KRAD didn't try to make AotF a non-Trek Trek book, he shoehorned another genre into it, rather than shoehorning Trek into another genre like the others have done.
What are the least Star Trek-like Star Trek novels?
- Thread starter The Laughing Vulcan
- Start date
I wouldn't have minded TCotC'sC so much, if they had just made it a Samuel T. Cogley mystery instead of Perry Mason in space. Why does Sam Cogley need a pretty secretary and a private detective? Because he's actually Perry Mason! If you're gonna write a Sam Cogley story, write it about Sam Cogley. He has a personality too, you know! 
Erm... end rant. Since no one else has said it yet, I'll say that I do think the Marshak/Culbreath novels weren't Trek-like. Apparently very much in the popular style of that period's fanfiction, though. Black Fire was another one that I thought felt very un-Trek-like.
From a technical standpoint, one could argue that books like Dreadnought! and J.M. Dillard's TOS novels, with their strong emphasis on lower decks characters, could be considered not Trek-like, because such a focus wouldn't have happened on the show (certainly not TOS, anyway). But the same logic could be stretched to say the same about world-building novels, and we do not want to go there.
Erm... end rant. Since no one else has said it yet, I'll say that I do think the Marshak/Culbreath novels weren't Trek-like. Apparently very much in the popular style of that period's fanfiction, though. Black Fire was another one that I thought felt very un-Trek-like.
From a technical standpoint, one could argue that books like Dreadnought! and J.M. Dillard's TOS novels, with their strong emphasis on lower decks characters, could be considered not Trek-like, because such a focus wouldn't have happened on the show (certainly not TOS, anyway). But the same logic could be stretched to say the same about world-building novels, and we do not want to go there.
I would say, pretty much everything by Diane Carey.
Shows how perceptions change, since Black Fire was very much an exemplar of what ST fanfiction was like in the day (at least from what I've read about it; I never actually read much of it beyond what was reprinted in the New Voyages anthologies and the excerpts in Star Trek Lives!).
I would say, pretty much everything by Diane Carey.
Aw, I have a lot of fondness for her Robert April/George Kirk stuff. Except for the end of the framing story of Best Destiny.
Another vote for Diane Carey's Chainmail and any of her 24th century set novels. She has no feel for any of the 24th century-set shows or their characters. And her insistence on shoehorning in references to sailing and Rand-ian liberterian politics do not mesh at all with Trek.
Some of her TOS era novels are reasonably good though.
Some of her TOS era novels are reasonably good though.
As for Carey's Trek novels, I loved Final Frontier and (slightly less) Best Destiny, as well as First Frontier (the one with the dinosaurs 
).
Other than that, I found most of her novels just.. okay, nothing more... (Her first two novels - the Piper duology - was not very good at all IMO)
).Other than that, I found most of her novels just.. okay, nothing more... (Her first two novels - the Piper duology - was not very good at all IMO)
Beat me to it. IIRC, Sonni Cooper was Shatner's PA (or similar) at the time, ran his fan club and dabbled in fanfic. When "Black Fire" came out it reminded me very much of a pro fanfic story. It's a page-turner, though, as bizarrely as its plot does twist.
I guess I phrased that in a confusing way. What I meant was that the Marshak/Culbreath novels and Black Fire were all not very Trek-like, and were all in the style of what fanfiction was like then.
(I also got my conception of that from the last chapter of Star Trek Lives!, which was quite illuminating.)
But my point is that the fanfic authors and readers of the time would've found it very "Trek-like." The authors weren't trying to create something unlike Trek, they were trying to capture the essence of Trek as they understood it. As I said, perceptions can change over time. Star Trek has evolved considerably since those days, and the general media landscape along with it, so what seemed authentically Trek-like to audiences of the day can seem very odd and inauthentic from the perspective of the modern Trek fan.
Ah, I see what you were saying now, my mistake. 
I do think that's an interesting discussion point; were the authors actually trying to create something very much like Trek, or were they subconsciously trying to improve Trek and make it their own, by drastically emphasizing certain characteristics that weren't generally such a huge part of official televised Trek? (Things like the depth of the Kirk-Spock relationship.)
Of course, it would be erroneous to suggest that just because a type of story or format was popular in that day, that would mean that they were trying to capture the essence of Trek (I'm not saying you did make that point, just to clarify). The other thing that Star Trek Lives! highlighted was the myriad stories were various characters (often Mary Sues) end up in bed with Spock. I don't think those authors were trying to capture the essence of what Star Trek was, but rather, to take Star Trek and then impose on it what they'd like it to be.
Of course, every writer, official or not, does that to a degree whether they realize it or not. That's why it's so critical to have a strong unifying force in the person of a producer or editor. Otherwise, everyone would just do "Star Trek: My Way" instead of crafting a story that's an authentic representation of the source material.
EDIT: "everyone" is probably too general a term. What I meant to say is that people always subconsciously put some of their own flavor into a story. That's not always a bad thing, but the editor or producer should be able to weed out of the parts of the "My Way" that isn't in accordance with the source.
Hmm... I hope that didn't sound like a rant. Just sorta following a philosophical train of thought. Apologies if I'm the only one that would find that interesting.
I do think that's an interesting discussion point; were the authors actually trying to create something very much like Trek, or were they subconsciously trying to improve Trek and make it their own, by drastically emphasizing certain characteristics that weren't generally such a huge part of official televised Trek? (Things like the depth of the Kirk-Spock relationship.)
