Is it safe to say that the DS9 Relaunch is dead?

[flemm]

^ Fair enough.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think the "season 8" appellation was principally an affectionate term applied by readers to the original relaunch since it was so successful in carrying on the legacy of the show. So there was really nothing shallow or arbitrary about it.

Actually, IIRC, it was Marco who said, in an interview or press release: "Think of these books as a kind of Season 8...", or something very similar...

No one was expecting "conformity" with some sort of rigid definition of a "season" of novels. It was an expression of fondness applied only very loosely to the ongoing story in the novels.

Marco came to regret - right here - his comparison to a TV season very quickly because people did start asking about "the season finale", plans for "sweeps week", and if the narrative was being constrained to exactly a year of story telling.

 

[Mage]

I see so many people defending what's going on, I don't think some people understand that it bothers a lot of fans that characters Niners care for a lot have suddenly, out of nowhere, moved into directions that we didn't figure.

I'm sure that all of these things will be explained in novells to come and make sense then, but to some fans, it feels like a slap in the face: you know what, we are just gonna pull these characters into where we want them to be, have drastic things happen to them over a period of 4 years and we'll just explain it later on.....maybe.....

How do you think that feels for fans of DS9?

You know, those of us who actually write Deep Space Nine tales, who take days and weeks and months to develop a story and then to write it, also care about Star Trek and about the characters. To think that we don't borders on the absurd. I just read a comment from a reader who was displeased that the novels had taken the DSN characters off of the station. Except that they seemed to forget that at the end of the series, Sisko had ascended to the Celestial Temple; O'Brien and his family had returned to Earth; Jadzia had died; Odo had gone back to the Great Link; Worf had become the Federation ambassador to the Klingon Empire; Rom and Leeta had gone to Ferenginar; Garak had remained on Cardassia; the Founder leader had been imprisoned; and Winn, Dukat, and Weyoun had perished. Indeed, change was one of the great hallmarks of the show. It's not like the novels moved these character off the station; the series did that. And when people write that Sisko would never do this or that, they often forget that he did precisely that thing during the course of the series.

Look, obviously liking a novel or series of novels is a subjective thing. But I'm a fan myself of the ongoing Deep Space Nine narrative, not just as a writer, but as a reader. Directions have been taken that I didn't expect or want, but I don't mind being challenged by a story. I have no problem with somebody not liking--or even hating--one of my novels, but please don't ascribe motivations to me that suggest I don't care about what I do, or that I don't care about the characters and settings in which I do it. How do you think that feels for writers of the DSN literary line?

First off, I can't comment on Rough Beast Of Empire yet, since I haven't read it yet. Other novells have made me feel.....wanting.

I do realize that writers are fans as well, otherwise you wouldn't be writing it. But amongst fans, there will always be disagrements. I think it's save to say that the choices made have caused something of a stir.

And yes, DS9 was about change. We don't mind change. We mind the fact, as has been said so many times, that it is unexplained change. Characters develope over time, and the time that it took for these characters to develope is unaccounted for at the moment. How do you think it makes fans of some characters feel when they were behaving a certain way a novell ago, and are suddenly acting completely different in another novell, because 4 years have passed. In a way, it would be like watching DS9 from season 1 to 3, stop watching for seasons 4 to 6, and then start watch season 7. Suddenly, Jadzia is dead, Sisko is depressed because he feels the Prophets left him, Kira's in control of the station, Romulans and Klingons on DS9.....
It confuses the hell out of everyone and they feel bummed.

I'm sorry if I offended you David, this was not my intent. I'm very much looking forward to reading Rough Beasts Of Empire, I have always been a fan of Sisko and can't wait to see which way he's going. I've heard some interesting things, but I can't judge untill I've read the book.

 

[ClayinCA]

Or, that editor Jaime Costas, being new to the Star Trek tie-in franchise, didn't feel a burning need to cross it out when approving the galleys?

Not to change topics too widely, but I recently read that Jaime too is now no longer at Pocket. Is this true?

 

[Christopher]

And yes, DS9 was about change. We don't mind change. We mind the fact, as has been said so many times, that it is unexplained change. Characters develope over time, and the time that it took for these characters to develope is unaccounted for at the moment. How do you think it makes fans of some characters feel when they were behaving a certain way a novell ago, and are suddenly acting completely different in another novell, because 4 years have passed. In a way, it would be like watching DS9 from season 1 to 3, stop watching for seasons 4 to 6, and then start watch season 7. Suddenly, Jadzia is dead, Sisko is depressed because he feels the Prophets left him, Kira's in control of the station, Romulans and Klingons on DS9.....
It confuses the hell out of everyone and they feel bummed.

