Burning Dreams

[ATimson]

letmehelp said:
"A book that is all exposition and characterization and no plot" is not Burning Dreams. So, your basis for implying that the book is a failure is flawed. I'd recommend that you read it before deciding it's a failure.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that he did.

Having read the book, I can see where he's coming from. And even agree with the sentiment, though unlike him I don't think it makes for a poor novel. A poor TOS novel, as he so forcefully pointed out--but since "The Cage" is so different from the rest of TOS, it's only fitting.

 

[Brendan Moody]

ATimson said:

letmehelp said:
"A book that is all exposition and characterization and no plot" is not Burning Dreams. So, your basis for implying that the book is a failure is flawed. I'd recommend that you read it before deciding it's a failure.

If you'd read the thread, you'd know that he did.

No. letmehelp was quoting A beaker full of death, who hasn't read it, as he notes in the same post letmehelp quoted from.

 

[letmehelp]

Brendan Moody said:
No. letmehelp was quoting A beaker full of death, who hasn't read it, as he notes in the same post letmehelp quoted from.

Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear, ATimson.

 

[ATimson]

letmehelp said:
Thank you. Sorry if I was unclear, ATimson.

Entirely my fault, I'm sure.

 

[A beaker full of death]

letmehelp said:

Look, what I see going on here is Warped criticizing this book and articulating reasons based on the elements of what makes a good book. This is valid. A book that is all exposition and characterization and no plot is either a failure or an experiment. I rather doubt this book was an experiment, but I haven't read it. Regardless, this is a legitimate basis for criticism.

Two points:
First, "A book that is all exposition and characterization and no plot" is not Burning Dreams. So, your basis for implying that the book is a failure is flawed. I'd recommend that you read it before deciding it's a failure.

I didn't. I was commenting on the critique, not the book.

letmehelp said:
Second, if there's some list out there of "elements of what makes a good book," I'd love to read it, but I think that kind of adherence to formula is a big part of the reason why most media tie-in fiction is not generally considered "real" literature. There is no more a right way to write a novel than there is a right way to paint a picture or create any other kind of art.

That's just not so. There's a huge difference between post-modernist playing and experimenting with the boundries of an established form and using that as an excuse for "anything goes, so you can't criticize it."

TOS is an excellent example of this. While its plots are the most literary of the Trek series, it is also the least formulaic.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^^^I dunno about that. Star Trek had a pretty solid formula, the one being used by its contempories and predecessors in Dramatic TV. It's plots, while well written, have been the staples of Drama on the stage and screen for centuries. Literary? Only in the sense that they have been used over and over and over again in literature.

 

[Christopher]

You know, I get really bored by threads that degenerate into posters commenting on each other's comments ad nauseam. And they never end up anywhere good. Let's all ponder on the wisdom of the phrase "agree to disagree," okay?

 

[RookieBatman]

Warped9 said:

garamet said:

Warped9 said:

I'm even considering throwing the book in the trash as a tangible reminder of the money and effort I've practically thrown away. Yuch!

Would you consider donating it to your local library or Goodwill instead?

I usually do donate books I no longer want to the local public library. I may eventually do that with BD, but I haven't decided whether I'd actually wish to inflict anyone else with this. This isn't a genuine Star Trek story even remotely in the tradition of TOS or earlier TOS novels. This is just unadulterated character angst and emotion porn.

Hey, I'll take it if you're just gonna throw it away. Even if I don't like it, I can promise it won't be wasted on me.

 

[blakbyrd]

Agreed.

Nerys Myk said:
No its how you present your opinion that comes across as arrogent. You think by dispareging those who disagree with you some how validates your opinion. Then you like to play the martyr card and act like your being supressed for having a dissenting view.

Agreed :thumbsup:

William Leisner said: Warped, there are at least seven ways you're arrogant...

Christopher said:
You know, I get really bored by threads that degenerate into posters commenting on each other's comments ad nauseam. And they never end up anywhere good. Let's all ponder on the wisdom of the phrase "agree to disagree," okay?

Agreed. :thumbsup:

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Christopher said:
You know, I get really bored by threads that degenerate into posters commenting on each other's comments ad nauseam. And they never end up anywhere good. Let's all ponder on the wisdom of the phrase "agree to disagree," okay?

Here. Here. Let's get back to the topic of discussing MWB's book.

 

[Warped9]

Elemental said:

Warped9 said:

Elemental said:
Warped9, your opinions were a lot more credible before you presented the idea that it was the One and Only correct response to have.

And where, exactly, did I say that? I never did. Throughout I've expressed my own responses to a book I was grossly disappointed with.

I haven't decided whether I'd actually wish to inflict anyone else with this.

Yes, there may well be. Particularly those of the hurt/comfort crowd. Then again I've never really considered them Star Trek fans

This isn't a genuine Star Trek story even remotely in the tradition of TOS or earlier TOS novels

Again nowhere does it say that it the only response to have. It is an expression of MY goddamned reaction to what I thought was a grossly disappointing book.

A space adventure can have character introspection and internal narrative and all manner of other storytelling devices to get the others point accross. But IMO a genuine Star Trek story is one that reflects the sensibilites of the original show, because where it began and was defined. Thats why I like the show largely because how it tells its stories and gets its point accross. But here in BD the author does not follow the sensibilites of TOS. Rather she has taken but a small part of the material and exaggerated it far beyond reasonable proportion. I also strongly disagree with her interpretation of the PIke character. Yes, he was quite evidently introspective, but I don't believe he was the endlessly tortured soul she makes him out to be. But MWB took that one small part of Pike's character, exaggerated it to extreme and then spent pretty much the entire book picking away at it and beating the reader over the head with it. To a large extent this makes this little more than a hurt/comfort story where Pike ceasless picks at the scabs of his soul. And THAT (as a story and in execution) is not a genuine Star Trek story that reflects the original material.

