The Diane Carey novels

[Rush Limborg]

^Exactly, Noel/Nerys.

Frankly...is it really so unusual to allow for the possibilty of citizens of the UFP having various different political philosophies? Is it unusual to allow that, maybe, there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc.--and that, far from being fringes, they are, indeed, central elements to society?

Let's be frank, folks. Diane Carey's libertarian characters are not unbelievable. And let's be honest--though sometimes, Ayn Rand goes off the deep end, she usually defends her ideas in her works with a logic that would impress a Vulcan.

Is it really so unbelievable that there would be at least some Vulcans who would consider themselves the Vulcan equivalent of Objectivists?

 

[Sci]

Now, sure, you could do a story about dissident Federates and how they relate to the larger Federation. But that's not the same thing -- and, frankly, I don't think that such a story, or ANY Star Trek story, ought to be advocating for values that fundamentally conflict with the Liberal values that underpin the Federation/Star Trek.

And yet Deep Space Nine did that all the time. Is it unworthy of being Trek?

No, DS9 did not advocate for values that fundamentally conflicted with the Liberal values that underpin the Federation/Star Trek. DS9 criticized Star Trek -- particularly TNG -- for not actually living up to those standards even when it pretended it did.

And I also find it interesting that you're basically advocating censorship...

I'm bloody well not advocating censorship, I'm advocating for Star Trek to be true to its own message. If an author has a message or a philosophy they want to express, they have every right to do it -- under their own banner.

ETA:

Or would you call it censorship if the Estate of Robert Heinlein prevented an author from publishing a sequel to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress that advocated for Socialism?

^Exactly, Noel/Nerys.

Frankly...is it really so unusual to allow for the possibilty of citizens of the UFP having various different political philosophies? Is it unusual to allow that, maybe, there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians, etc.--and that, far from being fringes, they are, indeed, central elements to society?

I think Articles of the Federation pretty well explored the different political philosophies at play in the Federation and how they conflict with each other.

Is it really so unbelievable that there would be at least some Vulcans who would consider themselves the Vulcan equivalent of Objectivists?

No, but you'll notice that no one has said that the novels shouldn't feature dissident Federates. You are arguing against a point that nobody has made.

What I and others have said is that the story itself should not be advocating for values that fundamentally conflict with Star Trek's core Liberal values. And, yes, one of those values is the cult of selfishness that underpins Libertarianism and Objectivism.

 

[Timewalker]

Evan Wilson in Uhura's Song is a very Mary Sue-type character, but she's still very likeable and entertaining -- unlike, say, Elizabeth Schaefer in Bantam's Death's Angel, who pretty much embodies the irritating kind of Mary Sue.

I'd forgotten how bad Death's Angel was... Kirk even declared his undying love for Schaefer, if I recall...

As for Piper, I think she works too, at least in Dreadnought! I did feel Battlestations! went too far by putting her in Kirk's inner circle within a month of her first mission on the Enterprise, not to mention having her expose a second far-reaching Federation conspiracy a month after she exposed the first. So she was more Sueish in the second book than the first.

I'd agree with this. Piper in Dreadnought! is a Sonya Gomez-like character. She's well-meaning, but she's also a bit thick. In Battlestations!, she's presented, maybe not as part of Kirk's inner circle, but certainly as Kirk's protege, which feels a little inappropriate.

And then Fire Ship shows us that Piper reaches the Captain's Table by 2270. She couldn't possibly have gotten there on rank; it must've been her brief tenure as the commanding officer of the Banana Republic that granted her entry.

I don't remember that one. Maybe that was one of the books my cat chewed up before I ever got a chance to read it...

She doesn't seem to care for TNG, though. Her Ghost Ship has Picard and Co. being very unlikable.

Ghost Ship would be a book I'd give a pass on with the characterization - being the first original TNG novel, no one really had an idea of who the characters were when it was actually being written.

For what it's worth, I tend to enjoy her novels. The only thing that really stands out in them is what is obviously her own love of ships of the sea, and in her novels, it seems like EVERYONE has a passion for. That, I think, is one of the things in her writing that is a 'love it or hate it' kind of thing.

Yeah, Ghost ship portrays some of the characters as total a-holes, but I think it's pretty well in line with Encounter at Farpoint. Everyone's really stiff and Picard's a total hardass.

David Gerrold's worst book is far better than Diane Carey's best book - at least in my not-very-humble opinion.

While I find the quality of her Star Trek works to be highly volatile (ranging from really good to really bad), the only work by Carey I would rate as offensive is her WWII story World of Strangers in Enterprise Logs, which to me read like propaganda published several decades too late and basically said it's O.K. to imprison people because of their heritage.

Good point. I don't find her politics elsewhere offensive, just kind of offkilter, like an Ayn Rand movie adaptation that teaches how important it is to pay your taxes and give money to the needy. But that story was racist, plain and simple.

