Star Trek XI has failed... Trek Lit

[LaBarre]

I've still not seen the film - so one should hold off at this point from delving too much into this...but I hope to God that TPTB haven't again opted to render the majority of humanity into the sex/angst/sister/mother object of the main male characters.

Well...we don't meet anyone's sister...

On the bright side, even if you don't like it, hopefully you can write a better feminist rant than some of the ones that are already around.

I'm not into rants, I'm into equality - and isn't that the whole purpose of Star Trek?

But taking your point seriously, it should come as no surprise that a number of female (and male fans for what it matters) find many of the "let's-see-who-can-piss-higher-on-the-wall" type of postings that too often have dominated many fansites (including this one) as very...immature, puerile, asinine and extremely unattractive.

BTW - giving an opinion that doesn't gel with yours doesn't mean that a) I'm a feminist or b) that I'm ranting or c) that there is necessarily any connection between a) and b). And c) so what?

I'm very happy that Star Trek is continuing on in film format to grab a new audience, and am very much looking forward to watching it - I'm just hoping it's not just one for the fanboys.

 

[seigezunt]

I remember when "feminist" wasn't a dirty word...nothing to be ashamed of. and I agree.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I remember when "feminist" wasn't a dirty word...nothing to be ashamed of.

And it isn't now, except amongst the yahoos.

 

[Mike Farley]

Can the casual reader even tell the difference between the two continuities? The visual differences are a moot point in prose. The characters are pretty close, no significant deviations from their TOS roots. Unless Vulcan is featured ("I thought that blew up?"), the new reader is looking to read about the Spock/Uhura relationship, or the novel is a sequel to an episode I would say most books can fit into either continuity well enough for the layman.

 

[Christopher]

^Unless the new-continuity books make a point of exploring the differences between the continuities, which seems a more interesting approach to me than just trying to tell generic stories that could fit in either. For instance, the new continuity's Kirk is a captain at a much younger age, and has a more troubled past. He's more a contemporary of his crewmates because of his delayed enrollment in the Academy, yet he's quickly ascended to be their captain. All of that would affect his characterization and his interactions with the crew.

Also, what about the changes to the Federation as a result of the Kelvin attack and now the destruction of Vulcan? Losing a founding planet is a huge cataclysm. It makes Pearl Harbor and 9/11 pale in comparison. That's something that would have major effects on the society. Isn't that worth exploring rather than downplaying?

 

[DaveGalanter]

Also, what about the changes to the Federation as a result of the Kelvin attack and now the destruction of Vulcan? Losing a founding planet is a huge cataclysm. It makes Pearl Harbor and 9/11 pale in comparison. That's something that would have major effects on the society. Isn't that worth exploring rather than downplaying?

It depends on the story one wants to tell. My father's mother died of cancer at the same time his first child (who passed away at the age of 11 months) was sick. The fact that it was in a universe where World War II, or the Bay of Pigs, or any number of events had occurred wasn't very relevant to that particular episode in his life.

Sure, if one wants to tell a political story about the Federation, you can explore rather than downplay the differences you mention. But if one's aim is to tell a more personal story, it isn't needed, or perhaps even called for.

Honestly, I prefer stories not about Earth or Federation politics. I rather enjoy the seeking out of strange, new worlds myself.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, sure, it's about the story you choose to tell. But now that we have a whole new variant of the Trek universe to play with, I think it'd be more interesting to choose to tell stories that explore the new possibilities that timeline creates, rather than ones that could just as well be told in the old timeline. I mean, wasn't that the perennial complaint about Voyager? That it just told warmed-over TNG stories rather than really taking advantage of its potential for new kinds of stories?

Besides, it's a matter of branding. If there's to be a new line of books tying into the movie continuity, it seems that they should take a fresh approach and establish themselves as their own entity, something that fits the style and tone as well as the continuity of the film. If they were just routine Trek stories with Pine and Quinto on the cover, that would strike me as something of a cheat.

