Bad Review of ENT: Kobayashi Maru at Pink Raygun

[cultcross]

Care to beef up the defense, David?

I'd rather not dignify the original "reviewer" with a response. Let it suffice to say that I disagree with his decision to use his dissatisfaction with one brief passage from a single work to impugn the quality of the overall TrekLit line, since it seems to imply that all Trek authors work in identical prose styles — an assumption that is readily falsifiable.

While his generalisation is unfairly broad, I do understand his frustration. I too have given up on tie-in novels, not only Star Trek, because the writing style often grated with me. This is not necessarily a criticism of the authors; heck, Tolkein's writing style grates with me, and I must say that the exceptions to this rule with tie-in books are almost exclusively Star Trek ones.
However, I felt that the reviewer linked to in the OP captured quite nicely the things which do put me off this branch of literature. The reviewer's own style is overly confrontational and rude, but the points he makes are valid, imho. The over-zealous description, the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show on the written page rather than allow the reader's imagination in, the clunky attempt at a 'mystery speaker' reveal, all put me off reading a book like that one, before I've even reached the end of the first page. The early pages of a novel should draw me into the story, and engage me with the author's way of telling it. Here, the extract quoted would make me put the book back on the shelf. It's a personal preference, nothing more, but that is essentially all a review is. It's just the linked reviewers opinion, not surprisingly, clashes with a forum dedicated to Trek literature.

 

[Therin of Andor]

the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show on the written page rather than allow the reader's imagination in

Huh?

ST novels are quite often read by people who've never seen an episode of ST. In particular, ENT novels are highly likely to be picked up by fans of other ST TV series or ST movies who chose to avoid ENT when it was on TV.

Isn't it unfair to demand that a ST novel author assume his or her audience has already seen the show to know what a scene in the novel looks like?

 

[Trent Roman]

^ If they avoided ENT while it was on TV, why would they be "highly likely" to then turn around and pick up an ENT book? I don't think bashers are the target audience here. Then again, TGTMD was pretty contemptible of the source material...

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

^^Who's to say they avoided ENT? It was on a smallish network that didn't have affiliates in every city. Sure, it was supplied in syndication to cities that didn't have UPN affiliates, but they generally put it on late at night on on weekend afternoons. There are plenty of people who just never got the chance to see it.

 

[Smiley]

Growing up, TOS wasn't on any station I had available to me. That didn't stop me from wanting to read those books in the library.

There are plenty of scenarios in which a Trek fan may not have seen ENT in a while or ever, so making the books accessible to that audience group is a good thing.

 

[David Mack]

The over-zealous description, the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show...

First off, the authors were not describing a scene from a TV show, it was an original storyline.

Second, one of the cardinal sins of inexperienced prose writers, especially in tie-in fiction, is a failure to adequately capture the sensory details of a scene.

Perhaps the reviewer didn't like the way in which Mike and Andy set the scene, but to take them to task for trying to provide the reader with a detailed mental image of the setting is, in my opinion, a misguided criticism.

 

[TheAlmanac]

the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show on the written page rather than allow the reader's imagination in

Huh?

ST novels are quite often read by people who've never seen an episode of ST.

I think this might've been true a generation ago, when the franchise had no ongoing series and the novels were more likely to be read by regular SF readers, but I'm not sure why you would think this is still true today (if it was even true then).

In particular, ENT novels are highly likely to be picked up by fans of other ST TV series or ST movies who chose to avoid ENT when it was on TV.

Obviously, I don't have any market research to show who is picking up ENT novels, but I would echo Trent in asking why you think people who purposely avoided the show would then want to read novels based on it.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I know I'm not reading tie-in novels based on television series or movies I don't watch.

Isn't it unfair to demand that a ST novel author assume his or her audience has already seen the show to know what a scene in the novel looks like?

In light of the nature of media tie-ins, and (what I take to be) the nature of the average media tie-in consumer, I don't think it's particularly unfair that a media tie-in writer assumes some knowledge, on the part of the reader, of the property the writer is tying into.

 

[Geoff]

I'm still failing to comprehend why this purported "problem" would be exclusive to media tie-in fiction.

Apparently an author shouldn't waste any time explaining a scene if the reader might already know such details from watching the televison series/movie/whatever...

And yet, I read original fiction all the time that is part of an ongoing series of novels, and the writers are always careful to explain details of scenes and settings that the reader may not be privy to if they had missed the previous volumes.

So how is this any different?

 

[LightningStorm]

I'm still failing to comprehend why this purported "problem" would be exclusive to media tie-in fiction.

Apparently an author shouldn't waste any time explaining a scene if the reader might already know such details from watching the televison series/movie/whatever...

And yet, I read original fiction all the time that is part of an ongoing series of novels, and the writers are always careful to explain details of scenes and settings that the reader may not be privy to if they had missed the previous volumes.

So how is this any different?

It's not. And I think the problem here, like almost all other arguments, is that each "side" of the issue tends to argue themselves into the extreme of their side not realize the happy medium.

To me this whole thing is a matter of sometimes in some books (be them media tie-in or otherwise) you get descriptions of past events or scenes in TOO much detail such that it is annoying to read. In others you don't get nearly enough, thereby missing or misinterpreting things.

