Book vs. TV

[witchbsword]

Quick informal poll here, but which do you prefer? Watching ST episodes or reading the books (and it doesn't matter between TOS or any spinoffs)?

I've just read ST:TNG "Imzadi" and ST:Voy "The Escape" and if found them better than the episodes. There was more characterizations, and scenes or lines normally cheesy on TV was funny in the books. Granted, I'm a bookworm, so I'm pretty biased, but does anyone else think so?

Also, for anyone else who has read these two books- what did you think of them?
One part in Imzadi cracked me up. Riker is reading up on Betazed philosophy: "if a friend goes up to you with a problem, you need to empathize, but nothing more! Don't offer solutions or opinions." This is exactly what I learned for psych nursing this semester! The authors were either nurses at one point or have spouses/friends/relatives as nurses... It was great reading it! I also laughed because I used to think like Riker, but now I know what to say to patients.

 

[Defcon]

Quick informal poll here, but which do you prefer? Watching ST episodes or reading the books (and it doesn't matter between TOS or any spinoffs)?

I guess the fact that I have several hundred Star Trek books on my shelves, but not one video/DVD of the screen material answers the question.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

At this point, reading the books. I get a lot more out of them than watching the episodes. At this point, only Deep Space Nine and some of the original series (including the animated series) interests me anymore.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Quick informal poll here, but which do you prefer? Watching ST episodes or reading the books (and it doesn't matter between TOS or any spinoffs)?

Can't compare. Two totally different experiences.

I saw many of my TOS episodes on the big screen in the 80s at public Star Trek Marathons - wonderful seeing episodes as "mini-movies" five at a time, with people laughing, gasping and cheering en masse.

TNG I was able to see grow from the original announcement through to completion but, again, ended up seeing many episodes as small-gathering "events" from tapes sent by US penpals... because the local distribution was via monthly sell-thru VHS before it solf to TV.

Conversely, books are a rather private experience, and I read many ST novels commuting to and from work over the years.

 

[KayArr]

It's sort of strange--I read and enjoyed TOS books even though the show had been canceled 20 years before in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But as for TNG books, I mostly enjoyed them only while the series was on--they seemed truer to the show somehow, and once the show was canceled, my interest in the books petered out. Later books tried to do too much that wasn't possible on t.v.--real aliens rather than bumpy-headed humanoids. I'm a huge sci-fi fan, and like other sci-fi that way, but I just couldn't envision Trek that way, maybe because of the t.v. shows. I never read more than one or two books for any of the other series. I had a bout of depression and self-doubt in graduate school, and the Trek novels were like candy for me for a year or two--I could read one a day, and they made me feel better about life. These days if I'm feeling down, I have a Trek minimarathon with dvds--when I hate my workplace, I especially like to pop in TNG and imagine that I work there and Picard is my boss!

 

[RookieBatman]

I like the shows better, especially since I haven't seen many of them (I'm just now finishing TOS--this will be the first time I've seen the entire series!), but I'm a very visual person anyway. I'm the kind of person that, when reading a book, imagines what it would be like as a movie (that's why I need to be a director instead of a writer).
But the books are still worthwhile even if some of them disappoint me; some things can't be done in the shows (Like Federation or the Shatnerverse), and some stories told in books could have been told on the show but simply weren't. I really enjoy the concept of Trek as a huge tapestry, where each part strengthens the next. The books expand the universe of the show, and give it more length and breadth. And there's a possibility that Star Trek could've succeeded to some degree just as a series of books (look at the Man-Kzin War books--the only big SF franchise I can think of that's written by multiple authors, though I'm sure someone else can tell me more), but I'm much more happy with it as being somewhat in the vicinity of 500 hours (does that sound right?) of viewing material. But it's nice to be able to bring some Trek with me to read at work. You can't do that with a DVD.

 

[greenmystik]

I'm beginning to like reading more than watching now. I like that there is more character development in books than in the shows.

 

[RandyS]

I'm beginning to like reading more than watching now. I like that there is more character development in books than in the shows.

That is one reason why I prefer the books to the shows. Another is you can combine casts and don't need the actors. And the books can go anywhere, anytime in the Trek universe without regard to the actors ages (an example is the fact that De Kelley and James Doohan are both dead, but McCoy and Scotty can still take part in the novels). Plus, in the books, you can get inside the character's heads in a way you can't on screen.

That aside, I love the TV series and movies too.

 

[JD]

I'd have to say reading the books just barely beats watching the shows, because there is just so much more the books can do. We can get more character development, bigger more epic stories (The Pre/Post Nemesis books, Art of the Impossible, Terok Nor), and more unique aliens (Choblik, Pak'Shree, Eav'oq).

 

[Cicero]

I like best the best of each (most novels are worse than most episodes, for what it's worth), but find that the best of the novels tends to outshine the best of the television series (Vanguard, A Time To Heal, Rising Son, Twilight, A Stitch In Time, etc.). Then again, the novels lack William Shatner, Nicole de Boer, DeForest Kelly, and Johnathan Frakes.