Also, I disagree that only a politically driven story could be informed by the aftereffects of Vulcan's destruction. That's the sort of event that can affect the tenor of a whole society, resonate through it on every level. Even if it's not the focus of the story, it would be a lingering presence in the background, just as you can find references to 9/11 even in stories that have nothing to do with it directly (such as the way the US Life on Mars pilot used the World Trade Center as a striking, immediate visual symbol that Sam wasn't in 2009 anymore).

 

[DaveGalanter]

^To me, the most interesting stories have little to do with the specifics of a timeline or differences in made-up histories. They have to do with people, their emotions and notions, and how they interact. If there is anything really interesting to me to explore in the new timeline, it isn't the technology created by the Kelvin's destruction or political structure changes after the destruction of Vulcan, but in the characters (Kirk who grew up without a father and got a command much younger than before, for example, would be very interesting to explore).

What is a "routine" story? If it's a good story, changing it to Trek 2009 story should be cosmetic changes--a little dialogue change and some different descriptions. Perhaps a little more action (though I've usually written my books with more action than not so in my particular case it wouldn't be too much of a change).

It's never a cheat to give the reader a good story about the human condition.

As for branding--like I said a Trek 2009 story SHOULD deal with the changes in the characters--THAT is interesting. But changes in how the society changed after Vulcan or the Kelvin? It's less interesting to me (maybe JUST to me, mind you). I don't care for Trek stories about Earth and Federation politics--and that is me. If I want to see Human politics and society I'll turn on the news. I want to see strange, new worlds, and THEIR civilizations and then look at the human condition because of internal, not external conflicts.

Like I said, just me.

 

[DaveGalanter]

By the way, Christopher... I wasn't saying it might not be interesting to SOME... it's just not the story I would enjoy or want to tell.

You'd said "Isn't that worth exploring rather than downplaying?" And like I said--depends on the story one wants to tell. I'd downplay the changes in the Federation. I'd probably not even mention them. I'd focus on the characters, focus on those "differences" but not in a way to point them out so much as explore them. That's all I was saying. A Trek 2009 book certainly can explore rather than downplay big changes in the new history, but it also would be equally interesting (and more interesting to me really) to focus not on that but on the individual lives.

 

[Karnbeln]

I don't think we have a special gene that makes ST intelligible to us.

It's more of a mind-degrading virus.

 

[Christopher]

^To me, the most interesting stories have little to do with the specifics of a timeline or differences in made-up histories. They have to do with people, their emotions and notions, and how they interact. If there is anything really interesting to me to explore in the new timeline, it isn't the technology created by the Kelvin's destruction or political structure changes after the destruction of Vulcan, but in the characters (Kirk who grew up without a father and got a command much younger than before, for example, would be very interesting to explore).

Yes, exactly. The characters are different, and that's partly because of their different life experiences, their different background, the way they're affected on a personal level by the events of their lives. That's what I'm talking about. These characters now live in a world where one of the founding planets of their nation has been destroyed violently. How does that affect their view of the universe? Does it make them more defensive, more wary of the unknown? Does it numb them to violence, or does it make them consider life more precious? Does it make them want to get closer to their loved ones and make the most of the time they have, or does it make them afraid to take chances on connecting to people who might be taken from them randomly?

You can't separate characters from their environment. Characters are shaped and informed by the world they live in. I agree with you completely that exploring the difference in the characters is worthwhile, but the differences in the universe they inhabit, in their context, are part and parcel of that.

What is a "routine" story? If it's a good story, changing it to Trek 2009 story should be cosmetic changes--a little dialogue change and some different descriptions. Perhaps a little more action (though I've usually written my books with more action than not so in my particular case it wouldn't be too much of a change).

But why start with something generic and tweak it to fit? Why not begin with the specifics of the movie's universe and discover what stories arise organically from that foundation? Approach it from the inside out rather than the outside in. Story should begin with character, and this Kirk, this Spock, and this Uhura (at least) are different characters than their counterparts. So you start by asking, what is there about these characters and their distinct attitudes and experiences that would be interesting to learn more about? Then you create a story that lets you explore that. The differences should be at the root of the story, not just plastered onto the surface.

