Best and worst Star Trek paperback novels

[Christopher]

It should be noted that certain publications written by creators of Star Trek's various series are sometimes referenced in later episodes of those series. Somewhat paradoxically, the novels themselves remain apocryphal in such cases, while whatever information was mentioned on-screen becomes canon.

The only case where that really happened was with Jeri Taylor's novel Mosaic, which told Janeway's life story; Taylor later incorporated elements from that backstory into "Coda." And maybe it also happened with the books The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition and Legends of the Ferengi by Ira Steven Behr & Robert Hewitt Wolfe -- I think a couple of Rules were introduced in those books before showing up onscreen, but I could be wrong.

And it's not really paradoxical. Anything written by members of the production staff, whether it's the writers' bible or a technical manual or an encyclopedia, is something that can potentially be a source of ideas for the show itself, but it isn't meant to restrict the creativity of the show's own makers. The show is the core work, and everything else exists only to support it. So there has to be the option either to use elements from outside sources or to ignore/contradict them, depending on what works better for the show.

It only seems like a paradox when people misinterpret "canon" to mean "real" or "true." Any long-running canon contradicts and rewrites itself all the time (Are they Vulcanians or Vulcans? Is it UESPA or Star Fleet or Starfleet? Does Data use contractions? Has Deanna ever kissed Riker with a beard?). The canon is simply the core work itself as distinct from secondary or derivative works.

 

[Greg Cox]

Just to drag this thread into the modern era, I thought I'd point out that two recent Trek novels, Rise Like Lions by Dave Mack and Watching the Clock by Christopher, just took first and second place in a poll of the best tie-in books of 2011.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It should be noted that certain publications written by creators of Star Trek's various series are sometimes referenced in later episodes of those series.

The names of Kirk's parents, George and Winona (Vonda McIntyre's "Enterprise: The First Adventure"), Sulu's first name, Hikaru ("The Entropy Effect"), Uhura's first name, Nyota (William Rotsler's "Star Trek II Biographies"), and the icy appearance of Andor, and the ritual of Ushaan ("The Andorians: Among the Clans" RPG sourcebook), are all from the licensed book lines that made it into canon.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Don't forget the Vanguard-style station in TOS-R "The Ultimate Computer"

 

[cbspock]

My favorite Trek novels we mostly pre-TNG. When they started releasing TNG books as well the quality just hit bottom. My favorite TOS books - Adobe Of Life, Killing Time, Black Fire, My Enemy, My Ally, Dreadnaught and Battlestations, Demons, Mutiny on the Enterprise. Prime Directive.

I also like the Shatnerverse books too.


-Chris

 

[Christopher]

My favorite Trek novels we mostly pre-TNG. When they started releasing TNG books as well the quality just hit bottom.

Around that time, Roddenberry and his assistant Richard Arnold began getting much more proactive about micromanaging the novel and comic tie-ins, and as a result the novels became more homogenized and limited in the kinds of stories they could tell. But Arnold was fired when Roddenberry died, and all the limitations he imposed on the books are long since gone. If you haven't checked out any of the books published in the past decade or so, you really should give them a shot. It's a whole new era in which the books have branched out in new directions, developed a rich continuity of their own expanding on the screen universe, done all sorts of daring and experimental things, and so on. If the early '90s were the Dark Ages for Trek Lit, the early 2000s were the Renaissance.

If I'd been a Trek novelist during the Arnold era (i.e. while TNG was on the air, the period you're talking about), I couldn't have stood it because I would've been so restricted in what I was able to do. But instead I was fortunate to come along during the era of the greatest freedom and innovation that Trek literature has ever had, and I've been able to produce work that I think can stand alongside my original SF writing in its quality, depth, and imagination. And I'm far from alone in that.

 

[Knight Templar]

My favorite Trek novels we mostly pre-TNG. When they started releasing TNG books as well the quality just hit bottom.

Around that time, Roddenberry and his assistant Richard Arnold began getting much more proactive about micromanaging the novel and comic tie-ins, and as a result the novels became more homogenized and limited in the kinds of stories they could tell. But Arnold was fired when Roddenberry died, and all the limitations he imposed on the books are long since gone. If you haven't checked out any of the books published in the past decade or so, you really should give them a shot. It's a whole new era in which the books have branched out in new directions, developed a rich continuity of their own expanding on the screen universe, done all sorts of daring and experimental things, and so on. If the early '90s were the Dark Ages for Trek Lit, the early 2000s were the Renaissance.

