Need help putting my TNG Novel together

[Greg Cox]

Thanks for the insight. Is it the dream of authors to become editors - similar to how every actor says 'well I what I really want to do is direct"?

Depends. Some editors have no interest in writing. Some writers have no interest in editing. I basically went from being a full-time editor and part-time writer to being a full-time writer and part-time editor. But I've known people who definitely prefer one to the other.

And then there are editors who become agents, or agents who become writers. Me, I have no interest in ever becoming an agent.

Regarding royalties . . . again, the answer is: it depends. There are different royalty rates for hardcovers, trade paperbacks, mass-market, ebooks, book club editions, original novels, tie-ins, etc.

With tie-ins, the licensor typically gets the lion share's of the royalties, but sometime the author gets one or two percent.

With an original novel, the author gets a larger cut.

 

[Christopher]

So if another author decided to kill off some characters, including one that you had created (T'ryssa Chen for example, although you've stated that a friend was just as responsible for her creation as you were), then they could just do that if CBS were ok with it and you wouldn't have any say?

That's correct. Indeed, that's happened before. A number of Trek Lit characters created by one author have been killed off by another author. In at least one case, I was the one assigned to do the killing off.

And my friend wasn't as responsible for T'Ryssa's creation. She initiated and ran the RPG project for which I created the character, and she advised me on the mechanics of character creation for such a game, so she created the circumstances that made it possible; but as the player, I was responsible for creating the character myself. If T'Ryssa (or T'Lyssa, as she was originally known) had really been a shared creation, I wouldn't have felt free to make unilateral use of her in my own work. When I was first considering introducing the character into a Trek novel, I recall that I reviewed the creation process to make sure I wasn't using any specific ideas that didn't originate with me.

 

[JD]

I think the problem is that alot of time people forget that things like written novels are in fact a profession. It seems to me like alot of times people assume that as long as you can come up with a semi-decent idea and put more than two words together you can write a novel and sell, but it seems pretty obvious t me that it is nowhere near that simple. But they don't take into account the buisness side of things, that really pretty much has to be just as big, if not a bigger part of the creation of a novel.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But they don't take into account the buisness side of things, that really pretty much has to be just as big, if not a bigger part of the creation of a novel.

And then there's timing. An Australian picture book manuscript once did the rounds as "Hush the Invisible Mouse" (1978) over many years and garnered a huge pile of rejection slips. The author had a friend illustrate it anyway, and it did the rounds again. One editor happened to suggest that there were always too many mouse stories doing the rounds out there. The story was pared back and pared back, the mice were switched to Australian possums eating the Vegemite sandwiches - and five years later "Possum Magic" was born, perhaps still the most consistent Australian children's book bestseller ever.

 

[xortex]

As long as Trek lit doesn't become the humping post of the elite, I'll be happy. The spoiled brat uber nerd little Lord Fontelroy already has control of the movie franchise.

 

[Mr Silver]

The spoiled brat uber nerd little Lord Fontelroy already has control of the movie franchise.

Is that supposed to be JJ Abrams?

 

[JD]

As long as Trek lit doesn't become the humping post of the elite, I'll be happy. The spoiled brat uber nerd little Lord Fontelroy already has control of the movie franchise.

Yeah, he actually managed to make Trek popular again, how horrible.

 

[Mr Silver]

I have no problem with JJ Abrams. He's part of a collective effort that has brought Star Trek back to the height of popularity and this in turn has attracted more attention to the other productions of the franchise.

It confuses me why so many purists are out there bitching about the man for bastardising the show. It's absolute rubbish, ST09 was a very well made movie that kept as true to TOS as it could whilst including accessibility for a modern audience.

If you don't like ST09, then you don't like it. It's not going to ruin the legacy of Star Trek, rather it's adding to the legacy and expanding the fanbase to include a greater variety of people. NuTrek won't make the rest of the franchise redundant, because there will always be the preceding shows and continunity.

If that doesn't convince you, then examine the amount of action in TOS. Then compare it to the amount of action in ST09. For the 1960's, TOS was a pretty action filled show that included multiple skirmishes (usually involving Kirk and the Security officers), space combat (Balance of Terror, The Doomsday Machine, etc), people threatening each other with phasers (almost every couple of episodes), violent lunatics and pioneering special FX. They aren't all the different...

 

[JD]

^Yes, very much yes. IMO ST09 was probably as close to TOS as you could possibly get in a modern day big budget blockbuster.

 

[Christopher]

It confuses me why so many purists are out there bitching about the man for bastardising the show.