Or they could feel curious and intrigued by the mystery, and hopeful that future installments would gradually reveal more. Consider the revival of Doctor Who. Near the start of the new series, we were told by the Doctor that he was the last of his people. To those of us who knew the original series, this was a rather startling and unexplained change, since Gallifrey had been a going concern in the original series. And as the series went on, it gradually revealed more about that mystery and satisfied our curiosity, even though it mostly avoided flashbacks to the intervening period.

I recall Margaret telling people at Shore Leave that her philosophy was "always leave them wanting more." She wanted us to be surprised and puzzled about the changes, so that we'd keep buying the books in order to see them explained.

 

[Defcon]

Not to change topics too widely, but I recently read that Jaime too is now no longer at Pocket. Is this true?

Yes, she is gone, too.

But in contrast to her predecessors she left S&S voluntarily to spend more time with her newborn AFAIK.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I think it's save to say that the choices made have caused something of a stir.

And controversy is good. It keeps the readership debating. Marco once said that he liked every novel he edited to polarize its readers.

The last thing we really want is a ST novel that 100% of readers will agree is innoccuous, just okay, average or satisfactory.

 

[Mage]

And yes, DS9 was about change. We don't mind change. We mind the fact, as has been said so many times, that it is unexplained change. Characters develope over time, and the time that it took for these characters to develope is unaccounted for at the moment. How do you think it makes fans of some characters feel when they were behaving a certain way a novell ago, and are suddenly acting completely different in another novell, because 4 years have passed. In a way, it would be like watching DS9 from season 1 to 3, stop watching for seasons 4 to 6, and then start watch season 7. Suddenly, Jadzia is dead, Sisko is depressed because he feels the Prophets left him, Kira's in control of the station, Romulans and Klingons on DS9.....
It confuses the hell out of everyone and they feel bummed.

Or they could feel curious and intrigued by the mystery, and hopeful that future installments would gradually reveal more. Consider the revival of Doctor Who. Near the start of the new series, we were told by the Doctor that he was the last of his people. To those of us who knew the original series, this was a rather startling and unexplained change, since Gallifrey had been a going concern in the original series. And as the series went on, it gradually revealed more about that mystery and satisfied our curiosity, even though it mostly avoided flashbacks to the intervening period.

I recall Margaret telling people at Shore Leave that her philosophy was "always leave them wanting more." She wanted us to be surprised and puzzled about the changes, so that we'd keep buying the books in order to see them explained.

Oh, I'm intrigued, that's for sure. I do truly hope that the 'lost years' so to say will be explored, I'm very curious to see how the characters end up where they are.
I was, unfortunatly, spoiled by what's going one with Kira these days, and really felt it making sense. I could really see that happening in her future. I would just love to read not just where she ended up, but how she got there.

I'd like to make one thing straight, the biggest reason I started this thread was mostly to discus wether or not we would get some actual DS9 novels, instead of only DS9 characters in new situations. I felt as if it was decided that, by putting characters in new locations, DS9 as a series of novels was at an end. Does that make sense?

 

[Therin of Andor]

I felt as if it was decided that, by putting characters in new locations, DS9 as a series of novels was at an end. Does that make sense?

Well, keeping to the TV season comparison, after you put all your regular characters into new locations (after a TV series turns into a myriad of spin-offs), you do the big reunion telemovie.

Wait for... "Return to DS9". And no one has to haggle with actors who hold out for mo' money or desire to only do live theatre. (But do please avoid the sequel, "Harlem Globetrotters on DS9".)

 

[flemm]

Actually, IIRC, it was Marco who said, in an interview or press release: "Think of these books as a kind of Season 8...", or something very similar...

That is interesting to note, but the term has been used affectionately by fans to refer to the early DS9-R and continues to be used in this way, so there is really no contradiction there.

Marco came to regret - right here - his comparison to a TV season very quickly because people did start asking about "the season finale", plans for "sweeps week", and if the narrative was being constrained to exactly a year of story telling.

Well, that is certainly a bit silly, to the extent that anyone was expecting conformity with the tv format, though if such comments were inspired by excitement about the possibility of upcoming major events in the story, then there is really no harm in that. It's a metaphor that works reasonably well in certain respects, though less well in others.

 

[kkozoriz1]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes. YMMV. Your ongoing narritive shouldn't rely on stunts like four year gaps to tell the story.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes. YMMV. Your ongoing narritive shouldn't rely on stunts like four year gaps to tell the story.

I feel the same way, especially in reference to these characters. It works well in LOST or other shows like BSG, but it just seems forced here when there was already so much story set up to be told

 

[kkozoriz1]

Actually, now that you mention it, the time jump is when I quit watching NuBSG. I figured that was a good a time as any and I had quit caring about the characters.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes. YMMV. Your ongoing narritive shouldn't rely on stunts like four year gaps to tell the story.

Have you never seen shows like "Cold Case"? Or read any whodunnit? mystery novels? Or any entertainment that includes flashbacks? Time jumps in the narrative is a standard literary device, not a "stunt".

