Appreciating the Blish stories

[Landru1000]

When I was a kid I disliked the James Blish Trek adaptations because they weren't verbatim transcripts of the episodes, which was what I was looking for. Rereading the first couple of books as an adult, I find them more interesting. Of course you've got extra dialogue and scenes from early drafts, plus Blish's own reworking of the dialogue. Blish also editorializes here and there -- he doesn't go full Diane Carey, but there are definitely places where he's clearly trying to clean up what he considers to be implausibilities. Sometimes he gets a little snarky, as when he notes in "Charlie's Law" that Spock's homeworld is "confusingly called Vulcan."

The economy of Blish's writing is remarkable. Sometimes I can't believe how brief each story is, yet he generally manages to get the complete story across, through the use of some well-chosen abridgments and summaries. At the same time, the stories are appetizers when they should be meals. I know Blish hadn't seen Star Trek before writing, but is there anyone here who read these stories before they ever saw the show? I wonder if the stories would work as little science fiction vignettes, or if they would be totally unsatisfying, as Blish doesn't have the space to give the reader any grounding in the story world or the characters.

 

[diankra]

Not before, but alongside, so I'll definitely have read some of the Blish books before seeing the relevant episodes (not including the four BBC 'banned' episodes, where the book was around long before they finally got a UK screening or video release)..

 

[Idran]

I know Blish hadn't seen Star Trek before writing, but is there anyone here who read these stories before they ever saw the show?

I read some of the Blish novelizations a couple decades ago, but I only finally watched the whole of TOS a few years back, myself. Some were for episodes I had seen by that point, but others the Blish version was my first encounter, yeah.

They were definitely interesting reads, I remember that much. Though I have to admit I didn't remember them well enough to really compare what I'd read back then to the series itself for those episodes I hadn't yet watched at the time.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

I read one of the Blish books (Star Trek 3) and one of the Foster books (Log Four) adapting the animated episodes before I saw any episodes of the series. This was back in the late '70s.

I eventually read all of them even as I was watching the episodes, so I know I read some before I saw the episode and others after I'd seen the episode. I read all of them several times, but it's been years since I read any of them, so my memory's pretty faded. The big thing I do remember is that the shorter, truncated adaptations are in the earliest books - 1 through 4 or 5 - and by the last few books the adaptations feel like a full viewing of the episode. I think by the time Blish got to the later books, the series had started airing in England, so he may have seen some of the episodes before adapting them.

 

[Christopher]

I think by the time Blish got to the later books, the series had started airing in England, so he may have seen some of the episodes before adapting them.

Blish didn't move to England until 1968 or 1969, depending on the source. TOS began showing in England in '69. So he was living in the US for most or all of the series's run and it was available in England from at least his second year there.

What has to be understood is that back then, prose adaptations generally weren't expected to be accurate. They were seen more as opportunities to create original works that were inspired by a source in another medium but tailored to function better as short stories or novels. So novelizers often took considerable liberties with the source material, using it as a starting point and making it their own. This was rarely a problem, because the people who read the books might never have seen the movies or shows that were the source material, or might only have seen them once in the past. So there was little opportunity for comparison. But Star Trek was unusual because it became such a huge hit in syndicated reruns, despite having an atypically low amount of episodes for a strip-syndicated program. So fans kept seeing the same episodes over and over, which gave them the chance to memorize their details and become more aware of the discrepancies with the adaptations, so Blish got letters complaining about the changes. That's why he and J.A. Lawrence made more of an effort to be accurate later on.

Personally, I don't see much point to an adaptation that's just a word-for-word retelling of the screen story, especially now that we have home video and Netflix. The additions and reinterpretations in the earlier volumes make them more interesting to read.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

Blish didn't move to England until 1968 or 1969, depending on the source. TOS began showing in England in '69. So he was living in the US for most or all of the series's run and it was available in England from at least his second year there.

I didn't realize that. I remember hearing somewhere that living in England and not being able to see the episodes was a reason for the differences in the adaptations and just assumed it was correct.

Personally, I don't see much point to an adaptation that's just a word-for-word retelling of the screen story, especially now that we have home video and Netflix. The additions and reinterpretations in the earlier volumes make them more interesting to read.

I agree. My favorites of the film adaptations have been the ones that have added extra material or unique takes on the movie - ST II and III, Roddenberry's novelization of TMP, the ST VI novelization. I also really like Foster's Star Trek Logs for the same reason, especially the last three where he added additional storylines to bring one episode to novel length. I haven't really bothered with the latest movie adaptations since they became just retellings of the movie without anything added.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I also really like Foster's Star Trek Logs for the same reason, especially the last three where he added additional storylines to bring one episode to novel length.