I've read books that were apart of a series that I hadn't read previous portions of and thought there was too much talking about that past book in the current one. I've also read some where they vaguely mention past events (or even scenery) and I feel like I HAD to go read/see that to really get what was going on. Obviously everybody's threshold of what is too much vs what is not enough is different, but if you come away from a book with either of those feelings then I think it is a valid criticism of said book even if your opinion of that is in the minority.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show on the written page rather than allow the reader's imagination in

Huh?

ST novels are quite often read by people who've never seen an episode of ST. In particular, ENT novels are highly likely to be picked up by fans of other ST TV series or ST movies who chose to avoid ENT when it was on TV.

Isn't it unfair to demand that a ST novel author assume his or her audience has already seen the show to know what a scene in the novel looks like?

People buying tie-in fiction to shows they have never seen?


Riiiiggghht!

Anyway, in the real world...

 

[Kirr]

Obviously, I don't have any market research to show who is picking up ENT novels, but I would echo Trent in asking why you think people who purposely avoided the show would then want to read novels based on it.

:: Raises Hand ::

That would be me. I have a friend who's been recommending The Good That Men Do to me for some time. I have only watched a handful of episodes of ENT (just never really got into it - would have easily called it my least favorite trek) and certainly never thought I'd be reading the novels - but hearing rumors about them finally tackling in ENT the story I've been waiting for since the Original Series episode that mentioned the war with the Romulans, well I finally decided to give it a try. And I loved the book. By chance, I've seen bits and pieces of the episode it's based on (but couldn't pick out the discrepancies) - but I don't care if it completely contradicts what was on screen (or makes a mockery of it). I STILL choose to believe Peter David's version of the origin of Riker/Troi's romance (see Imzadi) despite the NG episode that later made a mockery out of PD's far superior version.

But I think the real issue here is that it's impossible to review an excerpt. We have absolutely no idea of the context of the excerpt, so it's foolish to presume that you could do a better job editing/writing the scene.

 

[Christopher]

People buying tie-in fiction to shows they have never seen?


Riiiiggghht!

Anyway, in the real world...

It's not impossible. Someone might buy a book based on liking the author's work from other series. Someone might borrow the book from a friend or partner who is into the show.

And, as I said, not every viewer of other ST shows was able to see ENT because it wasn't available locally. Indeed, the nature of the Trek universe makes it likely that someone who hasn't seen a given Trek series might pick up a book in that series because of their interest in the broader Trek universe. For instance, I imagine that the upcoming ENT: Kobayashi Maru could draw in people who aren't fans of ENT but who are fans of The Wrath of Khan, or who are curious about the beginnings of the Earth-Romulan War.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

People buying tie-in fiction to shows they have never seen?


Riiiiggghht!

Anyway, in the real world...

It's not impossible. Someone might buy a book based on liking the author's work from other series. Someone might borrow the book from a friend or partner who is into the show.

And, as I said, not every viewer of other ST shows was able to see ENT because it wasn't available locally. Indeed, the nature of the Trek universe makes it likely that someone who hasn't seen a given Trek series might pick up a book in that series because of their interest in the broader Trek universe. For instance, I imagine that the upcoming ENT: Kobayashi Maru could draw in people who aren't fans of ENT but who are fans of The Wrath of Khan, or who are curious about the beginnings of the Earth-Romulan War.

Possible, but if I got that slice from a demograhic pie chart, I'd be asking for my money back.

 

[Trent Roman]

^^Who's to say they avoided ENT?

That's what Therin said. "Avoid". Which makes no sense to me. I can assure you I'm not 'highly likely' to go out and buy Babylon 5 novels or books from any other television/film franchise I didn't like.

It was on a smallish network that didn't have affiliates in every city. Sure, it was supplied in syndication to cities that didn't have UPN affiliates, but they generally put it on late at night on on weekend afternoons. There are plenty of people who just never got the chance to see it.

There have been a number of remarkable technological breakthroughs of late. One involves the possibility of 'recording' televised programs for later viewing when one can't make a live showing. Another is called 'DVDs', which can be bought or rented from your local video shop, which contains those selfsame televised programs, available for viewing at any time of your choosing! But seriously, all sarcasm aside, if someone wanted to get familiar with ENT but didn't have access to the first-run broadcast, it would make more sense to turn to the actual show before looking to a book based off of it, no?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

It was on a smallish network that didn't have affiliates in every city. Sure, it was supplied in syndication to cities that didn't have UPN affiliates, but they generally put it on late at night on on weekend afternoons. There are plenty of people who just never got the chance to see it.

There have been a number of remarkable technological breakthroughs of late. One involves the possibility of 'recording' televised programs for later viewing when one can't make a live showing.

No need to be snide. I've come across comments from people who weren't even aware that a show was available in late-night syndication. Not everyone has their finger on the pulse of every bit of media news the way we Internet junkies do. You can't tape something if you don't know it's available.

But seriously, all sarcasm aside, if someone wanted to get familiar with ENT but didn't have access to the first-run broadcast, it would make more sense to turn to the actual show before looking to a book based off of it, no?