I don't think that's a fair assessment. It wasn't saying "Japanese people should've been locked up because they were Japanese." It was more like it was offering an explanation for why well-intentioned Americans in WWII could've concluded that interning Japanese-Americans in camps was necessary for reasons other than simple racism. I.e. not so much an attack on the Japanese as a defense of (or apologia for) the Americans. There's certainly plenty of room for disagreement and debate with that position, but it's not nearly as simplistic as you claim.

Sure, it's not a story that endorses Trekkian values, but as a story depicting the mindset of the captain of an aircraft carrier serving in the Pacific during WWII, it's certainly more believable for that captain to support America's internment policy than for him to be a progressive thinker decades ahead of his time. (Although my Googling turned up nothing on what Captain Osborne B. Hardison really thought about the internment policy, unless I wanted to contact Columbia University or the University of North Carolina for their research materials involving the man.)

This is another story I haven't found (actually I'm a few years behind in my ST reading...). But this discussion does make me wonder if she considered George Takei's possible take on it, as he and his family were among the Japanese-Americans interned during WWII.

Gah, I might actually have to go back and re-read some of her stuff...

 

[stonester1]

Okay, okay. I think we can safely assume that [Diane Carey]'s...polarizing.

You either lover her...or hate her.

No, you really CAN'T safely assume any such thing -- I liked Dreadnought! and Battlestations! back in the day, and thought Final Frontier was terrific. I'm a lot less enthusiastic about her later Trek stuff - I found New Earth to be essentially unreadable (I know Carey didn't write it all, but she did have a big hand in its development, even if other writers were brought onboard to pen half the series.)

So, when she's good, she's good. When she's not, she's not. Just like any other writer.

Rush, it's never safe to assume, because when you ASS U ME...

^
This.

 

[stonester1]

In Diane Carey's world, he does.

Others have used it, too. Adam Hughes did a Trek graphic novel for DC that was kind of a sequel to The Voyage Home. It did feature Kirk taking Gillian on a cruise on his yacht at some point.

I think others have used the idea as well.

You see the nautical theme of his place in San Francisco, it's clear he does have a love of the sea, so saying he may be a sailing enthusiast isn't so far fetched.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like her writing as much as many of the staff of TNG did.

 

[JD]

 

[Christopher]

In Diane Carey's world, he does.

Others have used it, too. Adam Hughes did a Trek graphic novel for DC that was kind of a sequel to The Voyage Home. It did feature Kirk taking Gillian on a cruise on his yacht at some point.

As already mentioned above, that was Debt of Honor, written by Chris Claremont. Hughes was the penciler, Karl Story the inker. And the post-TVH portion was just a frame for a story that spanned Kirk's whole career.

 

[stonester1]

In Diane Carey's world, he does.

Others have used it, too. Adam Hughes did a Trek graphic novel for DC that was kind of a sequel to The Voyage Home. It did feature Kirk taking Gillian on a cruise on his yacht at some point.

As already mentioned above, that was Debt of Honor, written by Chris Claremont. Hughes was the penciler, Karl Story the inker. And the post-TVH portion was just a frame for a story that spanned Kirk's whole career.

That's right, missed that. Been awhile since I've read it.

Debt of Honor was before they discovered AH! can write (and he CAN, big time).

 

[Greg Cox]

Only two out of ten weren't Star Trek.

Indeed. Just to avoid confusion, most of the stories in ENTERPRISE LOGS were about the various Starship Enterprises. There were just a couple of historical stories (by Diane) at the beginning.

True story: Diane was originally going to write the Robert April story in ENTERPRISE LOGS, but ending up doing the historical stories instead.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I almost wish she would have.

People would've had less of an excuse to hate her.

I think her Final Frontier and Best Destiny were awesome, BTW.

 

[captcalhoun]

oh, one thing i do HATE about Final Frontier. she talks about the 1701 being the first STARship, IE capable of flying at warp for long periods without need to worry about running into a planet.

now, even ignoring ENT, that's just plain WRONG since Kirk CLEARLY states that the Horizon was a starship in A Piece of the Action which was lost over 100 years before TOS.

such a blatant piece of continuity ignorance is beyond the pale.

 

[Christopher]

^I wouldn't call that a "blatant" continuity oversight because it only contradicts one throwaway line in one episode. You have to keep in mind that before the Internet came along, it wasn't as easy to have every single detail from every episode at your beck and call. Minor continuity glitches of that type were a lot more common then -- and more tolerated, because the fans didn't have instant access to every detail any more than the writers did. As a result, there was more freedom for artistic license and individual interpretation.

 

[Timewalker]

In Diane Carey's world, he does.

Others have used it, too. Adam Hughes did a Trek graphic novel for DC that was kind of a sequel to The Voyage Home. It did feature Kirk taking Gillian on a cruise on his yacht at some point.

I think others have used the idea as well.

You see the nautical theme of his place in San Francisco, it's clear he does have a love of the sea, so saying he may be a sailing enthusiast isn't so far fetched.