I understood why ADF had to pad those episodes out, but also wondered why the extra material always involved Klingons (even in episodes that originally had absolutely nothing to DO with Klingons).

 

[Idran]

Personally, I don't see much point to an adaptation that's just a word-for-word retelling of the screen story, especially now that we have home video and Netflix. The additions and reinterpretations in the earlier volumes make them more interesting to read.

There's a great quote on this; I heard it in a panel a couple years back at Calgary Expo, it's originally from Linda Hutcheon's "A Theory of Adaptation": Adaptation is repetition without replication.

 

[diankra]

IIRC, Blish didn't have a tv anyway, so even once the BBC runs started in June 69 he'd only have seen them at friends'.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

And in many cases, Blish was working from early draft scripts. One of the most obvious cases was The Trouble with Tribbles, in which George Takei was off filming The Green Berets, and Chekov got all of Sulu's lines in a script revision after the one Blish used.

 

[Landru1000]

Personally, I don't see much point to an adaptation that's just a word-for-word retelling of the screen story, especially now that we have home video and Netflix.

Great point; the reason I wanted the word-for-word transcripts when I was a kid was because my access to the original episodes was very limited. My eleven-year-old self could have hardly comprehended the idea of every episode available streaming in pristine quality.

And I also love the '70s-'80s tie-ins that elaborated on the films, like McIntyre's Trek adaptations. It's ironic that today, when tie-ins aren't as popular because everyone has easy access to the films, studios refuse to let the tie-in writers expand on the screenplays, which would give the tie-ins more of a reason to exist.

 

[Stevil2001]

There's a great quote on this; I heard it in a panel a couple years back at Calgary Expo, it's originally from Linda Hutcheon's "A Theory of Adaptation": Adaptation is repetition without replication.

Linda Hutcheon is great! The book is tough in some regards, but well worth reading.

 

[Idran]

Linda Hutcheon is great! The book is tough in some regards, but well worth reading.

I'll admit I haven't read the book myself, but that quote from the panel (as well as the other ideas taken from her work) stuck with me so strongly that I've had it on my "to read" list for a while now. It was an academic analysis of the nature of adaptation that drew from her work as a main source, really got my interest up in an area of lit theory I'd never considered.

 

[Stevil2001]

I'll admit I haven't read the book myself, but that quote from the panel (as well as the other ideas taken from her work) stuck with me so strongly that I've had it on my "to read" list for a while now. It was an academic analysis of the nature of adaptation that drew from her work as a main source, really got my interest up in an area of lit theory I'd never considered.

I dabble in adaptation theory occasionally-- I've presented on it myself, but never published in it. It's a fascinating field, given the prevalence of adaptation in contemporary popular culture. I keep nursing a project about prose-to-comics adaptation I've yet to do anything with. Hutcheon has been a big influence on my thinking.

 

[diankra]

Great point; the reason I wanted the word-for-word transcripts when I was a kid was because my access to the original episodes was very limited. My eleven-year-old self could have hardly comprehended the idea of every episode available streaming in pristine quality.

And I also love the '70s-'80s tie-ins that elaborated on the films, like McIntyre's Trek adaptations. It's ironic that today, when tie-ins aren't as popular because everyone has easy access to the films, studios refuse to let the tie-in writers expand on the screenplays, which would give the tie-ins more of a reason to exist.

That point holds: in the late 1970s I liked Terrance Dicks' 4th Doctor Who books because they were effectively the scripts with "Said the Doctor," whereas others were inaccurate (which made the actual stories that I hadn't seen disappointing when I later saw them and they didn't include effective, important scenes).
Now, of course, I love the expansions, while the transcripts just gather bookshelf dust.

 

[flandry84]

Even the name James Blish has such nostalgic import for me.
Trips in the family car and a book of Trek adventures...ah Blish..I mean bliss!
Such an economical but vivid style really brought the stories to life for me,some episodes that I hadn't even seen myself at that point.
And funny as it seems even the authors preface notes were incredibly engaging.I remember that following his passing his wife Judith Lawrence took up the mantle and finished at least one of the books.Early heroes of Treklit.

 

[Landru1000]

It's also interesting to see the slightly different takes on the characters in the early Blish stories. In "Charlie's Law," Kirk is an older, more experienced captain with "well more than twenty years in space" under his belt. He says to Rand, "I never thought I'd wind up explaining the birds and the bees to anybody, not at my age."