It's very easy to make up rationalizations for why something wouldn't happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. Real life is complicated, it isn't always neat and orderly and consistent, and people do things as a result of all sorts of reasons and circumstances that don't fit into our desire for a neatly ordered theory of the universe. So it's unwise to make any blanket generalizations and assume that absolutely nobody on the planet would do something just because it doesn't seem likely or explicable to you. Generally, you'll come closer to the truth if you focus your energies on looking for reasons why something could happen than why it couldn't -- at least when it comes to human behavior.

 

[JD]

the unnecessary attempts to portray a detailed scene from a TV show on the written page rather than allow the reader's imagination in

Huh?

ST novels are quite often read by people who've never seen an episode of ST. In particular, ENT novels are highly likely to be picked up by fans of other ST TV series or ST movies who chose to avoid ENT when it was on TV.

Isn't it unfair to demand that a ST novel author assume his or her audience has already seen the show to know what a scene in the novel looks like?

People buying tie-in fiction to shows they have never seen?


Riiiiggghht!

Anyway, in the real world...

As ridiculous as this may sound to you, I've been seriously considering reading a book from a TV show I've never seen. I've been dieing to see Torchwood, but I don't get BBC America, I don't have $60-$80 available, non of my local Blockbusters carry it, and I don't have a Netflix account, so I've been thinking about possibly picking up some of the Torchwood novels so I can still get an idea of what Torchwood might be like.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^ If they avoided ENT while it was on TV, why would they be "highly likely" to then turn around and pick up an ENT book? I don't think bashers are the target audience here.

I know plenty of formally-avid, formerly-completist ST fans who avoided getting involved with VOY and ENT when they were on the air (either by choice, through neglect, or due to the impossibility of getting access to them), but have since become very curious about them as a result of seeing VOY and ENT Relaunches in novels.

Just because people missed catching a show doesn't make them a "basher".

I've come across comments from people who weren't even aware that a show was available in late-night syndication. Not everyone has their finger on the pulse of every bit of media news the way we Internet junkies do. You can't tape something if you don't know it's available.

I had dinner last night with a new couple in our ST group. They are avid fans of TNG and DS9 (with a passsing familiarity with VOY), have seen no TOS or TAS episodes nor TOS movies at all, and had never found ENT at a convenient time to follow it. They also had no idea what was happening with ST XI, even though they are huge "Lost" and JJ Abrams fans. Boy, did my movie goss make their night, but now they're really curious about TOS.

 

[Baerbel Haddrell]

Anyway, in the real world...

As ridiculous as this may sound to you, I've been seriously considering reading a book from a TV show I've never seen. I've been dieing to see Torchwood, but I don't get BBC America, I don't have $60-$80 available, non of my local Blockbusters carry it, and I don't have a Netflix account, so I've been thinking about possibly picking up some of the Torchwood novels so I can still get an idea of what Torchwood might be like.

I have read all six Torchwood novels that are available now and I think each of them provides enough information so that also a newcomer can enjoy each book.

But I recommend to start with the three earlier novels because they give more background. The best start provides "Another Life " by Peter Anghelides. "Border Princes" by Dan Abnett is my personal favourite of the early three and then there is "Slow Decay" by Andy Lane. It is also a good book but definitely the darkest one so far. Torchwood has horror elements in it but in this book they are even stronger than usual.

I have written reviews of all Torchwood books. They contain spoilers but I tried to keep then vague most of the time.

I want to use this opportunity to add my opinion to this discussion: I have watched all Star Trek episodes and movies but most of it only once and often many years ago. My memory is not brilliant and I am grateful when media tie-in writers don`t assume that each reader is an expert. I don`t think it is a problem to summarize important events that have an impact in the book in a few sentences, just in order to refresh memories and give newcomers a rough idea. Who don`t like it can skip it but the best way is to provide such information in new, original ways that are also interesting for people who have better memories.

 

[Rosalind]

^ I think you're quoting the wrong person, Baerbel.

anyway, what are you impressions with the Torchwood books as compared with the new Who books? I've found the Who books for the new series unsatisfactory, most of them feel like they were written for kids, the best way I can describe the half a dozen of them I've read is "simple". As a result, I didn't bother buying the TW books, but if they're on par with the old Who books or the current lot of Trek books, then I might pick one or two up.

 

[Therin of Andor]

That's what Therin said. "Avoid". Which makes no sense to me. I can assure you I'm not 'highly likely' to go out and buy Babylon 5 novels or books from any other television/film franchise I didn't like.

I stand by it. In my 28 years running ST clubs, I can tell you that many ST fans choose to avoid certain aspects of ST fandom, I guess so they can compartmentalize aspects of ST in their personal continuity - pretend that the ST universe isn't as big? - but years later they can come to regret that they "avoided" some aspect of ST and begin to explore anew.

Some fans are reintroduced to certain ST series via the books. Or the comics. Or RPGs. Or even action figures.

Many fans have announced on this BBS that they intend to avoid ST XI. In the early 80s, TOS friends of mine chose to "avoid" all the TOS movies, but ended up following TNG further down the track.