Of course, it would be erroneous to suggest that just because a type of story or format was popular in that day, that would mean that they were trying to capture the essence of Trek (I'm not saying you did make that point, just to clarify). The other thing that Star Trek Lives! highlighted was the myriad stories were various characters (often Mary Sues) end up in bed with Spock. I don't think those authors were trying to capture the essence of what Star Trek was, but rather, to take Star Trek and then impose on it what they'd like it to be.
Of course, every writer, official or not, does that to a degree whether they realize it or not. That's why it's so critical to have a strong unifying force in the person of a producer or editor. Otherwise, everyone would just do "Star Trek: My Way" instead of crafting a story that's an authentic representation of the source material.
EDIT: "everyone" is probably too general a term. What I meant to say is that people always subconsciously put some of their own flavor into a story. That's not always a bad thing, but the editor or producer should be able to weed out of the parts of the "My Way" that isn't in accordance with the source.
Hmm... I hope that didn't sound like a rant. Just sorta following a philosophical train of thought. Apologies if I'm the only one that would find that interesting.
I'm not sure I'd agree that those are separate things. The way an individual defines Star Trek is a subjective thing. One person's view of being true to the essence of ST could seem to another person like a complete departure from its essence.
We look back on things like the Marshak-Culbreath novels today and find them laughable and strange, but at the time they were seen as truer to ST than most of their contemporary novels, because they were among the first to do more than telling generic SF stories with the Enterprise and crew plugged in and focus on the characters and relationships and the core ideas unique to ST. (For instance, The Fate of the Phoenix was the first pro novel to raise ethical questions about the Prime Directive, though it didn't really explore those questions in any depth.) They played up the rapport among Kirk, Spock, and McCoy to a degree that seems corny and caricatured today, but at least they focused on that rapport, which was one of the main things that drew the fanbase to the show. They may have exaggerated that relationship far beyond where it ever went on the show, but to them that would've been staying true to the essence of ST, the thing that made it what it was.
Well, the books in the '80s did have kind of a "My Way" flavor to them. Each author's take on the universe was quite individual and sometimes highly idiosyncratic. And that was fun and interesting, exploring those different variations on the theme. Like letting different artists paint a model in their own characteristic styles, and not worrying about whether they all represent the model's proportions accurately.
Interesting thread.
Both Articles of the Federation and A Singular Destiny -- and, for that matter, The Case of the Colonist's Corpse, which I edited -- were very much approached from the beginning as non-standard Trek novels. So they very much belong in this discussion anyhow because that was sorta kinda the point.
Both Articles of the Federation and A Singular Destiny -- and, for that matter, The Case of the Colonist's Corpse, which I edited -- were very much approached from the beginning as non-standard Trek novels. So they very much belong in this discussion anyhow because that was sorta kinda the point.
PAD's New Frontier series is entirely like that.
There is no way such a maverick captain would ever be allowed to command a ship for very long. To quote Jellico: "Giving orders to Calhoun has always been a dicey proposition."
But it's PAD's view of Trek and high idiosyncratic and for the most part it works, though there are always detractors, and I was one of them for a time. I don't recommend NF marathons because it starts to fall apart, but a year between them works well.
There is no way such a maverick captain would ever be allowed to command a ship for very long. To quote Jellico: "Giving orders to Calhoun has always been a dicey proposition."
But it's PAD's view of Trek and high idiosyncratic and for the most part it works, though there are always detractors, and I was one of them for a time. I don't recommend NF marathons because it starts to fall apart, but a year between them works well.
I quite like Sorkin too but I didn't really care for AoF. What was it you liked about it? It might be worth me rereading it.
Oh I should mention that I did really enjoy Singular Destiny
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
It depends of the definition one gives to 'Star Trek-like'.
By 'Star Trek-like', I understand a story placed in the trekverse as created on-screen and in previous books.
By this criterion, I view 'Articles of the federation', for example, as 'Star Trek-like' - it tried something new, but the story took place in the established trekverse. And yes, I know that I'm apparently contradicting the book's author - but it's only an appearance
.
What is not 'Star Trek-like'? 'New Frontier' - the stories are too over the top for the trekverse - they remind me more of Lexx.
I should add that, when incompatible (in style, 'feel' of the universe) I give priority to DS9, TNG, Ent worldbuilding over TOS.
By 'Star Trek-like', I understand a story placed in the trekverse as created on-screen and in previous books.
By this criterion, I view 'Articles of the federation', for example, as 'Star Trek-like' - it tried something new, but the story took place in the established trekverse. And yes, I know that I'm apparently contradicting the book's author - but it's only an appearance
.What is not 'Star Trek-like'? 'New Frontier' - the stories are too over the top for the trekverse - they remind me more of Lexx.
I should add that, when incompatible (in style, 'feel' of the universe) I give priority to DS9, TNG, Ent worldbuilding over TOS.
But NF *had* established characters (Shelby, Selar) and characters from previous novels (Kebron, McHenry).. Shouldn't that qualify it as Star Trek-like?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
I already explained why it's not 'Star Trek-like' in my previous post.
In short, 'New frontier' takes place in a comic-book universe, and the trekverse is NOT a comic book universe (at the very least DS9, TNG, Ent, Voy's universe is not).
Similar threads
- Poll
