orry, 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.
None of that has anything to do with what I'm saying. I'm not saying there's been a profound change in the society. I'm saying that if you want to tell a story that's set in this continuity, it makes sense to ground it in the things that make this continuity distinct. I'm saying that the characters' history, including the broader tapestry of the society they occupy, has an influence on their characterization -- not necessarily a monumental one, but one worth taking into account.
Look at Sam Raimi's
Spider-Man movies. In each of the first two films, there's a scene where average, everyday New Yorkers band together to help Spidey when he's in trouble, because New Yorkers take care of their own. In the series as a whole, Spidey is more popular and beloved by the public than he is in the comics. Would those movies have been the same if 9/11 had never happened? If New Yorkers hadn't been through that experience that reinforced their sense of community and their admiration for heroes and rescuers? I remember a time when the stereotype of New Yorkers was that they just walked past and ignored it when someone needed help. If the Spidey movies had been made before 9/11, or if 9/11 hadn't occurred, I doubt they would've had that same sense of New York camaraderie and unity behind the city's heroes. That's a subtle distinction, easily overlooked, but I can see a causal relationship.
So I'm not saying there has to be a monumental transformation. New York and America aren't immensely different after 9/11. But it did have an effect on how we see the world and on how we tell stories about New Yorkers. Everything's connected, and if you want to understand your characters fully, you have to be aware of the broader context they occupy.
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.
Yeah, of course. But when you write about how the characters react to that new civilization and that interesting dilemma, you have to be aware that this is a younger, cockier, less disciplined Kirk, a Spock who's been through a deep personal tragedy, etc. Even if those things aren't the focus of the story, they inform the characters' attitudes and behavior. You still don't get that I'm not talking about politics. I'm talking about writing character stories and being aware of how your characters are shaped by their life experience. The
Spider-Man 2 scene in the subway car is not about politics or the war on terror or the broader society or any of that; it's about people helping the guy who saved their lives and trying to protect him from a big dude with metal arms. But subtextually, it is about the post-9/11
zietgeist of New York City, the way New Yorkers feel about each other and their protectors as a result of all that bigger stuff. There's not a single mention of 9/11 in the film, but it still informs the actions of the characters in the film, because it's part of the history that shaped them.
Jim Kirk was a look-before-you-leap, no-win-scenario guy in Classic Trek and he is in Trek 09.
Jim Kirk in classic Trek was a disciplined soldier who was nowhere near the maverick and womanizer of the stereotype. Jim Kirk in the new movie is exactly the stereotype, and in his case it's justified. There's also the fact that he's nearly a decade younger than Kirk Prime was in TOS, and a lot less experienced. Even if I were writing Kirk Prime at age 25, I wouldn't write him as exactly the same character he is at 35.
You seem to be saying it's interesting to you to explore the differences in the characters.
Yes, for the same reason I enjoy the
Myriad Universes concept. It's exciting to get the chance to explore new aspects of the characters and universe, to get to experiment with different ways of writing about them. It gives both the readers and the writers a new experience.
As I said, though, it also makes sense to me that if you're going to have simultaneous Prime Trek and Abrams Trek series, it's just good sense to differentiate them.
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.
I think you can; I just think it's missing an opportunity. I also think it's missing the point. J.J. Abrams didn't make a Trek movie that was indistinguishable from the old Trek. He made one that, while keeping the essence of ST, took a whole different approach to it, made it feel unlike it ever had before. He designed it to appeal to a whole new audience. I would assume that an Abrams-continuity novel series would be marketed toward that new audience rather than exclusively to the old fanbase. Many of the readers picking it up would be expecting something that has the style and approach of the movie, or a reasonable approximation thereof (since one can't include lens flares in a novel). So it just seems like good business sense to take that into account if one were to develop an Abramsverse novel.
Trust me, publishers hate risks. Risks tend to cost money....
How did you enjoy the Alternative Factor? 