I don't have anything against the idea that Kirk has a yacht. If Picard can have a horse on the holodeck, surely Kirk is entitled to have a real boat... And it's not even far-fetched that he might invite Piper on board as a sort of unofficial "character test" - after all, isn't that what CEOs and other big shots do nowadays, with inviting specific employees to parties, dinners, or "team-building exercises"? They want to see what these people are made of in a setting away from the everyday stuff, with the possible intention of promoting them or recommending them for some particular assignment if they pass muster.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Okay, let me rephrase.

You're either fine with her...or you hate her guts.

Uh, no, still not accurate. I don't hate her guts, and I'm not fine with her. I like some of her stuff, dislike some of her stuff, and haven't read the rest of her stuff (there are literally hundreds of Trek novels, mostly from the '90's and early '00's sitting unread on my shelves -- nothing against Carey, just haven't gotten around to them.)

The fact that Carey is "polarizing" to some (whatever that phrase really means...) doesn't mean than there aren't other readers who can take or leave her. She's just not as important as you seem to be trying to make her. At least not to me.

My point is that you seem to want to divide all Treklit readers into "pro-Carey" or anti-Carey" camps. Like the "left/right" dichotomy that simple-minded media pundits want to divide the world into, it's false and, ultimately, meaningless.

I'd rather hear about why people do or don't like individual books, rather than an attempt to divide us into "camps."

 

[Rush Limborg]

Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly, sir.

My beef is with those who do seem to hate everything that comes from her pen. Effectively...they made that camp themselves.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I like her Best Destiny, Final Frontier and First Frontier. I also quite like some of her much-maligned Ship of the Line. But while I can read books written by writers with whose politics I disagree, I found her shoe-horning in of views totally at odds with Trek's liberal new deal/JFK-esque outlook irritating in the extreme. I also found the nautical stuff tedious and repetitive. They began to outweigh the good stuff in her novels.

I struggled through her TNG entry in the Day of Honour series, while her Fire Ship VOY story in the Captain's Table series was excerable. I started her book in the Gateways saga but had to give up about 3 chapters in (to be fair, I hadn't read any previous entries in the Challenger series). I have to say, not only would I not buy any more books by her, I wouldn't even borrow them from my library.

 

[Daddy Todd]

Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly, sir.

My beef is with those who do seem to hate everything that comes from her pen. Effectively...they made that camp themselves.

But are they worse than those who slavishly worship everything that flows from her pen?

Perhaps each individual Treklit reader has different reactions to each individual book. It's one of those "Infinite Diversity" sorts of things...

I, for example, know that I'll never enjoy a book written by Marshak and Culbreath -- because I read all four of their Trek novels a couple decades ago, and disliked them. Intensely. That doesn't make me part of an "anti-M&C camp," it simply means their writing doesn't work for me. No harm-no foul. Were I to choose not to read them in the future, it's not some kind of a boycott; it's simply that I choose to spend my precious reading hours with something I think I might possibly enjoy. I suspect many in the so-called the "anti-Carey camp" feel the same way. They may express it a little more vehemently, but it all boils down to the choices we each get to make about how we spend our money and time.

But, like Marshak and Culbreath, Carey has evidently "left the building." So, for anyone invested in keeping up with Treklit, there seems little worry that we'll be in a position to read any new Trek writing from Diane.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Oh, I agree, wholeheartedly, sir.

My beef is with those who do seem to hate everything that comes from her pen. Effectively...they made that camp themselves.

But are they worse than those who slavishly worship everything that flows from her pen?

I have yet to meet someone who does. As I said, I didn't like Ghost Ship.

Perhaps each individual Treklit reader has different reactions to each individual book. It's one of those "Infinite Diversity" sorts of things...

I, for example, know that I'll never enjoy a book written by Marshak and Culbreath -- because I read all four of their Trek novels a couple decades ago, and disliked them. Intensely. That doesn't make me part of an "anti-M&C camp," it simply means their writing doesn't work for me. No harm-no foul. Were I to choose not to read them in the future, it's not some kind of a boycott; it's simply that I choose to spend my precious reading hours with something I think I might possibly enjoy. I suspect many in the so-called the "anti-Carey camp" feel the same way. They may express it a little more vehemently, but it all boils down to the choices we each get to make about how we spend our money and time.

But, like Marshak and Culbreath, Carey has evidently "left the building." So, for anyone invested in keeping up with Treklit, there seems little worry that we'll be in a position to read any new Trek writing from Diane.

I know...but somehow, I find myself suspecting that I would've enjoyed discussions with her on the BBS....

 

[Daddy Todd]

I don't recall her ever participating, either here, or on the old PsiPhi boards, and I've been lurking and occasionally posting for, I don't know, a decade or so.

Dave Galanter is Diane's close friend; he might be willing to get a message to her. You might try a PM to Dave.