Announcing STAR TREK: DTI and other CLB news

[Christopher]

All I'll say is, you're jumping to a hell of a lot of conclusions that have nothing to do with anything I actually said or intended to say. So leave me out of it.

Well, I'll say one more thing, and that's that I'm aware of no cause for concern about the future of Pocket's ST line. That is not an evasion; I'm saying outright that you'd be mistaken to draw that conclusion from this conversation.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Well, I'll say one more thing, and that's that I'm aware of no cause for concern about the future of Pocket's ST line. That is not an evasion; I'm saying outright that you'd be mistaken to draw that conclusion from this conversation.

Christopher, if I think Pocket's publication of Star Trek is in danger -- and I do -- it's for reasons that go far beyond Jaime Costas and have absolutely nothing to do with you. So have no fear there. Rather, I'd point the blame at a diminishment of the line's prestige in the marketplace through the abandonment of the hardcover format in 2003, the spreading-thin of the line through unnecessary/excessive non-canon/books-only series, and marketing and editorial incompetence/indifference. I don't think that Star Trek fiction with go away, Christopher, but I don't think it's guaranteed that Pocket will be the ones publishing Star Trek in ten years, even five, either. And I can't say that I would entirely be opposed to that eventuality. Sometimes, the best thing to do is to be Cortez, burn the boats, and move forward because you can never look back.

Also, on a personal note, you really should swear more often.

 

[Sci]

Allyn, why are you pushing this conversation in public? Even if it's true, it's the sort of thing that a fellow writer should understand has the potential to be professionally embarrassing, especially if Pocket doesn't want to discuss who the current Star Trek line editor is.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

For what it's worth, Sci, I wasn't expecting this conversation between Christopher and myself to run this long, either. *shrug*

Life goes on. And my part here is done. Time to fix coffee.

 

[JarodRussell]

No, I'm just pointing out the indication in Christopher's phraseology here and here that Jaime is no longer the editor on his book.

Just to be clear, that's your inference, not my indication. And that's all I have to say on the subject.

You could, of course, also say like:

a) "You're right, Jamie is not the editor."
b) "You're wrong, Jamie is the editor."

It was a simple question that can be easily answered, instead of allowing this non-issue to grow out of proportion by giving no answer at all (like it just happened).

 

[Christopher]

For what it's worth, Sci, I wasn't expecting this conversation between Christopher and myself to run this long, either. *shrug*

How can you say that when the conversation wouldn't have happened at all if you hadn't insisted on pushing the issue?

 

[JarodRussell]

You could have given a straight answer, too.

 

[Christopher]

^No, I couldn't. It's Pocket's place to announce these things, not mine. If Pocket hasn't announced something, all I can do is say nothing.

 

[JarodRussell]

^No, I couldn't. It's Pocket's place to announce these things, not mine. If Pocket hasn't announced something, all I can do is say nothing.

What harm does it to anyone to know who edited what book? And then again, you could have said exactly that straight and forward to begin with.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

For what it's worth, Sci, I wasn't expecting this conversation between Christopher and myself to run this long, either. *shrug*

How can you say that when the conversation wouldn't have happened at all if you hadn't insisted on pushing the issue?

Christopher, I expected you to say, "No, you completely misread me." (Or, if you're an old-skool SNL fan, "Allyn, you ignorant slut." ) But, you didn't, you just said I drew an "inference," and, curiously for you, you didn't say I drew the wrong inference. So, I kept giving you outs, only you kept digging your hole deeper.

My guess, based on your wording in a previous post, is that Ed Schlesinger is your new editor. Like JarodRussell, I don't see the harm in saying that. He's edited Star Trek fiction before, like A Time To... and New Frontier. So, it's not like Star Trek fiction is in the hands of a newbie.

But hey, if you want to continue with your passive-aggressive non-denials that are really confirmations that there has been a regime change at Pocket, that's your choice.

