I've read Atlas Shrugged. It's not a bad novel. I can see people not liking its themes. But it's essentially the story of the producers in industry going on "strike" by moving to their own town and letting everyone else fend for themselves: the folks referred to as moochers. Those that wanted handouts.
The first two films are pretty good too. The third is awful.
I'd definitely classify it as science fiction as it's more concerned with its themes than its characters.
I've been rewatching The Adventures of Superman from the fifties, and am sometimes surprised by how bloodthirsty is it is for such a kid-friendly show. Granted, most of the murders take place offstage, but the gangsters and spies and such do casually kill people as part of their dastardly plans -- and often come close to killing Lois and Jimmy.
Last edited:
The cartoon based on Godzilla 1998 was famous for showing us that all the occupants of monster-destroyed helicopters managed to parachute to safety.
As a kid I enjoyed Photon until the episodes started to feel samey...but there was an ongoing thread regarding the possibility that the main antagonist could do a Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker change-of-heart IIRC, and that was interesting.
Oh, that was routine for action cartoons throughout the '80s-'90s, notably things like G.I. Joe.
I read a few things that gave me the impression I wouldn't like and wouldn't need to read Ayn Rand. The absolute clincher for me was a couple of friends who went through a hardcore Randinista phase. They became unlikeable assholes for a while, lost some friends, and eventually figured out how to behave in public again.
I'm Canadian and I'm 63, so yeah, I remember it. And the Rocket Robin Hood story that was turned into one of the Spider-Man cartoons.
One of my favourite recurring news stories is about Randroids who decide they're going to get away from the moochers and build a Galt's Gulch in real life. They always fail. They're not willing to be the ones who build houses and clean toilets, and nobody wants to work for them because they're horrible people.
Based on the OP, I wouldn't say that I find any of the Trek authors' writing quirks to be annoying rather I find them to be indicative of their unique writing style that informs me of what I can expect as a reader whenever I read any of their respective novels.
For example (and I specify those authors whose work I have read the most of up till this point in time):
Mack - absolutely no problems with his style. "Too Clancy-like"? Eh, I can see that to a degree but again it's not distracting to me. Mack is my favorite Trek author so far. His plots are solid and engaging, his characterizations are top-notch, his action scenes are well-executed and he's great at building up the tension & suspense prior to those scenes. I can pick up any Mack Trek novel and be 80+ pages in before I realize it.
Bennett - "Using too much science to back up all the technobabble"? Nah, that's not a negative, that's a plus in my book. Two of my favorite non-fiction Trek books are The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M Krauss and Star Trek Science Logs by Andre Bormanis. The former attempts to use real world science (as currently understood) to contemplate how certain Trek devices could possibly be created while the latter explains the real world science that forms the basis of concepts seen throughout various Trek episodes.
While Trek will never be considered hard sci-fi, I've always believed that Trek has had more of toe leaning towards real science than say, Star Wars. So to me, Bennett is just keeping up this fine Trek tradition. After all, Trek has a cast of explorers, scientists, adventurers going out into the great unknown. Using real science where ever possible to back that up just adds to the ambience and enjoyment of the story. (And yes, Bennett, your books are very fun to read.)
Cox - Who doesn't love a good Easter Egg? For me though, it depends on how it's used. If it's a single egg reference, if I catch it then depending on it's context, I may chuckle, smile or even roll my eyes but I move on with the story. If I don't catch it initially then usually with how the reference is worded, I'll know that I missed something and that may pull me out of the story briefly because I'll become pre-occupied momentarily with what did I miss?
Typically, I find easter eggs to be nice shout-outs and I think Cox uses to them to a great effect. I especially like it when he calls out to his own work. While avoiding possible spoilers, I recently finished a Trek book by Cox in which a reference he used set off a memory light bulb in that yeah, he wrote a Khan trilogy awhile back. A few trips to some local area used book stores later, I had the first two novels of said trilogy as well as finding Assignment Eternity. Because of a few chapters in one book lead me down a Gary Seven rabbit hole of novels!
Plus if the easter eggs are used creatively, they can increase my joy of the story. For instance, Bennett and his wonderful DTI series. Of course there are easter eggs throughout the series, it's a time-travel book! It was so much fun trying to guess or unravel which each particular easter egg was a reference for. Hardly a distraction then.
(And lastly, Cox is my cozy comfort Trek writer. That is, I can pick up any of his Trek novels [and really any of his work] and know that I am going to get a solid entertaining read.)
Ward - this might be my one grievance and it's more of a nitpick than anything. When I first started reading some of Ward's novels, I got the impression of the old adage "It's always better to show, not tell.". For I felt like Ward spent too much time telling me of what was happening instead of showing me. It was more off-putting than annoying.
It's gotten better lately though. Maybe my perception of his writing has changed, maybe his style has changed, maybe both, maybe neither. Either way, I enjoy more of his work nowadays.
I freely admit that I am not the most well-versed Trek reader there is. I'm slowly catching up on the likes of Swallow, McCormack, George III and such. The recent passing of Peter David made me realize that I've read little of his Trek novels especially New Frontier. Though I am way more familiar with his comic writing (including his Trek comics) so in PAD, we trust.
For example (and I specify those authors whose work I have read the most of up till this point in time):
Mack - absolutely no problems with his style. "Too Clancy-like"? Eh, I can see that to a degree but again it's not distracting to me. Mack is my favorite Trek author so far. His plots are solid and engaging, his characterizations are top-notch, his action scenes are well-executed and he's great at building up the tension & suspense prior to those scenes. I can pick up any Mack Trek novel and be 80+ pages in before I realize it.
