What happened to "episode" books?

[William Leisner]

I wouldn't mind having more one-shot "episodic" novels in the mix, so long as they were well done. As someone noted above, a lot of 1980s and '90s novels tended to be tired and repetitive, but I'm going to suggest that was more a function of the 24-novels-a-year schedule that the editors had to meet, rather than any inherent problem with the non-serialized brand of storytelling. I don't see any reason why a novel set, for instance, in TNG's 5th season couldn't be as entertaining as any other novel... or, for that matter as any episode from TNG's 5th season.

 

[MMCL]

One of the things I enjoy about the continuing storytelling approach is that the more time a reader invests the more they benefit.

Realistically any novel can be picked up and read on it's own.
(I am guessing that's why some of the really early SCE stuff re-trod a lot of old ground in each new release - eg to keep retelling bits of the same story over and over in subsequent stories in case you hadn't read the previous entries and didn't have all of the plot development)

You get so much more from an integrated world where the events create a 'living universe' where everything is fluid and you see the real consequences of actions and decisions - compare to something like HARD TIME from DS9 where Miles is ok by the following week.
He'd still be in therapy in the books

(and quite rightly so...)

 

[HIj'Qa]

To answer the question directly - what happened to them, as opposed to if I want to read more of them - it must be that they weren't as profitable. Invasion showed up the mid-nineties, and then Day Of Honor, which was 5 books, and New Frontier, which started as 4 books, and Captain's Table and Invasion and New Earth which were all 6 books, and then trilogies started happening (like Q Continuum) instead of individual installments... none of that would've happened if it wasn't completely clear that those books sold better. By the late nineties, some years more series books were selling than standalones, and that was before substantive changes were allowed.

The current preference towards ongoing stories, it seems to me, is a natural outgrowth of that; those same multi-book arcs that so clearly outsold the standalones, only now with ongoing plots instead of miniseries.

So, Kate, tell your friends they need to find more people that agree with them and travel back to the late 90s to change the purchasing patterns

Or, by not buying the current ongoing stories, the sales figures will cause the pendulum to swing back to more stand-alone stories. Wheeeeeeeeee!

 

[Allyn Gibson]

To answer the question directly - what happened to them, as opposed to if I want to read more of them - it must be that they weren't as profitable. Invasion showed up the mid-nineties, and then Day Of Honor, which was 5 books, and New Frontier, which started as 4 books, and Captain's Table and Invasion and New Earth which were all 6 books, and then trilogies started happening (like Q Continuum) instead of individual installments... none of that would've happened if it wasn't completely clear that those books sold better. By the late nineties, some years more series books were selling than standalones, and that was before substantive changes were allowed.

Okay, you're talking about several very different things here.

Invasion!, Day of Honor, and Captain's Table were, in retrospect, umbrella titles for a group of generally standalone books. What's surprising about Invasion! is how conservative it is; the four books are exactly like any other Star Trek books published in 1996, with the only difference being that all four books involve an alien species we've never seen before. Day of Honor was an umbrella for Klingon stories. Captain's Table was an umbrella to link six books that didn't have to be Captain's Table stories. (Which was, to be blunt, a failing of that particular series; the concept was, in itself, intriguing, and none of the books actually used it as the peg on which to hang the story. When I pitched for Constellations, I pitched an explicit Captain's Table story which absolutely required the Table and couldn't work any other way.) And Double Helix should have been, as John Ordover himself said a few years later, published under the individual series titles rather than under the TNG banner; again, it was an umbrella for six generally disconnected books that had a recurring plot macguffin. With these "umbrellas," you didn't have to pick up all the books; if you didn't care about Voyager, you didn't have to buy that book.

The trilogies (and something like New Earth) are different beasts entirely.

The current preference towards ongoing stories, it seems to me, is a natural outgrowth of that; those same multi-book arcs that so clearly outsold the standalones, only now with ongoing plots instead of miniseries.

John Ordover said in the late 90s that the individual books in a trilogy sold three times what a comparable standalone sold. So, the third book of Rebels would have sold three times what The 34th Rule sold, basically. I'm not an accountant, but I can see how attractive trilogies look on the ledger. If trilogies sell like that, de-emphasizing singletons in favor of trilogies makes financial sense. It would've been suicide not to transition to that.

The trick, of course, is to stay ahead of your market and where your audience is and where they're going to be.

 

[Thrawn]

Allyn, I know all the differences you mentioned; I've read all of the books in question, believe me. My point was exactly what you said at the end - the books that were branded as larger stories of ANY kind, be they umbrellas or trilogies or ongoing series or whatever, outsold the standalones by so much that it's not surprising standalones have diminished so much in frequency.

 

[Christopher]

^But that shouldn't obscure the other point: that just because books have some sort of thread tying them together does not mean that the individual books can't be enjoyed as complete, self-contained stories. It's a myth that "standalone" fiction requires an absolute avoidance of continuity references.