 

[Christopher]

Dammit, Allyn, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY HERE. I haven't been given any guidance. I'm just a freelancer. I'm not a spokesperson for Pocket. I'm not the person you should be asking these questions, because I have no bloody idea what I'm supposed to say or not say. If Pocket hasn't seen fit to reveal something, even something perfectly innocuous, then it's not my place to assume I'm free to talk about it. All I can do, professionally, is follow the publisher's lead, and if they haven't said anything, I have to assume I can't say anything either, until I hear otherwise. And as a fellow professional, you should know that.

I've asked my editor for guidance on the issue, so hopefully I'll be able to say something soon.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Dammit, Allyn, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY HERE. I haven't been given any guidance. I'm just a freelancer. I'm not a spokesperson for Pocket. I'm not the person you should be asking these questions, because I have no bloody idea what I'm supposed to say or not say. If Pocket hasn't seen fit to reveal something, even something perfectly innocuous, then it's not my place to assume I'm free to talk about it. All I can do, professionally, is follow the publisher's lead, and if they haven't said anything, I have to assume I can't say anything either, until I hear otherwise. And as a fellow professional, you should know that.

Christopher, I'm not a Star Trek professional any more. You know that.

And honestly, you've never had a problem being a Pocket spox before.

 

[Christopher]

^Only on things I knew I was able to talk about. What, just because you aren't currently a professional, you've had all the knowledge expunged from your memory?

 

[JarodRussell]

What would have been your answer to "Is Tom Selleck the editor of your book?"

 

[Allyn Gibson]

For the record, Christopher, in our discussion yesterday I was trying to confirm that I was misreading you and that you hadn't really said something that you didn't mean to say. I didn't expect that you would confirm that, no, I wasn't misreading you. Really, you could have just told a white lie.

 

[Christopher]

Really, you could have just told a white lie.

Well, forgive me for trying to be ethical.

 

[Lonemagpie]

What would have been your answer to "Is Tom Selleck the editor of your book?"

He just got replaced by Harrison Ford?

 

[DimesDan]

The Journalist and Trek fan in me is saying that we have a "right" to know who is editing the Trek line, the non journalist in me is saying that it doesn't matter one way or the other, but Christopher has pretty much made a mountain out of a mole hill in his replies.

As for the book as I haven't commented on it yet. It sounds ok, nice to know London is being utilised as a location as I got a real kick out of it when Hollow Men featured the city, I do think that not using the Royal Observatory (Have you ever visited it though Christopher) is a good idea, not for the reason you cited Christopher, but for the fact that I don't personally think it will still be standing come 2381 - of course it could have been rebuilt post WWIII.

I'm not massively excited about it though, I've never been sold on how brilliant Christopher is as a writer, of the four novels of his I've read, none of them have been that great in my eyes. I will be getting and reading this though.

 

[Christopher]

As for the book as I haven't commented on it yet. It sounds ok, nice to know London is being utilised as a location as I got a real kick out of it when Hollow Men featured the city, I do think that not using the Royal Observatory (Have you ever visited it though Christopher) is a good idea, not for the reason you cited Christopher, but for the fact that I don't personally think it will still be standing come 2381 - of course it could have been rebuilt post WWIII.

Well, The Sundered established that London was subjected to an aerial nuclear attack in WWIII. That would've caused a potent EMP knocking out power and electronics, but not much physical damage. There would presumably have been fires, riots, looting, etc. in the wake of all that, but the Royal Observatory's in the middle of a big park, so I don't see it taking too much damage. And if it had, I'm sure it would've been restored as a historical site.

 

[sfroth]

Christopher has pretty much made a mountain out of a mole hill in his replies.

Wow. Christopher doesn't need anyone to defend him, but I'm going to anyway. I read his responses as clearly saying (well before he outright said it) that he felt unable to comment on the editorial situation. How the heck is that making a mountain out of a molehill? A straight answer would have violated his integrity (either through a lie, or through giving away information that he was not authorized to give). So he did the next best thing - didn't give any answer, and made it clear he couldn't. So Allyn pushed Christopher. And round and round we go.

If you think that Christopher built any mountains, you may want to re-read this thread, and check your assumptions.