Because purists complain. A few years ago, they were complaining about Enterprise getting everything wrong. When TNG came along, a lot of purists raised hell over it. When DS9 came along, the same. And ohh, the furor that was raised when VGR dared to have a female captain. And plenty of fans have trashed the animated series. Heck, before there were any movies or sequel series or any of that, the purists trashed the third season of TOS for bastardizing Roddenberry's vision. There are always going to be people uncomfortable with novelty; that's what purism is. So whatever the newest incarnation of Star Trek is, there are going to be people who cry bloody murder about it. A decade or two down the road, when some new TV series or movie reboot brings yet another fresh interpretation to ST, the purists are going to scream about how horribly wrong it is and how much better the Abrams movies were.

 

[Relayer1]

It confuses me why so many purists are out there bitching about the man for bastardising the show.

Because purists complain. A few years ago, they were complaining about Enterprise getting everything wrong. When TNG came along, a lot of purists raised hell over it. When DS9 came along, the same. And ohh, the furor that was raised when VGR dared to have a female captain. And plenty of fans have trashed the animated series. Heck, before there were any movies or sequel series or any of that, the purists trashed the third season of TOS for bastardizing Roddenberry's vision. There are always going to be people uncomfortable with novelty; that's what purism is. So whatever the newest incarnation of Star Trek is, there are going to be people who cry bloody murder about it. A decade or two down the road, when some new TV series or movie reboot brings yet another fresh interpretation to ST, the purists are going to scream about how horribly wrong it is and how much better the Abrams movies were.

Everything that came after 'The Cage' was bastardised...

 

[Greg Cox]

Heck, there are still diehard Galactica purists bitching about that reboot, which, at this point, kind of reminds me of a Japanese soldier who doesn't know that World War II is over . . .

At this point, I'm kind of resigned to the fact that the purists are going to gripe about nuTrek for the rest of our natural lives . . . or until somebody reboots the franchise again!

Meanwhile, getting back to the topic at hand . . . .

 

[Sci]

And ohh, the furor that was raised when VGR dared to have a female captain.

... seriously?

Why?

Isn't Star Trek all about a future without discrimination?

 

[Christopher]

And ohh, the furor that was raised when VGR dared to have a female captain.

... seriously?

Why?

Isn't Star Trek all about a future without discrimination?

Yes, but there are a lot of TV viewers in the present who do discriminate. There was a lot of ugly, sexist stuff said online about Janeway in the early days -- just like there was a lot of ugly, homophobic stuff on the Trek Lit boards in response to Ranul Keru. Not everyone who watches or reads ST gets the point.

 

[Therin of Andor]

... seriously?

Gosh, where were you?

I daresay there were some awful comments about Sisko when DS9 was announced, not that I felt a need to read and remember them. And you've seen several arguments break out in TrekLit over gay and lesbian Starfleet characters.

 

[Mr Silver]

I don't understand why anyone with the usual unjust prejudices would like a franchise that is renowned for promoting equality and depicting a future without homophobia, sexism, etc.

On screen, it began with Number One and Uhura and most recently it covered an interterrestrial relationship between a black human female and a hybrid male. Star Trek is one of the few franchises that has consistently battled prejudice and painted a picture of a future without such attitudes. Sure, there hasn't been a great deal of same-sex relationships covered on screen, but that hasn't stopped the novelists from working the "non-issue" of it into their work.

 

[tmclough]

Yeah, he actually managed to make Trek popular again, how horrible.

http://www.theonion.com/video/trekkies-bash-new-star-trek-film-as-fun-watchable,14333/

 

[xortex]

'Non-issues' ? You mean main ideas? Only kidding.

It's all about appreciation and acceptance. Now do I just get used to it and delude myself into thinking that it's great or do I change? Some things some people will never accept like my father hated Prokofiev while I loved it. It wasn't his thing and I don't think it would ever be his kind of music. Now alternately, there's plenty of music that I hate at first that turn out to be my favorite things in the world, but it's not like I didn't understand the story for Trek '09 or the inherent beauty of the last series Enterprise. It's just that I don't like either and I don't think I'll ever like them no matter how many people do. I don't like coffee either.
Berman's Trek is over. I think J.J. is clueless but a spectacular director/writer but Orci and Kurzman just don't get it. Some things get better but the audience knew what it was getting in Berman. It was just unfortunate that GR didn't recognize it.
I wonder how many people like Trek '09 because the purists don't?

 

[Sci]

... seriously?

Gosh, where were you?

I would have been eight or nine years old at the time.

 

[xortex]

How does that make you feel, Therin?