That's not the point. The reason tie-in literature exists is to support the franchise it's adapted from. "Canon" doesn't matter. It never does. What matters is that these books are merchandising for the shows and films. They exist to promote them, to reinforce them, not to compete against them or repudiate them. The existing audience for the books is a few thousand people, out of the millions who will watch the shows and films. The hope is that some few of those millions of TV/movie viewers will be curious about the tie-in novels, buy them, and put a bit more money in CBS's coffers. And it wouldn't be good for those new readers to find that the books completely contradict what they saw on the shows. That would just confuse them and drive them away, and CBS wouldn't make any more money from them that way. More fundamentally, you're trying to paint the tie-ins as a rival for the shows, suggesting that we dismiss the shows as something inferior, "just a nightmare." That would be, frankly, pretty damn obnoxious and ungrateful. Like I said, we don't own these characters and concepts. We have no right to claim them as our own and denigrate the choices of their rightful owners the way you're suggesting. We're just borrowing Star Trek from CBS. If any version of the universe is "just a dream," it's ours, not theirs.
Not to mention Alan Dean Foster's Humanx Commonwealth (29 novels and counting, along with several short stories).
Which is the primary reason that despite what some of us would love to see, it's probably just not in the cards. From purely a marketing perspective it makes more sense to have books that are directly tied to the shows. The only way I'd ever see the current litverse continuing is if all the parties felt enough people bought the books that they would make enough money to treat it as an alternate universe and it somehow helped the overall bottom line. And I certainly don't see that being the case. The litverse has a loyal following, sure, and most of us are perfectly happy to have it as an alternate universe to Picard. And many may like both universes just fine. But honestly, that's just not going to happen. Now, we are told there is a plan, enough times that I don't think it's a tongue in cheek joke. But I don't expect that to be a wholesale continuation of the litverse. Perhaps just a small segment--and it's possible some segment is linked to Picard somehow. Though I'd love a DS9 finale (I know, probably a non sequitor, but I can't help it). I just watched the DS9 episode "Chrysalis" and the whole Julian Bashir angle is another I'd love to see a resolution too. Just sayin
I have no clue if CBS has directly addressed a matter of such small audience numbers, but this is the way I see it. Disney presumably would perceive newly-published material containing Jacen and Jaina Solo as too confusingly contradictory for marketing a consistent brand when their big films have Ben Solo. Moreover, as Christopher points out, the ancillary novels and comics are to support the films, not the other way around.
And also, there are only so many books released a year. Even if they were to go to a full 12/year like they were doing before the, um, hiatus in 2018 there are so many shows out there that there just isn't enough room for litverse novels, and probably not even enough for generic DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise novels that aren't linked to the litverse. If you're in any sort of marketing what kind of book do you think would sell more? A book based on a currently run television series, or old spin-offs that ended over a decade ago? The only exceptions of course are the original series and maybe TNG novels (I think that's a big if too, but with Picard being based off of TNG that might be possible). And of course is there market for $16 books based on the older spin-offs anyway--enough to make it worth their trouble? So it's even more than just whether they are consistent with the show or not. The only way you may have seen litverse novels continue is if this were the 1990s when 2 books/month were being released. Then maybe S&S/CBS may have supported litverse novels as an alternate reality. They'd probably need them to fill out the 24 per year in fact. But we're certainly not likely to ever see that happen again. The only other way for the litverse to continue may be in the form of e-books. E-books might be a potential way since they'd serve a specialty niche of readers and the cost to S&S would be less since they wouldn't need to print the books. But I've noted before, you'd have to have authors willing to write books in that format and I can't imagine they'd get paid the same for an e-book as for a printed book. That doesn't mean an author wouldn't be willing to do it from time to time, esp. if there was some story they were just itching to tell, but I don't think it would be a frequent occurrence. And I haven't seen any e-book only Star Trek books in a long time so it may be moot anyway. But e-books would be the only way I could see them continue (though not to spite Picard--I personally would love to see them continue, but not in spite--I frankly hope I love Picard when I see it--but simply as a continuation of a story line a certain number of fans have enjoyed and are willing to pay money to see continue in some format as an alternate take on the future of TNG storyline). I generally prefer print books myself, but I'll gladly put money down on an e-book if it meant they continued the stories (and if I got a DS9 finale ).
I just don't know if I will be interested in Picard era novels. All the legacy characters just felt like losers. Maybe a Rios story perhaps? I liked him.
I recommend strongly THE LAST BEST HOPE by Una McCormack. Easily one of the best Star Trek novels period.
There apparently is also a Picard novel due for release later this year, though no information is available about it as of yet. Not even the name of the novel (and is there an author tied to it as of yet)? You know, I know it's a bit off topic, but I really wish they came up with a better name for the show. Star Trek: Picard just seems, I don't know, boring maybe. I know it's focused on Picard and all, but it's like they couldn't think of anything better or more creative and they just said, 'let's just call it Picard and call it a day'. Ok, rant over. Not something that will affect my enjoyment of the show one way or another, just a minor nitpick.