 

[DaveGalanter]

Yes, exactly. The characters are different, and that's partly because of their different life experiences, their different background, the way they're affected on a personal level by the events of their lives. That's what I'm talking about.

On that we agree. I don't think we disagreed about that. I was just saying exploring the emotional part of that interests me, rather than the changes to the SOCIETY. I wouldn't want to explore Federation society--I'd want to explore Kirk and Spock. Sure, society helps mold us, but generally Kirk is going to be far more shaped by the loss of his father (and learning why it happened) than because of the loss of Vulcan. And Spock is more shook by the loss of his mother than even the loss of his planet. Those are interesting to me. What the Federation as a whole does in response to losing one of their founding members? Could be interesting, sure, but as one kind of story. It's surely not going to come into play in ALL stories one might tell--that's all I said. "Depends on the story."

But why start with something generic and tweak it to fit?

I wasn't suggesting you SHOULD, I was saying ONE COULD. I was saying that a good story is a good story no matter the backdrop. It's one of the things that made classic Trek work--it didn't have to be Science Fiction but would have worked against almost any backdrop. Because the characters have MOSTLY remained intact, you can have one book that focuses on their reactions to the changes you speak of, and another book which focuses on a different character aspect that has nothing to do with the Federation or Vulcan.

Why not begin with the specifics of the movie's universe and discover what stories arise organically from that foundation?

Sure, why not? And why not also do it differently and not really touch on those changes in any big way? Again, I wasn't saying it couldn't or shouldn't be done as you suggest, but saying it also may NOT be done that way. Trek has spent the last two decades touching on its own history. It need not now just change to a NEW history and start touching on that. I don't really want to know more about the Federation than it's a peace keeping and exploratory armada. I want to see strange, new worlds and see our characters reactions to those new civilizations they touch and the interesting things that happen. That's all I'm saying.

Again, we agree on exploring some of the differences in the characters, but I don't think the society differences created by the Kelvin have a lot to do with the story I'd want to tell. YMMV.

 

[Overgeeked]

One is the fact that that extra five months was utterly meaningless, for several reasons. Publishing doesn't function well on a rush schedule, and it functions even less well on a rush schedule when half the editorial team is laid off without warning.

Doing books that tie into a movie also requires access to the filming of the movie. Said access was heavily restricted, which I suspect (though I'm not 100% sure of this) curtailed a lot of the possibilities. Hell, Alan Dean Foster wasn't even formally hired to write the novelization until February, and that wasn't because anybody at Pocket dragged their feet.

Another factor is that bookstores are hurting badly right now. They're not ordering more of anything.

Not to disagree with one of the writers who hangs out here, but...

Knowing the movie's coming out for 2+ years, and being given 5 more months definitely could have translated to a few more reprints and getting some more books on the shelves from Pocket's end. As per the editorial crisis, finding the files of an out-of-print book to have it sent to a printer doesn't require that much effort. And depending on how Pocket is structured, that decision / work wouldn't even be in editorial but production / design.

You're absolutely right about the tie-in, that sucked about the timing. But, again, that shouldn't effect the other books getting on the shelves.

Bookstores are in bad shape, but the right of return and all shipping being paid by the publisher does help prop them up. Anything they don't sell is returned (at the pubs cost) and all the store is out is a bit of shelf space and the five minutes of worker time to get the book on the shelf.

 

[Christopher]

On that we agree. I don't think we disagreed about that. I was just saying exploring the emotional part of that interests me, rather than the changes to the SOCIETY. I wouldn't want to explore Federation society--I'd want to explore Kirk and Spock. Sure, society helps mold us, but generally Kirk is going to be far more shaped by the loss of his father (and learning why it happened) than because of the loss of Vulcan. And Spock is more shook by the loss of his mother than even the loss of his planet. Those are interesting to me. What the Federation as a whole does in response to losing one of their founding members? Could be interesting, sure, but as one kind of story. It's surely not going to come into play in ALL stories one might tell--that's all I said. "Depends on the story."