If I'd been a Trek novelist during the Arnold era (i.e. while TNG was on the air, the period you're talking about), I couldn't have stood it because I would've been so restricted in what I was able to do. But instead I was fortunate to come along during the era of the greatest freedom and innovation that Trek literature has ever had, and I've been able to produce work that I think can stand alongside my original SF writing in its quality, depth, and imagination. And I'm far from alone in that.

Christopher, something I've really wanted to know (and mentioned in another thread).

Was Richard Arnold really doing what Gene Roddenberry wanted in regards to the novels (and other Trek products) or was it what Arnold thought Star Trek should be like?

How much did Roddenberry really care about that part of the franchise in the last three or four years of his life?

I know I'm asking for speculation on your part but I'm sure your opinion has more validity than mine.

 

[Christopher]

Was Richard Arnold really doing what Gene Roddenberry wanted in regards to the novels (and other Trek products) or was it what Arnold thought Star Trek should be like?

The glib answer would be "both." I believe he was sincerely trying to carry out what he believed Roddenbery's wishes to be, and doing so in the way that he believed was best. So it was Arnold's interpretation of Roddenberry's intentions, and thus it was a mix of both.

I gather that in his later years, Roddenberry had come to think of most Trek productions that he didn't directly produce -- the animated series, at least some of the post-TMP movies, even a fair portion of TOS -- as apocryphal, and he was unhappy with the attention some of the tie-ins were getting (like hearing novelist Diane Duane billed as "the creator of the Rihannsu"). So he had a pretty narrow view of what was "real" Star Trek and what wasn't. And Arnold saw Roddenberry's wishes as law, a law that it was his duty to enforce rigorously.

How much did Roddenberry really care about that part of the franchise in the last three or four years of his life?

How much did he care about the tie-ins, you mean? Well, clearly he cared more about his own canonical creations. He was always jealous of his creations and didn't like to share credit (and evidently wasn't above stealing credit from others). So I'd say his main concern about the tie-ins was that they not overshadow his work or be at cross purposes to it.

 

[Knight Templar]

Was Richard Arnold really doing what Gene Roddenberry wanted in regards to the novels (and other Trek products) or was it what Arnold thought Star Trek should be like?

The glib answer would be "both." I believe he was sincerely trying to carry out what he believed Roddenbery's wishes to be, and doing so in the way that he believed was best. So it was Arnold's interpretation of Roddenberry's intentions, and thus it was a mix of both.

I gather that in his later years, Roddenberry had come to think of most Trek productions that he didn't directly produce -- the animated series, at least some of the post-TMP movies, even a fair portion of TOS -- as apocryphal, and he was unhappy with the attention some of the tie-ins were getting (like hearing novelist Diane Duane billed as "the creator of the Rihannsu"). So he had a pretty narrow view of what was "real" Star Trek and what wasn't. And Arnold saw Roddenberry's wishes as law, a law that it was his duty to enforce rigorously.

How much did Roddenberry really care about that part of the franchise in the last three or four years of his life?

How much did he care about the tie-ins, you mean? Well, clearly he cared more about his own canonical creations. He was always jealous of his creations and didn't like to share credit (and evidently wasn't above stealing credit from others). So I'd say his main concern about the tie-ins was that they not overshadow his work or be at cross purposes to it.

Isn't that attitude at odds with his statement years before to the effect that

"someday someone would be making Star Trek that made everyone forget all about the originals" (paraphrased).

 

[Christopher]

^Roddenberry was a complicated fellow. Like so many of us, he had ideals that he aspired to but often fell short of.

 

[Patrick O'Brien]

My favorite Trek novels we mostly pre-TNG. When they started releasing TNG books as well the quality just hit bottom. My favorite TOS books - Adobe Of Life, Killing Time, Black Fire, My Enemy, My Ally, Dreadnaught and Battlestations, Demons, Mutiny on the Enterprise. Prime Directive.

I also like the Shatnerverse books too.


-Chris

You may want to give the new authors and books a second chance Chris. The writing of today's Trek authors is top notch. The limitations placed on the authors are gone and the storylines reflect this. What David Mack has done with the Destiny series or Dayton Ward's Paths of Disharmony, shows the authors have little or no restrictions.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Read "Crossroad". I love that book - 2 groups of time travellers come back in time, from a future in which the Federation has turned into something detestable.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The glib answer would be "both." I believe he was sincerely trying to carry out what he believed Roddenbery's wishes to be, and doing so in the way that he believed was best. So it was Arnold's interpretation of Roddenberry's intentions, and thus it was a mix of both.

