Well, since Trek Lit ⊂ Everything, by Sturgeon's law I would have to assume 90%! J/K, of course. Based on my own personal tastes, if we assume about 600 books, I would probably rate the percent of actual "crap" around only 1 - 3%. (Opposed to just "meh", which would be a lot higher.) But keep in mind that a) I haven't actually read all of them, and b) I may be inordinately easy to please!
I stopped buying Trek Lit about 15 years ago, around Errand of Vengeance, but I was buying everything without discrimination, on inertia for about 5 years up to that point. (I started when Titan brought out Chain of Attack in the UK). I certainly don't rate those final five years worth of Trek Lit close to anything that got me into the franchise in the first place. Nothing I have read from my local library in the years since then has ever convinced me to buy Trek Lit again.
Up until the last few years, I bought ALL print Trek novels. This has changed due to family financial pressures and being able to convince the local library to begin carrying most of the new releases. I have still READ all the print novels....ALL OF THEM . I wonder now how much time of my life I've used reading them all??!! My personal breakdown would likely be around 5 - 10% total crap, then about 25-30% at the Meh! level. The biggest problem I have is that after so many books and so much reading I do, I have a hard time remembering specific plots and books. On the other end of the spectrum, I would have to say that only a few rate Extraordinary, and many are great stories. wonderful ways to pass the time and entertain. Just my $.02. Edit: Just did the math...based on 591 novels and an average of 10 hours to get through each one = that's over 8 months of my life without a break for anything but reading Trek!
Overall? I can't say, but the current 24th century novels are crap and have been for the past few years.
Yes, my shit list is very short. And I really liked Engines of Destiny. I disliked TOS - The Shocks of Adversity, but it isn't the author's fault. I really liked William Leisner's Losing the Peace.
I've read 287 Trek novels, of which it looks like 17% got scores of less than a 6/10 for me, which roughly matches failing grades. (Yes I keep track of this in an Excel spreadsheet. What?)
In my own personal estimation, though, a rating of 5 or less would not necessarily equal "crap". I would probably say "crap" would be the ones that got a rating of 1 or 2. Since you have the data available, how many in your list would meet that threshold?
The dozen or so that I've read seem to be exercises in continuity references, trying to tie up every little detail and inconsistency. The only one I've particularly enjoyed was The Lost Years.
Thrawn, now that is a hard core way of keeping track of which books suck and which are great. I suppose also everyone's definition of what crappy book is. Some may be, "Hey, I can't get through this and its so bad I can't even wipe my @$$ with it" to 'Yeah, it was a tough read but with my eyeballs at max warp I was able to plod through it". Thrawn, you probably right in that saying if it a 5 star out of 10, it probably not worth the read (or that you plod through it for continuity purposes. And yeah, in terms of school work, getting a 5 outta 10 is basically flunking. I looked at it this way, back in my single days, if I was at a bar looking to score with a girl, the only time I would settle for a girl that was 5 stars out of 10, was at closing time and the bartender is flashing the lights saying "Last Call!" Yeah, I'd rather have 10 stars out of 10, but like I doing the horizontal lambada so the 5 star gal is better than nothing!
After a quick glance through the list of trek books, I'd estimate I've read approx 160 of them over the years (might be more, I read ago lot of classic/tng/DS9 numbered Novels from the library years ago, and i only started recording what I read in 2010, so I might be forgetting a few). It depends how you view trek lit - i dont generally see it as amazing, deep literature, but as entertaining escapism, with the occasional gem (A stitch in time, for example). Overall I'd say very few have been complete crap - though I do generally dislike most of Diane Careys work, as the characters and situations never felt "right". Generally I think trek lit has become more engaging over the last decade and a half, since it switched to ongoing arcs and serialised storytelling, rather than another planet of the week/reset button.
Vanguard: In Tempest's Wake Voyager: Dark Matters 1: Cloak and Dagger Voyager: Dark Matters 3: Shadow of Heaven New Frontier: The Returned Day of Honor: Treaty's Law Gateways: Doors into Chaos Not many. Most Trek books have some redeeming feature somewhere.
Personally, it's a fairly recent trend for Trek books not to be some flavor of crap. There is a noticible shift in quality from the old numbered or pre TNG books to the more modern, connected stories of the relaunch era. I prefer the latter. I remember A time when Star Wars had the thriving novel verse and Star Trek was just churning out the fluff. How times change. Do you mean the big series, like The Fall and Typhon Pact, or the stand alones? Which books in particular? I certainly haven't read them all, but so far the post Nemesis 24th century Trek books have been my favorite.
Not speaking for RandyS, but there does seem to be a contingent of posters on this board who'd prefer books set during the various series rather than the post-series relaunch books that seem to be the norm for all but TOS.
I admit I wish there had been more Voyager books set during the time after Seven joined the crew. I 'think' out of twenty or so of the numbered books that are not episode tie ins or trilogies there might be...three and even one of those had continuity problems. Not sure why that happened that way but while I really like the re-launch I do wish Seven had been given more time in the Delta quadrant novel-verse
While I am certainly one of those posters, in this instance I was speaking of the Typhon Pact. That series did nothing for me. As for the 24th century standalones, those can be hit or miss. I've enjoyed parts of some, but disliked parts of them too. This applies to the present of the TNG/DS9/VOYAGER line. But yes, I would like to see a return to novels set within those series. At least on occasion.
I found two surprises in this thread: one, that somebody would regard How Much for Just the Planet as crap (I've re-read it may times), and two, that somebody beat me to invoking Sturgeon's Law. Regarding ST vs SW novels, I've never failed to purchase a ST novel, and neither have I gotten rid of any, unless it was a redundancy. On the other hand, I'm only too happy to part with most of the handful of SW novels I've bought. The only one I absolutely refuse to part with, other than film novelizations, is my hardcover of ADF's Splinter of the Mind's Eye. At any rate, one man's Mede is another man's Persian. (Are you shah? Sultanly!)
What a question... What percentage of anything in life is crap? In any genre of fiction (or non-fiction), and any media franchise, there's going to be a good amount of drivel. That doesn't mean you should completely give up on it. And "How Much For Just the Planet" is brilliant! You have to completely change your perspective when reading this book, and imagine it as musical theater. The book works on a similar level to comedic episodes like "A Piece of the Action." Kor
Yeah, but some people aren't much for Gilbert & Sullivan; I like musical theater, but I honestly don't much care for "How Much For Just The Planet" either, and it's because I just can't get into Gilbert & Sullivan's specific musical and narrative stylings and the book is like 99% in their specific style. Maybe if it was more like Chicago or Les Mis than HMS Pinafore. Also no one's talking about giving up on Treklit?