Bennett - "Using too much science to back up all the technobabble"? Nah, that's not a negative, that's a plus in my book. Two of my favorite non-fiction Trek books are The Physics of Star Trek by Lawrence M Krauss and Star Trek Science Logs by Andre Bormanis. The former attempts to use real world science (as currently understood) to contemplate how certain Trek devices could possibly be created while the latter explains the real world science that forms the basis of concepts seen throughout various Trek episodes.
While Trek will never be considered hard sci-fi, I've always believed that Trek has had more of toe leaning towards real science than say, Star Wars. So to me, Bennett is just keeping up this fine Trek tradition. After all, Trek has a cast of explorers, scientists, adventurers going out into the great unknown. Using real science where ever possible to back that up just adds to the ambience and enjoyment of the story. (And yes, Bennett, your books are very fun to read.)
Cox - Who doesn't love a good Easter Egg? For me though, it depends on how it's used. If it's a single egg reference, if I catch it then depending on it's context, I may chuckle, smile or even roll my eyes but I move on with the story. If I don't catch it initially then usually with how the reference is worded, I'll know that I missed something and that may pull me out of the story briefly because I'll become pre-occupied momentarily with what did I miss?
Typically, I find easter eggs to be nice shout-outs and I think Cox uses to them to a great effect. I especially like it when he calls out to his own work. While avoiding possible spoilers, I recently finished a Trek book by Cox in which a reference he used set off a memory light bulb in that yeah, he wrote a Khan trilogy awhile back. A few trips to some local area used book stores later, I had the first two novels of said trilogy as well as finding Assignment Eternity. Because of a few chapters in one book lead me down a Gary Seven rabbit hole of novels!
Plus if the easter eggs are used creatively, they can increase my joy of the story. For instance, Bennett and his wonderful DTI series. Of course there are easter eggs throughout the series, it's a time-travel book! It was so much fun trying to guess or unravel which each particular easter egg was a reference for. Hardly a distraction then.
(And lastly, Cox is my cozy comfort Trek writer. That is, I can pick up any of his Trek novels [and really any of his work] and know that I am going to get a solid entertaining read.)
Ward - this might be my one grievance and it's more of a nitpick than anything. When I first started reading some of Ward's novels, I got the impression of the old adage "It's always better to show, not tell.". For I felt like Ward spent too much time telling me of what was happening instead of showing me. It was more off-putting than annoying.
It's gotten better lately though. Maybe my perception of his writing has changed, maybe his style has changed, maybe both, maybe neither. Either way, I enjoy more of his work nowadays.
I freely admit that I am not the most well-versed Trek reader there is. I'm slowly catching up on the likes of Swallow, McCormack, George III and such. The recent passing of Peter David made me realize that I've read little of his Trek novels especially New Frontier. Though I am way more familiar with his comic writing (including his Trek comics) so in PAD, we trust.
Last edited:
I remember when Star Blazers first started airing in the late 70s.
They weren't adverse to showing an onscreen death or two, but at the same time during the first series, they changed the Gamelon soldiers to robots.
The most egregious example I can think of whitewashing a characters death would have been in the penultimate episode of the second season during the assault on the Comet Empire.
Sgt. Knox sets the charges and blows up the main generator, which is clearly seen onscreen.
Moment's later, Wildstar arrives on the bridge of the Yamato and Hardy says that Knox got out just behind him.
Even as an 8-9 year old watching that scene, I knew there was no way Knox survived that explosion and I wondered why they even bothered to include the line that he lived.
I watched a lot of Exosquad as a child, which didn't shy away from both good and bad characters dying sometimes horrible deaths. It was basically a sci-fi anime that was for some reason made for American television.
I think they got away with it because most of the deaths couldn't be dangerously acted out by children (and, ironically given the show's themes, BS&P may not have regarded the Neosapiens as human).
The series even had "video trading cards" at the ends of episodes that laid out how high the death toll was:
I think they got away with it because most of the deaths couldn't be dangerously acted out by children (and, ironically given the show's themes, BS&P may not have regarded the Neosapiens as human).
The series even had "video trading cards" at the ends of episodes that laid out how high the death toll was:
So I was giving some leeway when the thread got to discussing adaptations, because it still sort of generally tied into the thread topic. But we seem to now be diving into just reminiscing about cartoons people remember as children, which seems to have lost any connection to the topic. Let's try to bring it back, please.
I think that was where I learned what the “hand falls and sticks out from behind something” image meant.
Early anime translations too, in terms of softening it for kids. “Fortunately they were only robot troops!”
"What? You mean I went through all of that for nothing?" I suppose it'd be useful to someone who hadn't seen the episode, although more so if the situation had been similar.
I'm still curious about what that was, the only thing that comes to mind is Takedown, when Picard realized Riker is quoting Locutus to signal that he's acting under duress, but that's both relevant to the narrative (critical, honestly) and too recent a novel (please, let it be too recent; if Takedown came out twenty years ago, I might turn to dust right at my desk). I can think of authors that get a little recap-happy (a perennial subject here, I know), but even the most excessive ones tend to slide off of my brain like mercury, even if they're leaden in the moment.
Relax, only 11 years as of January.
Maybe he got out in the sense that pieces of him got out.
I mentioned this over in the what are you reading now thread, but David Stern writing style in the Pike era TOS novel The Children of Kings really annoying. A lot of it has a whole bunch 2 - 4 word sentences, and it just really irritates m
Here's an example from the start of the next chapter.
Here's an example from the start of the next chapter.
There's paragraphs like that all over in the book, and I don't know why, but it just really annoys me.
That second and third sentence could have been combined with a dash or a semicolon.
I suppose it's meant to show the quickness of the actions done and conclusions drawn.
I suppose it's meant to show the quickness of the actions done and conclusions drawn.
Similar threads