Yep. RA was essentially a gatekeeper of GR's information. RA was paid to read licensed tie-in proposals and manuscripts and filter the crucial information to and from GR to save GR from having to read them himself.

That would entail a certain amount of decision making. When to refuse or deny, or when to go higher for GR's personal feedback.

So I'd say his main concern about the tie-ins was that they not overshadow his work or be at cross purposes to it.

Yep. The supposed decanonizing of TAS probably probably had as much to do with the closure of Filmation in 1989, and the ongoing court case with Fontana and Gerrold over TNG creatorship, as any directive to the licencees to stop using TAS characters or plots in tie-ins. GR and RA simply wanted the licensed tie-ins to again be more focused on what elements of Star Trek would be the springboard for new, licensed stories.

After all, many of TNG's screenwriters and fans had probably never heard of TAS. It hadn't had a lot of exposure in recent years and, due to the Filmation closure, no one was able to distribute it or air it for a time until the legalities of ownership were settled.

But GR was known to give the odd salute to the tie-ins. IIRC, he wrote some cover copy praising "Enterprise: The First Adventure", a novel which was part of the 20th anniversary celebrations of the franchise. Before that, Alan Dean Foster was entrusted to convert GR's "Robot's Return" into "In Thy Image", based on the solid job he'd done adapting TAS into novelizations for Ballantine/Del Rey.

 

[Christopher]

The supposed decanonizing of TAS probably probably had as much to do with the closure of Filmation in 1989, and the ongoing court case with Fontana and Gerrold over TNG creatorship, as any directive to the licencees to stop using TAS characters or plots in tie-ins. GR and RA simply wanted the licensed tie-ins to again be more focused on what elements of Star Trek would be the springboard for new, licensed stories.

On the other hand, there was always a fair-sized contingent of fans that dismissed TAS because it was "just a cartoon" or because of its limited production values. Just recently I was reviewing the letter columns from DC's 1985 Trek comics, and there was an ongoing debate in them about whether TAS should count as "real" Star Trek. Editor Bob Greenberger had mentioned in one letter column that there was disagreement on that issue within the DC team itself; Bob thought that TAS should count, but Mike Barr, the writer at the time, preferred to ignore it. That sparked a wave of letters debating the question in subsequent issues. (Of course the comic eventually added Arex and M'Ress to its cast, but that was done well after Mike had moved on.)

So Roddenberry may well have been responding to TAS's iffy reputation -- as well as to the fact that he didn't produce it himself, but was more of an executive consultant (D. C. Fontana was what we'd now call the showrunner). There's also the fact that he aspired to believability in ST, particularly later in his life, and a lot of TAS was extremely fanciful. Because of those factors, I think he didn't consider TAS to be fully authentic Star Trek. Remember, he also considered ST V and "parts" of the earlier Harve Bennett-produced movies to be non-canonical. I think he wasn't comfortable with interpretations that he had no control over and that took things in directions he wouldn't have chosen.

 

[Therin of Andor]

On the other hand, there was always a fair-sized contingent of fans that dismissed TAS because it was "just a cartoon" or because of its limited production values.

Oh, agreed. But until that 1989 memo controversy, I don't recall any negativity about TAS from GR's direction. I guess a lot of my early views about the old Star Trek Office stance on TAS came from the issues of Lincoln Enterprise's "fan club newsletter" for TAS (I bought them retrospectively in a batch via Lincoln's catalogue in late 1980) and these were filled with bouncy support for the animated episodes as they were being produced. Our own local club newsletter (I once got to read archived back issues from before the time I'd joined) had letters from GR answering questions about then-in-production TMP and, again, they seemed inclusive of TAS. (There was one where GR joked about trying to coerce Majel to do M'Ress in live-action in the movie.)

I think he wasn't comfortable with interpretations that he had no control over and that took things in directions he wouldn't have chosen.

Oh yes, totally agree. Esp. when fans pitched particular questions at him at conventions. There was supposedly one period where fans were pressuring him on why the movies had not featured "a dreadnought", which brought up the animosity and frustration in various GR quotes re tie-ins like the semi-licensed Technical Manual, Star Fleet Battles, and the "Is Starfleet a military operation?" stuff.

Of course, by that time the franchise was very much in Harve Bennett's hands, but I was very surprised that Diane Carey was allowed to feature a dreadnought in her first novel. (I guess it was submitted in full as a spec manuscript, as many of them were at the time?) I recall predicting that the novel's plot would no doubt brand the design "a failure".