That's just it - it DID take place in the shared Trek (Lit) universe - NF even participated in the Gateways crossover
.
What are the least Star Trek-like Star Trek novels?
- Thread starter The Laughing Vulcan
- Start date
That's just it - it DID take place in the shared Trek (Lit) universe - NF even participated in the Gateways crossover
.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
That's just it - it DID take place in the shared Trek (Lit) universe - NF even participated in the Gateways crossover
It did take place in the trekverse only because the books are called star trek (and their characters got a few lines in crossovers) - there are only superficial similarities between the universe depicted in them and the trekverse.
The books' 'trekverse' is different from DS9's trekverse, for example; in other words, they are not 'Star Trek-like'.
By the same token, 'Before dishonor' is not 'Star Trek-like' - the universe depicted in the book is far more cartoonish than the trekverse.
That's just it - it DID take place in the shared Trek (Lit) universe - NF even participated in the Gateways crossover
It did take place in the trekverse only because the books are called star trek (and their characters got a few lines in crossovers) - there are only superficial similarities between the universe depicted in them and the trekverse.
The books' 'trekverse' is different from DS9's trekverse, for example; in other words, they are not 'Star Trek-like'.
By the same token, 'Before dishonor' is not 'Star Trek-like' - the universe depicted in the book is far more cartoonish than the trekverse.
Could it be that you just don't think that much of Peter David's Trek work (at least as far as "conventional" Trek is concerned)?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
That's just it - it DID take place in the shared Trek (Lit) universe - NF even participated in the Gateways crossover
It did take place in the trekverse only because the books are called star trek (and their characters got a few lines in crossovers) - there are only superficial similarities between the universe depicted in them and the trekverse.
The books' 'trekverse' is different from DS9's trekverse, for example; in other words, they are not 'Star Trek-like'.
By the same token, 'Before dishonor' is not 'Star Trek-like' - the universe depicted in the book is far more cartoonish than the trekverse.
Could it be that you just don't think that much of Peter David's Trek work (at least as far as "conventional" Trek is concerned)?
Yes, I don't think that much of Peter David's trek - for the same reason I don't think that much of Lexx - the universes are FAR too over the top for my taste.
This doesn't change the fact that, according to the defintion I gave to 'Star Trek-like', Peter David's books are NOT 'Star Trek-like' - this is an objective deduction, not a matter of subjective taste.
And yet, if you'd only viewed ST episodes like "The Trouble With Tribbles", "A Piece of the Action", "A Fistful of Datas", "Trials and Tribble-ations" or "Take Me Out to the Holosuite", maybe "New Frontier" wouldn't be all that outlandish?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
If you consider 'New Frontier' a cheesy holodeck program then yes, it fits in the trekverse.
Fair enough, although that's your own subjective, possibly generational perspective.
Me, I'm more of a TOS guy, so books and movies that capture the feel of the original series are about as STAR TREK as you get for me . . . .
Last edited:
"The Trouble With Tribbles", "A Piece of the Action" and "Trials and Tribble-ations" aren't holodeck stories.
And neither are the excellent, moving "Captain's Table: Once Burned" and "Stone and Anvil".
Hehehehe, you know, these came up in a thread only a few days/weeks ago and when it came time to list preposterous comic-booky plotsfor this thread, I had trouble coming up with enough. (I was holding off on Paris becomes a salamander, pulls his tongue off, kidnaps Janeway and they give birth to young salamanders.)
Star Trek has a longstanding tradition of telling outlandish, over-the-top, comic-book-y stories of the sort that Peter David enjoys writing. Nothing about it is un-Star Trek or Star Trek-lite.
Star Trek encompasses many different genres, from comedy to romance to political intrigue to war to mystery to disaster.
Star Trek encompasses many different genres, from comedy to romance to political intrigue to war to mystery to disaster.
Yeah, I think the people saying NF isn't Trek-like seem to have been raised on the 24th century shows & Enterprise. Sure, Calhoun & Co are a long way removed from the adventures of Picard & co., but to me, they're definitely in the vein of classic 1960s Trek. The more extravagant end of 1960s Trek, to be sure, but Trek-like nonetheless.
My brother likes 1960s Trek and the JJ Abrams movie and a little of DS9 but has no interest in the others and regards TNG as a soap opera. If I was to persuade him to read a Trek novel (not sure that I could, but if I was to try), I'd start with some of PAD's stuff. He used to always say (years ago) that if they remade classic Trek, Mel Gibson should play Kirk. And who did PAD base Calhoun on? Answers on a postcard to Mel Gibson competition, PO Box ...