I feel the same way, especially in reference to these characters. It works well in LOST or other shows like BSG, but it just seems forced here when there was already so much story set up to be told

Let's imagine for a moment that DS9 and its characters were deliberately left out of the "Destiny" and "Typhon Pact" story arcs, because the DS9 narrative had to continue at its own pace, as Marco had originally intended.

DS9 fans would be complaining, "See! Once again DS9 is the abandoned, redheaded stepchild of Trek! Not good enough to be in your damned crossovers!"

 

[Christopher]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes.

That's a false dichotomy. Let's return to my example of the new Doctor Who series. That story moved forward at a very good clip, but in the process of doing so, it also revealed a lot about the Doctor's past. Or think about "Emissary." We were shown a story about Ben Sisko learning to move forward to a new phase of his life, but in order to do so, he had to reconcile with events in his past, so we learned about his history and saw him moving forward simultaneously. That's the way fiction, and life, works. The present is informed by the past. The choices we make to shape the future are shaped in turn by our past experiences. So it's not hard at all to tell stories that move the characters forward while simultaneously exploring where they've been.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^Especially in the one ST series whose resident aliens insisted that the universe was "not linear".

 

[kkozoriz1]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes. YMMV. Your ongoing narritive shouldn't rely on stunts like four year gaps to tell the story.

Have you never seen shows like "Cold Case"? Or read any whodunnit? mystery novels? Or any entertainment that includes flashbacks? Time jumps in the narrative is a standard literary device, not a "stunt".

I feel the same way, especially in reference to these characters. It works well in LOST or other shows like BSG, but it just seems forced here when there was already so much story set up to be told

Let's imagine for a moment that DS9 and its characters were deliberately left out of the "Destiny" and "Typhon Pact" story arcs, because the DS9 narrative had to continue at its own pace, as Marco had originally intended.

DS9 fans would be complaining, "See! Once again DS9 is the abandoned, redheaded stepchild of Trek! Not good enough to be in your damned crossovers!"

If DS9 had used the time jump as a normal part of it's storytelling, like Cold Case (which I haven't seen), then sure. It's valid. Use of flashbacks was also appropriate in Emmisary because it was the first time we'd met Sisko and it was showing us how he got to where we'd met him. This is taking an ongoing storyline, hacking a big hole in the middle of it, screwing up the characters in what is usually a really bad way and then continuing along. Unless years long jumps are going to be a continuing part of the stories then it is a stunt.

 

[Enterpriserules]

I'd prefer to see a story move forward rather than be strung along to see what's caused the changes. YMMV. Your ongoing narritive shouldn't rely on stunts like four year gaps to tell the story.

Have you never seen shows like "Cold Case"? Or read any whodunnit? mystery novels? Or any entertainment that includes flashbacks? Time jumps in the narrative is a standard literary device, not a "stunt".

I feel the same way, especially in reference to these characters. It works well in LOST or other shows like BSG, but it just seems forced here when there was already so much story set up to be told

Let's imagine for a moment that DS9 and its characters were deliberately left out of the "Destiny" and "Typhon Pact" story arcs, because the DS9 narrative had to continue at its own pace, as Marco had originally intended.

DS9 fans would be complaining, "See! Once again DS9 is the abandoned, redheaded stepchild of Trek! Not good enough to be in your damned crossovers!"

If DS9 had used the time jump as a normal part of it's storytelling, like Cold Case (which I haven't seen), then sure. It's valid. Use of flashbacks was also appropriate in Emmisary because it was the first time we'd met Sisko and it was showing us how he got to where we'd met him. This is taking an ongoing storyline, hacking a big hole in the middle of it, screwing up the characters in what is usually a really bad way and then continuing along. Unless years long jumps are going to be a continuing part of the stories then it is a stunt.

I could not have said it better.

 

[Therin of Andor]

If DS9 had used the time jump as a normal part of it's storytelling

"Children of Time" introduces us to the offspring of Dax and Worf, some O'Brien children whose Dad gave up on finding Keiko again, an elderly Odo, and shows us the grave of a long-dead Kira. Is that not an at-first inexplicable time jump for the sake of revealing an interesting narrative as to how those events unfolded? Not a stunt, a valid storytelling technique.

Canonical DS9 is full of examples of jumps ahead in time, some wider than others. There's quite a jump between Seasons Two and Three, IIRC, in which Sisko goes off to collect Defiant.

 

[kkozoriz1]

There are stories where there are jumps in time. However, I challenge you to find one of four years in lenght where the characters are radically changed from their previous situation.

Changes in time within an episode are perfectly alright as we're given an idea what's happening. When the big question upon reading a story about a DS9 character is "WTF happened?" to me (and others) it's a problem.

That is not to say that it can't be used effectively. I just don't feel that it has been in this case.