 

[Smiley]

It depends on what I'm looking for that day. Each has something that the other does not offer.

I came into the thread thinking that it would be about novelizations versus the episodes that spawned them. Almost always, the episode is better.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Then again, the novels lack William Shatner

Oh there's plenty of Shatner in the Shatnerverse novels!

 

[Cicero]

^ Maybe that's why they're so enjoyable.

(Certainly, A Stitch In Time was what it was because of Andrew J. Robinson.)

 

[Ktrek]

I like best the best of each (most novels are worse than most episodes, for what it's worth), but find that the best of the novels tends to outshine the best of the television series (Vanguard, A Time To Heal, Rising Son, Twilight, A Stitch In Time, etc.). Then again, the novels lack William Shatner, Nicole de Boer, DeForest Kelly, and Johnathan Frakes.

I'm sorry Cicero that you feel that way as I have found that the novels are usually far better then the TV episodes. There is much more character development and also more imaginative storylines. It makes me curious as to why you even bother coming to the Lit forum if you do not really like the books?

I'd much rather read a Star Trek book than watch an episode these days. Of course that could change if a new show was introduced but the novels have kept my love for Star Trek alive. I thank all the current authors for their contributions even if I think that the artwork on recent Trek novels is really really lacking in creativity.

Kevin

 

[Defcon]

I like best the best of each (most novels are worse than most episodes, for what it's worth), but find that the best of the novels tends to outshine the best of the television series (Vanguard, A Time To Heal, Rising Son, Twilight, A Stitch In Time, etc.). Then again, the novels lack William Shatner, Nicole de Boer, DeForest Kelly, and Johnathan Frakes.

I'm sorry Cicero that you feel that way as I have found that the novels are usually far better then the TV episodes. There is much more character development and also more imaginative storylines. It makes me curious as to why you even bother coming to the Lit forum if you do not really like the books?

Huh? So if someone isn't enjoying all the novels and praises them he or she shouldn't post here in your opinion? I guess than you would like me to go, too, since I wasn't overly impressed with some of the recent novels? Wouldn't be much of a discussion board if all have the same opinion, though.

And Cicero never said that he didn't like the books, only that only a select few were better than the on-screen stuff in his opinion.

 

[Ktrek]

Huh? So if someone isn't enjoying all the novels and praises them he or she shouldn't post here in your opinion? I guess than you would like me to go, too, since I wasn't overly impressed with some of the recent novels? Wouldn't be much of a discussion board if all have the same opinion, though.

And Cicero never said that he didn't like the books, only that only a select few were better than the on-screen stuff in his opinion.

I never said that Defcon! I'm just curious why someone who thought that the Trek books were mostly NOT as good as the episodes would even bother reading Trek books at all. Sorry if that was not clear. I fully understand that he was not overly impressed with some recent novels but I think if I held the same opinion as Cicero I would not even bother with reading the novels at all. I mean a one in a hundred longshot does not seem like a good reason to waste valuable dollars on something you are mostly sure will not be satisfying. Right?

Kevin

 

[Cicero]

^ I tend to have a good track record in predicting which books I'll like. And those which are good tend to be excellent.

(The few which are better, btw, include at least 30 novels, which is a fair number, even if it falls short by part.)

 

[Defcon]

Huh? So if someone isn't enjoying all the novels and praises them he or she shouldn't post here in your opinion? I guess than you would like me to go, too, since I wasn't overly impressed with some of the recent novels? Wouldn't be much of a discussion board if all have the same opinion, though.

And Cicero never said that he didn't like the books, only that only a select few were better than the on-screen stuff in his opinion.

I never said that Defcon! I'm just curious why someone who thought that the Trek books were mostly NOT as good as the episodes would even bother reading Trek books at all. Sorry if that was not clear. I fully understand that he was not overly impressed with some recent novels but I think if I held the same opinion as Cicero I would not even bother with reading the novels at all. I mean a one in a hundred longshot does not seem like a good reason to waste valuable dollars on something you are mostly sure will not be satisfying. Right?

Kevin

But he only said that most of the books were worse than the episodes. That not necessarily mean that he thinks most of the books are bad, just not as good as the episodes. Let me say it like that: You may like pizza more than a Hot Dog, but that doesn't necessarily mean you dislike Hot Dogs. I hope that makes any sense to you.

(Of course I can't know if that is how Cicero is meaning it, but that's how I understand it. )

 

[Cicero]

^ You're entirely right. I like most of the novels, but like most of the television series more than those. Too, I love several of television episodes, but the novels I love I like better than any Star Trek presented on tv.

 

[Ktrek]

^ You're entirely right. I like most of the novels, but like most of the television series more than those. Too, I love several of television episodes, but the novels I love I like better than any Star Trek presented on tv.

Fair enough and thanks for the explanation!

Kevin