Like I said, I don't think you can draw the line that sharply. A story about characters is going to be informed by the societal context they inhabit, and a story about a larger society is going to be explored from the perspective of the characters who inhabit it. They're facets of the same thing.

Sure, why not? And why not also do it differently and not really touch on those changes in any big way? Again, I wasn't saying it couldn't or shouldn't be done as you suggest, but saying it also may NOT be done that way. Trek has spent the last two decades touching on its own history. It need not now just change to a NEW history and start touching on that.

Who said anything about change? My position is predicated on the assumption that an Abramsverse novel line would coexist alongside books in the familiar ST continuity, including TOS books. Since series in both continuities would be running side-by-side, it seems sensible to differentiate them -- to focus each line on stories that are uniquely part of that line and wouldn't work in the other. Otherwise they'd be too similar to justify doing both at once.

Knowing the movie's coming out for 2+ years, and being given 5 more months definitely could have translated to a few more reprints and getting some more books on the shelves from Pocket's end.

Again, that would only work if bookstores were interested in ordering more books. Like Keith said, nobody knew whether the movie would be a success or not, and in the current economic climate they chose to play it safe rather than take a gamble.

As per the editorial crisis, finding the files of an out-of-print book to have it sent to a printer doesn't require that much effort. And depending on how Pocket is structured, that decision / work wouldn't even be in editorial but production / design.

I don't think that's true at all. The decision to reprint a book has to be made at the editorial level and higher, there's probably paperwork to sort out, the editor and author would probably need to go through the manuscript to check for errors that were missed the first time around (there are always a few), decisions have to be made about whether to design a new cover, etc.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Again, that would only work if bookstores were interested in ordering more books. Like Keith said, nobody knew whether the movie would be a success or not, and in the current economic climate they chose to play it safe rather than take a gamble.

And as Jim Kirk famously said, "Risk is our business."

Publishers offered bookstores tons of Watchmen crap. I know this, because I can walk into a bookstore today and find a metric fuckload of it. Publishers and bookstores gambled on Watchmen. They didn't know if it was going to be a success or not. They took a risk. It's their business.

It's clear that bookstores didn't gamble on Star Trek. The question is -- did they not gamble on Star Trek because they thought it would not be a success? Or did they not gamble on Star Trek because Pocket gave them nothing to gamble with? Based on the quantity of Watchmen crap I still see, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

[Thrawn]

Watchmen was so famously awesome that it made Time magazine's best novels of the century, and was being helmed by a director with huge recent success. "From visionary director Zack Snyder" and all that.

Star Trek had been in a constant state of sales decline since TNG left the air, culminating in a truly laughable flop of a movie as the most recent cinematic effort.

I'm not sure the two situations are comparable.

 

[DaveGalanter]

Like I said, I don't think you can draw the line that sharply. A story about characters is going to be informed by the societal context they inhabit, and a story about a larger society is going to be explored from the perspective of the characters who inhabit it. They're facets of the same thing.

Sorry, I don't see that the society has changed that much from TOS to Trek 09. Maybe you do. Okay--we see it differently. If it has changed so much that we won't recognize the humanity in these folks and need to focus on what the Federation is like without Vulcan.... I just don't buy it. CAN you have a book that focuses on that? Sure. Can you have one that doesn't? Sure. You seem to be suggesting that if you DON'T focus on that, you're not telling a good Trek 09 story. I must disagree. If the movie showed us ANYTHING, it's that these characters are basically the same, despite the differences in the timelines. And really--someone who is going to pick up a book who has seent he movie and not much else isn't going to do it because the Federation and its politics and the greater society fascinate them. They want to see these same characters in some interesting experiences. Go to a strange new world and have them find a new civilization and be given an interesting dilemma and you could have a good story.