 

[Thrawn]

I mostly agree with that, Christopher, but I do think that a huge part of the enjoyment of these books for me is the fact that I have read so many of the others and see The Bigger Picture, so to speak. I'd recommend a few books to people that weren't well-versed in Trek, like Vanguard and Destiny, but even for the latter one if any of my friends were to take me up on it I'd make sure I sent them a couple pages of "previously in the TrekLit universe" so they'd be able to jump in.

Sure, one could probably pick up any TrekLit book and read it and essentially get it, but I'm not sure it would have nearly the appeal without the context given by the others. I really do see the point that TrekLit is hard to jump into these days, and I think the authors on here sometimes don't realize that.

If nothing else, the sense that one is "missing something", whether justified or not, can really mess up some people's enjoyment of a story, and as a newcomer it'd be really hard to find a novel where you didn't get some of that.

Don't get me wrong; I adore TrekLit's recent direction and wouldn't have it any other way. But there ARE disadvantages, and AuntKate has a point.

 

[Ktrek]

I do think that AuntKate has a point but I am really enjoying the direction the Trek books have taken over what they were before. If Pocket was to make a move back to more of the standalone stories I would be OK with that but Trek books are much more interesting in the approach they are currently taking.

Kevin

 

[neogothboy74]

I've been a long time Trek fan, since the late 70's (I was born in 74). I wasn't much of a Trek book reader back then. I found it hard to take the books seriously because there never seemed to be any consequences for the characters. It was like...they would have these neat adventures and then have their minds wiped at the end, which always felt very frustrating to me. I remember being thrilled when A.C. Crispin released "Time For Yesterday", her sequel to "Yesterday's Son", because not only had I enjoyed the first book - but now those events would be built upon.

When the DS9 Relaunch kicked in is when I truly fell in love with Trek fiction. Here was the complex continuity and character work that I'd been craving almost my entire life as a Star Trek fan. I've since branched out to other Trek fiction and I'm a huge fan of this new level of continiuty. I've read all of the New Frontier books, IKS Gorkon, PFVoyager, PFTNG, Titan. It all feels like a huge reward for all the fiction I slogged through in the 80's, where nothing much was allowed to happen...

However, I do like stand alones too - as long as they aren't stand alone. What I mean is, I enjoy the books that take place between episodes and kind of fill in the gaps in the stories, explaining how the characters got from point A to point B. I think those kind of 'stand alones' have worked well in the past and have a lot of potential. They have a built in middle and end (so consequences - and continuity), so I'm able to enjoy those kinds of stories more then some random new lost adventure that because of it's format can't really add anything to the official stories. If they released more books like that, I wouldn't mind at all.

As long as the Post Series fiction continues (especially the DS9 storyline, which is kind of the epitome of why I buy Trek novels) - I'll be happy with whatever else they release, I guess..

 

[Christopher]

If nothing else, the sense that one is "missing something", whether justified or not, can really mess up some people's enjoyment of a story, and as a newcomer it'd be really hard to find a novel where you didn't get some of that.

Don't get me wrong; I adore TrekLit's recent direction and wouldn't have it any other way. But there ARE disadvantages, and AuntKate has a point.

That's probably true. But it's important to clarify that not all Trek Lit takes the same approach. As I've said, Titan is specifically designed to be an episodic series, with no inter-novel links beyond developing character relationships, occasional cast changes, and the like. It's a very different animal from the DS9 post-finale series, which is designed to emulate the more serialized continuity of DS9's later seasons, or Vanguard, which is meant to emulate the gritty serialized approach of modern shows like Battlestar Galactica. TTN is more a TNG-style series in its storytelling.

So while I understand that some readers might prefer something less serialized than DS9R or VNG, I want to make it very clear that such books do exist already. Trek Lit is not a uniform thing. It's intended to have a variety of approaches, to offer something for everybody.

 

[captcalhoun]

the thing is though, ANY story has some back-story that's mentioned and not elaborated on in detail.

look at Die Hard. there's a shit-load of back-story not elaborated on about why Maclane stayed in New York, while Holly went to LA.

or

why Dooku left the Jedi Order in AOTC

or

Worf's nausea in zero-G environments mentioned in FC.

it's part and parcel of telling a story that not everything gets explicated.

 

[Nardpuncher]

I thought the OP was talking more about books being set in the "old days" as opposed to being stand alone.

I miss TNG stories from the original 7 year mission. The thing I don't like about the new TNG books is I keep forgetting that Riker isn't there next to Picard and data's gone and all that. I'd welcome stuff set in the 3rd season for example.

 

[Nardpuncher]

If nothing else, the sense that one is "missing something", whether justified or not, can really mess up some people's enjoyment of a story, and as a newcomer it'd be really hard to find a novel where you didn't get some of that.

Don't get me wrong; I adore TrekLit's recent direction and wouldn't have it any other way. But there ARE disadvantages, and AuntKate has a point.

That's probably true. But it's important to clarify that not all Trek Lit takes the same approach. As I've said, Titan is specifically designed to be an episodic series, with no inter-novel links beyond developing character relationships, occasional cast changes, and the like. It's a very different animal from the DS9 post-finale series, which is designed to emulate the more serialized continuity of DS9's later seasons, or Vanguard, which is meant to emulate the gritty serialized approach of modern shows like Battlestar Galactica. TTN is more a TNG-style series in its storytelling.