My brother likes 1960s Trek and the JJ Abrams movie and a little of DS9 but has no interest in the others and regards TNG as a soap opera. If I was to persuade him to read a Trek novel (not sure that I could, but if I was to try), I'd start with some of PAD's stuff. He used to always say (years ago) that if they remade classic Trek, Mel Gibson should play Kirk. And who did PAD base Calhoun on? Answers on a postcard to Mel Gibson competition, PO Box ...
And the giant hand of Apollo grabbing the Enterprise in space. And the witches and giant cat in the Halloween episode . . . .
But the case could be made that those episodes fell short of what TOS aspired to. Roddenberry's goal was to move beyond the camp and cartooniness of most SFTV of the era and do a genre show that was just as much a believable adult drama as any cop show or doctor show or Western of the era. If it occasionally failed to achieve that and fell back on some of the sillier tropes of the era, that's attributable to budget limitations or the influence of the era's tropes or what-have-you rather than a deliberate embrace of outlandish silliness. So it could be argued that being consistently outlandish on purpose is not truly "Trek-like."
Only if your definition of Star Trek excludes some Star Trek (on, as you note, the basis of speculation over what Gene "really" wanted to do).
If, on the other hand, your definition of Star Trek includes all Star Trek, then it's definitely not un-Trek-like.
Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy episodes like "The Trouble With Tribbles" or "A Piece of the Action" know full well that there's nothing wrong with a bit of outlandishness in Star Trek, Gene's "true will" be damned.
Maybe, but it can a lot of fun!
I think it would be a loss if STAR TREK ever become so "serious" and "adult" that you couldn't have the occasional giant cat monster . . . .
Why shouldn't it? Each series was created by fallible humans, who were capable of making mistakes artistically, and deviating from their show's actual intent.
Of course, it is subjective; that's why this is a discussion, and not a thesis.
Well, I think we all have ideas of what we each want "My Trek" to be, and whether our views fit in with Gene's true will or not, the very fortunate thing is that with 28 seasons of five shows and eleven movies, onscreen Trek has a great deal of diversity. So I don't care for The Trouble with Tribbles, or I, Mudd. You do, and that's fine. I won't try to tell you you shouldn't watch those episodes anymore just because they don't appeal to me.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that the definition of what's "un-Trek-like" should be set in stone or universally applied. It's (like so many things in art) a matter of personal perspective.
It's not about "excluding," it's about recognizing the overall thrust of the whole. Something that's mostly striving for believability and occasionally has sillier side trips is not the same as a series that's constantly, deliberately turning the absurdity up to eleven. If every episode of ST had been in the same vein as "The Trouble With Tribbles" and "I, Mudd," then it wouldn't have been the same show that it was. It's a question of proportion.
And it's not speculation that Roddenberry was trying to make a departure from the campy SF of the '60s, to create something more believable and adult. It's documented in many places, including the TOS series bible. The very first thing the bible contains is a 3-page treatise on believability, telling the aspiring writer for the show that even though it's set in the future, the writer must still apply the same standards of believable characterization that would apply in any contemporary drama. (Amusingly, it cites something that actually happened in "Balance of Terror" -- Kirk hugging Yeoman Rand on the bridge during a crisis -- as an example of an unrealistic scene that should be avoided. So they were aware of their mistakes and tried to remedy them.)
True, the bible stressed believable characterizations over believable situations; the producers of TOS were okay with outlandish situations so long as the characters responded to them in a believable, naturalistic way. Still, the intent was explicitly to make a show in the same vein as the respected adult dramas of the day. Gunsmoke was heralded as a realistic, adult Western. Naked City was a police drama renowned for its intelligent writing and semi-documentary filming style. These are the kinds of shows that Star Trek was intended to be like. They both had humorous scenes and episodes, but it would be totally wrong to say that an outright comedy like Blazing Saddles was "Gunsmoke-like" or that The Naked Gun was "Naked City-like."
You speak as though there's some "objective" standard to determine what is "truly" Star Trek and what isn't.
There isn't.
It's all canonical, and it's all equally Star Trek. Period
^You seem to be arguing that anything which is part of ST at all, no matter how much of an outlier from the norm, is equally "like ST" so that anything that is entirely like that one aspect therefore qualifies as "like ST" and nobody has the right to say otherwise. I don't think that's logical at all. If I gave you a bowl full of black peppercorns, would you say it tasted exactly like a dish of lemon pepper fettucine? And if someone else complained that it wasn't sufficiently like the lemon pepper fettucine they were hoping for, would you tell them they were wrong not to consider it identical? There's a big difference between the part and the whole.
Similar threads
- Poll
