• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"Hundreds of forgettable novels"

R

robinson

Ensign
Newbie
In a recent New York Times article, reporter Logan Hill interviewed JJ Abrams and Doug Dorst about their new novel, called S.

In the article, Hill cites one reason people might be wary of the book:

Mr. Abrams is aware that readers and booksellers may view him as a cynical interloper, especially because he is steering two franchises, “Star Wars” and “Star Trek,” which have spun off hundreds of forgettable novels.
Click to expand...
Note that Hill doesn't attribute that quote, "hundreds of forgettable novels," to Abrams; rather, that's Hill's personal opinion (which has no place in his article).

Here's a link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/books/j-j-abrams-and-doug-dorst-collaborate-on-a-book-s.html?_r=0

I'm sure this seemed like an innocuous remark to Hill; I'm sure he doesn't realize there's a smart and active community built up around Star Trek (and Star Wars) novels. We don't consider the novels "forgettable"; rather, we enjoy them very much.

If this offended you like it offended me, please send Mr. Hill a (respectful) note and tell him so. Hill's email address is logan@loganhill.com. On Twitter: https://twitter.com/loganhill33.
 
Of course, by the same token, "memorable" doesn't necessarily mean "good". I cite "Spock's Brain" as supporting evidence.

While "forgettable" may be a poor choice of word, I'm unfortunately reasonably sure there's a significant number of Trek novels that aren't exactly the best entries in the franchise.
 
Isn't "forgettable" literally true, though? I mean, can anyone name all the novels? I think the early stand-alone novels are particularly forgettable, and there are hundreds of them.

There are far more important things to get offended over. Bombarding this one reporter with e-mails about a passing remark hardly seems like a worthy use of our limited time.
 
It's just one dude I've never heard of's opinion. He probably hasn't read any. And they ARE mostly forgettable.
 
I'll add my voice to the ones who say there are, in fact, hundreds of forgettable novels. Several dozen great ones too, but still
 
This quote is coming from a reporter who should also be able to frankly admit that he has written hundreds (if not thousands?) of forgettable columns and articles.

I understand that what he is saying might be true, but using the word 'forgettable' comes off as a 'dig' when such a seemingly dismissive comment was not called for, IMHO.
 
Most of any type of creative work is forgettable, so it's both perfectly true and nothing notable when Star Trek novels are mentioned in this context.
 
Many of the Trek novels are forgettable. I do tend to remember details of the novels I've read better than many other people, but essentially the ones we remember the best are the ones that have remain our favourites, and the ones we truly hated, yes?

And, as we know, every truly bad Trek novel turns out to be someone else's quirky favourite.

There are also voracious readers out there who read a lot, and enjoy the journey of each book while they are reading it, but seemingly forget the entire contents when they start the next one.

"Forgettable" is not necessarily insulting. It's true.
 
While I do agree that it could be seen as rather insulting, I don't really see where it's worth harassing the guy over. It is annoying that most people are rather dismissive of tie-in, but it's the kind of thing I tend to just brush off. As long as there are people like us out there that do enjoy the books, and occasionally convert others, I think that's really all that matters.
 
While 'forgettable' may be a bland (even accurate) term, I think it's safe to say it was used in a derogatory, and/or, dismissive manner in this article. I think that as fans, it's okay for us to debate and even criticize Treklit (or the franchise in general), but don't like others (the unclean) to do so. Kinda like me beating up on my brother, but turning on you if you dare touch him.
 
I think that as fans, it's okay for us to debate and even criticize Treklit (or the franchise in general), but don't like others (the unclean) to do so. Kinda like me beating up on my brother, but turning on you if you dare touch him.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree. I've read a lot of tie in material, and while I would never profess trek to be the top of the literary world, it is one of the better ongoing franchises. As far as I'm aware, trek doesn't have a deception level abomination.
 
Forgettable is fair comment. I've been reading Treklit for over thirty five years and a great deal of it is forgettable or worse.

There's also a lot of good novels, particularly since the relaunch...
 
Mainstream critics and journalists (and others) will often throw out comments like that without having any basis for them...

I read a review of a Doctor Who novel on a site which usually doesn't review tie-ins, and the reviewer made a dismissive remark about their lack of quality right at the beginning. I asked the reviewer in the comments about how he arrived at that opinion and got no response from him; none of the commenters who did respond had even read a single tie-in novel in the past decade.
 
TheAlmanac said:
Mainstream critics and journalists (and others) will often throw out comments like that without having any basis for them...

I read a review of a Doctor Who novel on a site which usually doesn't review tie-ins, and the reviewer made a dismissive remark about their lack of quality right at the beginning. I asked the reviewer in the comments about how he arrived at that opinion and got no response from him; none of the commenters who did respond had even read a single tie-in novel in the past decade.
Click to expand...
Further, if you happen to pick up virtually any of the major, non-tie-in SF anthologies published in the past 20 years, they often contain a "Year In Review"-type feature where the editor will comment on the overall state of print science fiction up to that moment in time.

In most of these, media tie-ins (up to and especially Star Trek and Star Wars books) usually get shit on hard from a very great height (particularly if said editor happens to be Gardner Dozois).

Attacks on shared-universe fiction frequently happen from within the industry, as well as from without.
 
Leto_II said:
In most of these, media tie-ins (up to and especially Star Trek and Star Wars books) usually get shit on hard from a very great height (particularly if said editor happens to be Gardner Dozois).

Attacks on shared-universe fiction frequently happen from within the industry, as well as from without.
Click to expand...

Not to mention how many teachers will consider Trek novels to be in some sort of way "not-true-fiction", or not on the same level as "Moon----" (I forget the rest of the book title; it was first printed in the 17 or 18 hundreds, featured a teenage boy getting mixed up with some rum smugglers in the 16 or 17 hundreds. It's one of only a couple of stories known to exist by the author, due to his other stories being stolen) or "Catcher In The Rye".
 
I would agree. Just the sheer volume of work is a guarantee that hundreds of ST and SW novels are forgettable (and I can think of a few SW novels, and one or two ST novels, that I wish I could forget!)
 
I dunno. If every Trek novel were a high-stakes, life-changing roller-coaster event certain to make me re-examine self and world, I'd probably start thinking twice before picking one up while relaxing on the couch after work.

Personally, what I usually hope to get out of them is entertainment. I tend to be more entertained when I'm engaged, and there's a spectrum of valid types of engagement, and Trek novels manage to successfully occupy some of the parts of that spectrum pleasingly often. That's not a small thing; it is, obviously, a worthy enough cause to build respectable careers on.

As for the whole forgettable-vs-memorable stuff, I think whether a particular story, or a moment in a story, sticks with you is more about whether it speaks to you personally on some level, which is hard for a writer to optimize for, since it also makes quite some requirements of the reader in terms of either life experience or empathy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top