Again, not saying it can't be done another way... just saying it can also be done this way. Like I said: "depends on the story one is looking to tell." Jim Kirk was a look-before-you-leap, no-win-scenario guy in Classic Trek and he is in Trek 09. Don't really need to see how people are dealing with Vulcan being gone to tell a good story about his character. Don't even need to touch on his lack-of-daddy issues to tell one, since no one person is ONLY all about one line in their bio. Again--since it's basically the same Jim Kirk we've always known, that alone is proof not enough has changed. You seem to be saying it's interesting to you to explore the differences in the characters. To me, they ain't THAT different. Little differences I may or may not want to explore, but what I want is to see them deal with new situations, and that can continue to be done in a TOS setting or an 09 setting--so long as you're telling an interesting story about people with realistic problems and thoughtful dilemmas. That the Federation as 4 planets, 400 planets, or anything in between has never interested me. It's why the movie never scared me. I don't believe in canon and they're all just stories. Good stories win, bad stories lose.

If you think you can't tell a good Trek 09 story that's hard to distinguish from a TOS story, I'd be shocked.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Actually, my primary source for this isn't the Internet at all, it's a Teletext page on the UK's ITV service. I've been reading the comments written there for the last week or so, and the universal opinion is that Star Trek IX has erased all the other Star Trek. I haven't seen a dissenting post yet. I mentioned IMDB as more people will have heard of that on the board, than Teletext. By the same token, more people in the UK will now about the Teletext page and it would be a better representation of the movie going public in the UK.

Also, I'm trying not to look at this from the point of view of a Trek fan, rather a complete newbie to the property, enticed to look for tie in material by the new movie. Judging by the numbers, there are a whole lot of people interested by Star Trek now, who simply weren't twelve months ago.

It's obvious that Trek Lit won't be harmed or hindered by this, the existing fanbase is robust enough for that. I'm just considering whether the new film will help Trek Lit in the way that was originally hoped.

Well..as I have said before.. they should AXE any books series in the old timeline. Only books that take place in JJ's Trekline should be printed...and they should have some realm of continuity to them, and some direction to them.

Rob

 

[Therin of Andor]

As per the editorial crisis, finding the files of an out-of-print book to have it sent to a printer doesn't require that much effort.

As Marco explained on numerous occasions, that's not how reprints work, and there's more paperwork - for lots of people - than you'd think.

Bookstores are in bad shape, but the right of return and all shipping being paid by the publisher does help prop them up. Anything they don't sell is returned (at the pubs cost) and all the store is out is a bit of shelf space and the five minutes of worker time to get the book on the shelf.

Again, that's not how it always works.

 

[Thrawn]

Actually, my primary source for this isn't the Internet at all, it's a Teletext page on the UK's ITV service. I've been reading the comments written there for the last week or so, and the universal opinion is that Star Trek IX has erased all the other Star Trek. I haven't seen a dissenting post yet. I mentioned IMDB as more people will have heard of that on the board, than Teletext. By the same token, more people in the UK will now about the Teletext page and it would be a better representation of the movie going public in the UK.

Also, I'm trying not to look at this from the point of view of a Trek fan, rather a complete newbie to the property, enticed to look for tie in material by the new movie. Judging by the numbers, there are a whole lot of people interested by Star Trek now, who simply weren't twelve months ago.

It's obvious that Trek Lit won't be harmed or hindered by this, the existing fanbase is robust enough for that. I'm just considering whether the new film will help Trek Lit in the way that was originally hoped.

Well..as I have said before.. they should AXE any books series in the old timeline. Only books that take place in JJ's Trekline should be printed...and they should have some realm of continuity to them, and some direction to them.

Rob

But they can't have some realm of direction or continuity, because the movies supersede them. Just like you didn't get many big arcs in any other series while the TV shows were still on, or movies still being made.

It's a completely unrealistic idea.