run of any of the Star Trek series, who likes it, who want to read about the favorites as well, buys a book....................................and finds that most of the characters from the series are killed off or not present in the books.

Well, I can't speak for all those who might encounter such a situation but if it had been me, I do think that I would avoid the books after that.