So while I understand that some readers might prefer something less serialized than DS9R or VNG, I want to make it very clear that such books do exist already. Trek Lit is not a uniform thing. It's intended to have a variety of approaches, to offer something for everybody.

You said "That's probably true" for something that was that Thrawn and AuntieKate said is their opinion. Oops.

 

[justcorbly]

Does anyone else long for the old "numbered" books from years back where we could just enjoy a novel that "could have been" an episode?

I know I do.

I think it's a matter of taste, and tastes differ.

Plenty of Trek novels exist that can fit into the episodic mold. And, don't forget all the short stories. Lots and lots of TV scripts have been based on short stories

For myself, I do not think a 40-odd minute TV script can deliver anywhere near the depth, complexity and character development that the novel does. I'm usually disappointed when I read a novel that mirrors an episode of a TV show. There's little or no "there" there.

In fact, when I read a Trek novel, I expect it to measure up against pretty much the best of the non-tie-in action/adventure/SF stuff that's out there, and there is a lot of it. I'm not sure a book written to mimic a TV episode can do that.

As the authors and the publisher keep asserting, it really isn't necessary to read all the novels published prior to a new release. The authors do a very good job of filling in the background and the backstory, as they might be expected to do. For example, Mack explains in the Destiny trilogy how Ezri Dax came to be a captain and in command of the Aventine. If someone wants all the details, they can read the relevant novels in the DS9 relaunch series, but it is not necessary.

 

[justcorbly]

I sometimes wonder whether the natural and valid excitement over the relatively recent ability to make substantive changes to characters' lives has created the false impression that such changes are required for powerful storytelling.

No, "such changes" are not required for good storytelling. But, if a series of novels are intended to cover what happens after a series is cancelled, then it seems obvious that the characters would age and change.

 

[Thrawn]

Or think of it this way. When TNG was on the air, or any of the others, they had 26 episodes a year. How, each series of books has one a year, maybe two. It's not an exact correlation, I know, but I sort of feel like they have a duty to take the few episodes per season that would do huge things and make THOSE into the stories in the novels. Where a TV show might have space for filler episodes, filler novels would drag these series down fast.

Does that mean something has been lost? Yes, it certainly does; in the transition from TV series to ongoing novel series, certain stories that made sense on TV no longer make sense, and so we don't get them. Filler episodes have a certain joy. But on the other hand, there are possibilities for storytelling in the novels that would never have been possible on screen. Different stories, different mediums.

And I think the novels these days are very good at being novels, with all the strengths thereof. I think novels that are pretending to be episodes are inherently worse, because you get the limitations of both without too much of the strengths of either.

 

[Brendan Moody]

No, "such changes" are not required for good storytelling. But, if a series of novels are intended to cover what happens after a series is cancelled, then it seems obvious that the characters would age and change.

That is obvious. It's also irrelevant to the point I was making in the post you quoted.

 

[justcorbly]

No, "such changes" are not required for good storytelling. But, if a series of novels are intended to cover what happens after a series is cancelled, then it seems obvious that the characters would age and change.

That is obvious. It's also irrelevant to the point I was making in the post you quoted.

One of Trek's built-in problems is the fact that you've got a few recurring characters stuffed into a spaceship or a space station. Unless you fall prey to the lures of incestuous soap opera plots, you need to find a way to introduce new problems and new characters. Hence, all of the alien-of-the-week episodes.

While it's of course possible to write a fine novel that exists entirely within the continuity constraints of a TV series, it's also true that it must be difficult to avoid rehashing what's already been done while simultaneously telling a new story.

 

[Brendan Moody]

While it's of course possible to write a fine novel that exists entirely within the continuity constraints of a TV series, it's also true that it must be difficult to avoid rehashing what's already been done while simultaneously telling a new story.

This is true to some extent, which is why it's important that, as Thrawn mentions, the novels be novels and try to find dramatic territory that can only be explored in prose. I don't think adopting the pacing, depth, and interiority of the novel is inherently impossible for alien-of-the-week stories, though as you say it has its potential pitfalls.

 

[Thrawn]

While it's of course possible to write a fine novel that exists entirely within the continuity constraints of a TV series, it's also true that it must be difficult to avoid rehashing what's already been done while simultaneously telling a new story.

This is true to some extent, which is why it's important that, as Thrawn mentions, the novels be novels and try to find dramatic territory that can only be explored in prose. I don't think adopting the pacing, depth, and interiority of the novel is inherently impossible for alien-of-the-week stories, though as you say it has its potential pitfalls.

Right, and I think that's a completely fair assessment. No one is saying it's *impossible* to write good stories within the series that justify being told as novels (I'm reading Captain's Table: Fire Ship right now, and it's a GREAT example), just that there are pitfalls. It's harder to justify, when continuing the ongoing series is something that clearly sells well and is far less restrictive of potential plots.