To be honest, I've never liked the name Star Trek. It's a weird, clumsy, ugly title. Who says "trek?" Are they space Boers? It's a strange word, and a clumsy grammatical construct. (FC's Cochrane saying "You're astronauts on some kind of star trek" is one of the clunkiest, most unnatural lines of dialogue I've ever heard.) When I was a kid, my sister and her friend from next door teased me by calling it "Star Truck." The franchise hasn't really had a lot of luck with titles. The Motion Picture? Generic much? The Next Generation? Cliched as heck, and factually incorrect, because it's three or four generations later. And Deep Space Nine was just a placeholder title that nobody in the production really liked, but then it got out to the public and everyone got used to it and the plan to think up something better kind of fell by the wayside. On the other hand, I've always liked how the titles of the Genesis trilogy are matter-of-fact descriptions of their story content. ST II depicts the wrath of Khan, III shows us the search for Spock, and IV portrays the voyage home. Prosaic, but efficient.
Yeah, as much as I loved First Contact I did eye roll that. A definite case where the writers thought they were being cute and it fell flat. I remember thinking at the time 'they didn't seriously just have say Cochrane say that'. I guess Star Trek has a history of blah names. And most of them seem to be based on, well, the base of operations. Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, Discovery. I mean, I guess it's descriptive, even accurate. But a bit meh. Lower Decks is a bit better I guess. It's still descriptive, but it can be argued it's a bit symbolic since it focuses on 'lower level' officers/crew. Strange New Worlds is different at least, and manages to incorporate a bit more of the spirit of the show. As far as the movies I might even add The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country to the list. A bit more symbolic, but they get to the essence of the plots. The 4 TNG movies, while they basically match the plot, aren't very creative. It always drives me nuts when older people say Star Track. "Oh, you're into that Star Track show" It's TREK, STAR TREK, not Star Track. Ugh There's no freakin a.
Yeah, Star Trek: Picard was always a placeholder, much like DS9 was, but it got out and stuck. Heck, Articles of the Federation was always a placeholder title for that novel until I came up with something better, and then I never did.....
By all accounts, you and Fred Freiberger. And the Cochrane line in FC simply got a groan out of me. You and me both! <censored>-A to your "no freakin a."
Picard might have been a placeholder, but I think they probably also accurately judged that people would always just call in "the Picard show" no matter what it was called. Might as well lean in!
I realize that show needed a subtitle to differentiate it from the 1966-1969 show, but a plain Star Trek would not have been inappropriate for that series. And I'm really curious what the creator credits on that will look like. Will it be "Created by Gene Roddenberry" straight up? With maybe a separate "Developed by" credit? A pilot made back in the 60s is going to series, albeit with a different cast and different producer, but it's the same show in every meaningful way. Kurtzman and his team are closer to John DF Black or Gene Coon on this project. So, yeah, I'm curious.
I'm a bit conservative by nature so I'd actually be ok with just Star Trek. Hell, I think I would have been ok if Picard was called, well, Star Trek: The Next Generation (though I do admit that'd be a stretch since there's no Enterprise and it focuses just on Admiral Picard mostly). It'll be interesting to see the credits. I'm also a big Dallas fan and there was a bit of question as to how the 2012 revival series would be credited. In that case it was 'created by David Jacobs' (the original creator back in 1978) then 'developed by Cynthia Cydre' (who developed the 2012 series). I have a feeling, though, that Strange New Worlds will be the usual, created by Alex Kurtzman, etc. and then 'based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry.' As a sort of aside I'm also a James Bond fan (and while we're at it a Hitchcock film fan too, not applicable, but just figured I'd get all my favorites out there ) and I was a bit surprised "Casino Royale" didn't revert in the credits to "Ian Fleming's Casino Royale" like they did in the first several films when they used Fleming's stories and/or titles, instead of the "Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in..."
This happens with books sometimes. Ellen Datlow's ALIEN SEX anthology started out as just "untitled alien sex anthology," but everybody got used to calling it "the Alien Sex book" so it ended up being titled ALIEN SEX, which was certainly to the point. And, I swear to God, TOMORROW SUCKS started out as a joke title for a sci-fi vampire anthology I co-edited, but we ended up using it on the published book!
Then don't read them. Problem solved. Which makes me wonder if one of the reasons why they had a name for SNW right away as soon as it was officially announced was to preemptively prevent everyone calling it "the Pike show" out of habit and having that stick.
It made me, a prospective buyer, laugh out loud when I read that title on the book in a bookstore (remember bookstores?)The title alone got me THIS close to buying the anthology. So it almost worked! Now I wish I had bought it, and the Werewolf follow-up, TOMORROW BITES.
I read an interview with Akiva Goldsman saying that he's been pushing to do the Pike show for years. So he may have already had the name picked out.
I'm kind of sad we don't have STAR TREK: THIRD GENERATION. But yes, you could do STRANGE NEW WORLD as just the next STAR TREK.