New 40th anniversary edition of ST:TMP novelisation?

Part of being an omnivorous reader as a teen is stumbling onto racy parts in books you picked up for other reasons. I remember adolescent Greg raising his eyebrows at the original Bond novels by Ian Fleming, various historical epics like The King Must Die by Mary Renault, full of the "pagan passions of a bygone age," not to mention any number of lurid vampire novels that were sometimes far more explicit than the old Bela Lugosi movies I was accustomed to. As far as I recall, my parents never censored my reading, although I remember my dad talking to me about the novelization of Dr. Phibes Rises Again, which was a bit more "adult" than the actual movie. To his credit, there was no scolding involved; my dad simply saw this as what we now call a "teaching moment" to discuss the use of profanity and sexual content in literature.

 

Hmm. My first introduction to the, ahem, "mechanics" of human reproduction was the article, "Reproduction," in the 1971 World Book Encyclopedia. At the time, a random volume of the World Book was my idea of light reading.

 

To which I say, so what? It is puerile and petty to shame someone simply for liking sex, to call it something that needs to be "admitted" as if it were a crime. It's good to like sex. It evolved to be pleasurable for a reason. In addition to its reproductive importance, it plays a vital role in interpersonal bonding, stress relief, and mental health. It is no more shameful or worthy of juvenile sniggering than enjoying food or sports or reading or music. And it is perfectly valid to use it as a subject for fiction, because it is an important and natural part of human experience. The only thing that ever makes sex objectionable is when it is imposed without consent or abused as a means of subjugating or victimizing another person. Roddenberry probably was guilty of that, and if so, he should be condemned for it. But only for the abuse of sex, not for the natural human enjoyment of it.

 

Of all the books I could have read, the novelization for TMP was the first book when I was of a similar age which was a leap forward in terms of adult content. I think Kirk's reaction to Lori went over my head. But I remember freaking out and laughing when Kirk reacts to the scope of the V'ger intruder with a vulgar exclamation. I could never imagine Kirk saying that, because he never had in the television show. And I had never read the word in any novel prior to that. My dad took it in stride, and encouraged me to take it in stride, too. He said something like "Your old enough to read that kind of stuff" and I just loved hearing that, so I got on with the reading.

 

I really don't mind sex in the books that I read, I just don't necessarily need multiple pages going into every single tiny minute detail of what every single part of the people's anatomy is doing every second they are doing it.

 

Now who is pointing out the absurdly obvious?

I see no shame in Roddenberry's somewhat outsized appetite for sex, nor his frankness about it, merely mild amusement at the latter, particularly in the context of this discussion.

Gene Roddenberry was unquestionably a visionary, and unquestionably had a talent for attracting creative visionaries, but he was also a human being. Aside from his sexual proclivities, there's also the simple fact that he was a champion chiseler (e.g., pissing off Alexander Courage by attaching an utterly unsingable text to the Star Trek theme, just for a share of the royalties).

I'm reminded of an exchange I inadvertently overheard between an elderly cleric and a young parishioner. I will quote only the tiny fragment I remember, specifically identifying neither individuals, nor location, nor denomination.
Parishioner ". . . I think sex is fun."
Cleric: "Of course. It's supposed to be fun. . . ."
The cleric went on to explain that the problems are when you misuse it (by which time I'd quickly but quietly stepped out of earshot, figuring that I'd wandered into a conversation that was none of my damn business, and that my own business with the cleric in question could wait).

 

I think this tangent of the conversation has gone far enough. I'm okay with a continuing discussion of raciness in books we picked up as younger readers like the TMP novelisation itself, but the Roddenberry thread needs to finish.

thank you.

 

Uh, where is that? I'm having trouble finding it.

If present, it does give a whole new meaning to "The Captain's Oath."

 

Near the end of chapter 3, page 35 in my copy:

"...the cloud itself may be a powerfield generated by something inside at the heart of it"
"Shit!" It was an expression that a very young Jim Kirk had learned from grandfather Samuel.

At the time, Kirk is an Admiral, so at that point it's the Admiral's Oath!

 

And I will note that there are anecdotes stating that "shit" was, at least at the time TOS was being filmed, Shatner's favorite expletive. And that there is a never-shown-to-the-public blooper reel with a lengthy montage of Shatner saying it over and over.

 

Wait, like the Atlantropa idea?

 

I can't help but find myself amused at the sniggering that goes on in fandom about one reference to Mrs. Kirk's favorite love instructor or the reference to the pounding in Kirk's genitals when the previous year, in seventh grade, I had checked out and read LOGAN'S RUN from my junior high school library, and the following year, I would read STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND and I SHALL FEAR NO EVIL from my high school library, and after having read SPOCK, MESSIAH! in fifth grade, all of which might be considered more problematic for young readers than Roddenberry's artlessly straightforward prose.

 

^Yeah, the TMP novelization is really, really tame compared to a lot of stuff out there. As for Spock: Messiah!, though, it's more sophomoric than pornographic.

 

Yeah, it's more lurid pulp than porn, but my mother was a bit taken aback while reading it several months after I finished the novel when she got to the part of Sara describing getting it on with Spock while under the influence of their dops "like rutting cats."

But we should probably get back to the TMP novelization .

 

I'm surprisingly excited about the audiobook.

In terms of novelisations with lengthy print runs, Doctor Who and the Daleks has done well. Published in '64, reprinted as the first of the Target range in '73, kept in print till the 90's and periodically revived since.

Hmm, the most successful novelisation of all time has to be Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy doesn't it? Certainly can't be many others to have sold that well and regularly feature in best novels of all time lists.

 

Actually, so far as I'm aware, all editions were dedicated to Majel. She was his wife, after all.

Re-reading my HC edition now. I'd completely forgotten about the "senceiver" implant. Sounds about as far-fetched as the implants from Spock: Messiah!

 

Nothing far-fetched about it. The senceiver is basically just a communications implant of the sort you see in plenty of science fiction. It's just a matter of feeding audiovisual information directly into the brain's sensory centers instead of going through the sense organs.

 

Pocket MMPB: no dedication
Pocket Canada: no dedication
SFBC HC: no dedication
S&S HC: dedication
S&S Limited HC: dedication
Fontana (UK) MMPB: no dedication
Severn House (UK) HC: no dedication
German, French and Italian translations: no dedication.

So, it’s only the two S&S hardcovers from 1980 that include “This Book is dedicated with love to Majel”