Balance between novel lines: an observation
- Thread starter Thrawn
- Start date
Well, I've been a fan for almost two decades now, so I think I take a pretty long view.
No, of course not. You ARE wrong if you say your favorite series are getting shafted, or ignored, or whatever. Because clearly, over time, the balance comes out to exactly what you'd expect it to be, despite unbalanced individual years.
Again, me! But aside from that, you're still missing the point. There are very few series anywhere that come out at a rate faster than one per year, and Trek books, though the variation is a bit higher, average lower than that. If you like Enterprise, you're going to buy the next one even if it takes 18 months to come out, just like if you like Peter F. Hamilton's latest trilogy, you're going to buy the third one even though it may take 2 years to come out.
And the point of my post was that all of the series people were complaining about being ignored, with the exception of SCE, have had two books or one giant Trade this year. Which is more than fans of just about any series get.
"Taking the long view" in this case isn't like some amazingly huge leap of faith or anything, it's just approaching each Star Trek series exactly the same way you approach any other series. Which doesn't seem to me to be too much to ask!
I never said otherwise. If you don't want to buy the books, clearly I'm not asking you to. I'm just saying; have some perspective.
You went to the trouble and effort of making a list to show that "hey, in the long term, the balance of the schedule is fine, so lets have less complaining"
My point is that consumers dont, and shouldnt have to, consider the long term view to feel satisfied. The only people who should care about that if a schedule is balanced over the long term is the people running it, as it is part of their job to consider it.
Someone who simply reads the books is perfectly entitled to be disapointed and complain a bit if, on the scheduled release list between now and January 2011 there is hardly any books they want to read.
And to be told to stop complaining just because say between now and 2015, the average amount of books released in each Star Trek series will be about the same, is in my opinion, condescending. There is nothing wrong with being disappointed at a particular schedule and voicing that disappointment.
For example, personally, as I have commented in the 2010 schedule thread, next years list of books and my preferences mean that there wont be anything out I want to buy until october. Compared to this year when there was something I wanted in nearly every month, that disappoints me, and I may moan about it. You dont have to listen to my moaning, but at the same time, I shouldnt be told to stop it just because it may balance out in the long run.
^There's nothing wrong with being disappointed that your favorite series isn't being covered in the near term. I'm just saying that it would be a mistake to assume that any single year's schedule represents a permanent policy, and that it's counterfactual to assume that the lack of a given series in a given year is due to the editor "ignoring" that series. Disappointment, like any honest emotional response, is legitimate, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to express that emotion. If you just say "I'm disappointed," that's fine. But if you make unsubstantiated assumptions about the motives or policies of another person, such as the editor of the novels, that's simply untrue and must be challenged.
Last edited:
Well, at any rate, HERE's one fan who's hopin' for an Aventine series in the near future....
Just itching to get some meat as far as Ezri's command style is concerned....
Just itching to get some meat as far as Ezri's command style is concerned....
^...Rather like a certain legendary captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise...wouldn't you say? 
Given that TOS includes a wide variety of novels (Pike, Sulu, Khan etc.) it seems to me that Aventine novels should be grouped with DS9 since it primarily features Ezri as well as a couple other characters we know from DS9 novels like Bowers. I always figured Aventine was pretty much there to give DS9 representation in Destiny. Just my opinion though.
So you don't care that a schedule is balanced over the long term? I'm confused.
This means one of two things. Either 1) you're selfish and only want them to publish books you personally like all the time, which is clearly unrealistic, or 2) you should logically be unhappy that this year was weighted more towards your preferences. Because that's unbalanced, too.
The point being, there will be Trek books you're not interested in, because they have to serve all the various fanbases. If more of the stuff you like happens to turn up one year, then that's great, but that's no reason to even remotely expect the same the following year, and in fact is probably reason to not expect the same the following year.
I'm sorry to hear that the Klingon Empire series likely won't be getting another book any time soon. While I never had a chance to get deep into the series yet, if the plot had anything to do with the stuff mentioned in Voyager's Full Circle, that would have been very interesting. Without getting into spoilers, did the series manage to at least end on an ok note or were there a lot of dangling plot threads?
There were dangling plot threads in the sense that the characters obviously still had stories to tell, but A Burning House works as a standalone story pretty beautifully in much the same way Articles Of The Federation does. Like, AotF could've totally had a sequel, but it didn't have to; it made its statement in just one book completely successfully.
He got picked for something.
But he blew it
Of course I only want them to publish books I want to read. In the sense that I want to buy and read Star Trek literature, but wont buy books about characters and eras that dont interest me. And yes it is a selfish view, but one all consumers have. Every consumer wants the products to be geared towards their likes. It is a very selfish point of view, I know that.
But since every consumer feels this, obviously some having a wider spectrum of likes than others, the only people, as I said, who actually should have to consider the longterm view about the release schedules balancing out in a fair way over a period of five years or so, when appraising a particular years schedule, is the people who create and maintain it, as it is in their job.
I am aware that to do that, there will be the odd year where more books are released that dont meet my preferences than ones that do.
My whole point was simply that, just because someone recognises that, doesnt mean they cant air their disappointment over a particular announced schedule, if it doesnt meet their likes.
And that if they do air their disappointment, they should not be told to stop complaining simply because in the next five years or so there's most likely to be as many books released that they like as they dont.
That is a long winded response I know. To be more succinct, I simply didnt like you telling people not to complain just because over the longterm it will balance out. I see nothing wrong in being upset, and saying so, if the announced shedule over the short term is not to someones liking.
No one, as far as I can see, is demanding the schedule be changed (as unrealistic as that would be anyway), simply voicing their disappointment, which they are perfectly entitled to do.
I said succinct didnt I....
Well you're talking about responses going to the extreme, and I agree that is silly and uncalled for.
Not me. I want the product to be geared toward everyone's likes. I want Trek lit to be as eclectic in its appeal as possible, because that means more people will buy the books, which means that the line will stay healthy and viable, which means they'll be able to keep publishing the books that I like. If they only published books that would be of interest to me personally, that would mean they'd have a narrower audience, sell fewer books overall, make less of a profit, and maybe have to cut back on their publishing schedule. And that would mean I wouldn't get as many books that I liked.
Nobody exists in a vacuum. We're all part of a larger community, so what's good for the community as a whole is good for the individual. Strictly self-directed interest without regard for the interests of others is usually self-defeating. If you want more books that satisfy your own tastes, you should want Pocket to keep publishing books that satisfy others' tastes as well.
^Right on.
On that note, there seems to be a difference between writing what you want to talk about...and writing what you want to read.
As tempting as it is to just write about "topics that interest me", I'd think you'd have to put yourself in the place of a would-be reader, and ask yourself, "Would I want to read something like this, had I not written it?"
Yes--and isn't this a golden illustration of The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith? By providing the needs of others, the writer is working to fulfill his own needs. Rational self-interest is thus channeled into providing goods and services to the public, rather than casual disregard for the public (which has no real gains or profits whatsoever).
On that note, there seems to be a difference between writing what you want to talk about...and writing what you want to read.
As tempting as it is to just write about "topics that interest me", I'd think you'd have to put yourself in the place of a would-be reader, and ask yourself, "Would I want to read something like this, had I not written it?"
Yes--and isn't this a golden illustration of The Invisible Hand of Adam Smith? By providing the needs of others, the writer is working to fulfill his own needs. Rational self-interest is thus channeled into providing goods and services to the public, rather than casual disregard for the public (which has no real gains or profits whatsoever).
Similar threads