OTH it could conceiveably make a passable TNG story with Troi featured prominatly.

 

[Timo]

My only regret with that is that Burning Dreams will probably be incompatible with the two thoroughly enjoyable Pike romps by Jerry Oltion...

I'll still read BD for the guaranteed Garamet experience, and judging by this thread my preconceptions about the book are more or less on the mark. But I'm still vaguely disappointed when all the myriad incarnations of Trek don't quite mesh. Just paint me nerdy.

Oltion's Pike was more like that "Let's get underway" character that Beaker brings forth. If anything, he deliberately steered away from the Kirkisms of command. The angel and devil sitting on Pike's "The Cage" shoulders got their physical manifestations later on in McCoy and Spock, but Oltion's Pike needs neither. He is not worshipped by his crew, and doesn't divide them to close friends and underlings. He does have "issues with women", but they are played as light sitcom. He has a sharp eye for detail and a quick wit, rather than a strong will for staying the course. He hates speeches, morals and prejudices.

That's a post- "The Cage" Pike, though. Way post. It is quite possible that a more traumatic and driven character existed in the immediate aftermath of those events, and perhaps also preceded them. And it's possible that this character would resurface at various points of the timeline that touch the "The Cage" experiences again. So I'm not expecting a huge characterization conflict in, say, Ship of the Line style. But I'm still preparing for the possibility that I won't be in the mood to reread my Oltion after finishing BD.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

In the past I've read a fair number of Trek stories that didn't quite gel in terms of continuity or characterization, but were enjoyable nonetheless because they still managed to capture at least some measure of TOS' sensibilites. I'm interested in the Pike era (hell, I'm presently working on a Pike era story of my own) and I can accept some deviation from how I see it. But to make an entire novel essentially a one note piece does a great disservice to the real texture that could be fashioned from the Pike era. It's also a disservice to the potential reader who's expecting (not unreasonably) a decent space adventure story with a lot of the tidbits mixed in that gave TOS its distionctive flavour. And that does not mean you still can't put forth some exposition that you wouldn't find in a tv episode. After all a tv episode is essentially a short story put to film as opposed to a full length novel that allows for different storytelling devices and opportunities.

In contrast Matt Decker's obsession blinded him to inevitable destruction.

 

[Smiley]

Warped9 said:
It's also a disservice to the potential reader who's expecting (not unreasonably) a decent space adventure story with a lot of the tidbits mixed in that gave TOS its distinctive flavour.

Actually, that expectation would be unreasonable for anyone who reads either the back cover or the acknowledgements section. The goal of the book was to tell the life story of Christopher Pike. No TOS (or any other Trek) episode or movie has ever done this, so why should the reader expect such a story to match the format, structure, or style of filmed Trek? Tie-in novels should play to the strengths of the medium, which include adding depth to what was seen on screen and exploring characters and issues to a degree that could not be easily done on TV.

 

[Warped9]

A person's life can still be adventurous and convey that. John Pearson wrote a fictionalized biography of 007 and it was as good as any of the Fleming novels and even better than some of them. If MWB had written a Pike biography anything like Pearson wrote for 007 then we would have really had something. And Fleming's Bond (upon which Pearson based his extrapolated biography) was just as brooding and introspective as MVB's interpretation of Pike.

 

[Steve Roby]

Warped9 said:
But to make an entire novel essentially a one note piece does a great disservice to the real texture that could be fashioned from the Pike era.

All we have from the Pike era on TV is "The Cage" and "The Menagerie" and Burning Dreams draws a great deal of texture from them.

It's also a disservice to the potential reader who's expecting (not unreasonably) a decent space adventure story with a lot of the tidbits mixed in that gave TOS its distionctive flavour.

Let's read the back cover description of the story:

Before James T. Kirk, another captain stood on the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise™, spearheading its mission of exploration into the uncharted reaches of the galaxy. He was a man driven to perfection, a brooding soul whose haunted eyes reflected the burden of the impossible standards he set for himself, and for whom his longtime science officer, Spock, one day would risk everything. Yet, little is truly known about the enigmatic Christopher Pike, the events that defined him...or the secrets that consumed him.

From the embers of his early childhood among Earth's blossoming interstellar colonies, to the terrifying conflagration that led him back to the world of his birth; from the mentor who would ignite young Chris's desire to return to the stars, to the career he blazed in Starfleet that would end in supreme sacrifice -- the path of Pike's astonishing life leads through fire again and again. But even amid the ashes of Talos IV, the forbidden world on which he would live out the remainder of his days, the dreams smoldering still within his aging, radiation-ravaged breast fan the flames of Pike's spirit to accomplish one final task....

That really doesn't cry out "action-packed space adventure inside!" It's not supposed to be a typical Star Trek adventure featuring Pike instead of Kirk, it's supposed to be the definitive story of Christopher Pike's life. And Pike's life is, to a considerable extent, a tragic one. So of course it's an emotional character piece. That's what it was planned as, that's what it was promoted as, and that's what it is.

And though I do have some quibbles with the book, I think it's a strong and worthy piece of work. I also think that it's a book that longtime diehard TOS fans should read, being one myself. (Unless also liking other Trek series gets you kicked out of the TOS fan clubhouse.)

 

[David R. George III]

Warped9 said:

Again nowhere does it say that it the only response to have. It is an expression of MY goddamned reaction to what I thought was a grossly disappointing book.

A space adventure can have character introspection and internal narrative and all manner of other storytelling devices to get the others point accross. But IMO a genuine Star Trek story is one that reflects the sensibilites of the original show, because where it began and was defined. Thats why I like the show largely because how it tells its stories and gets its point accross. But here in BD the author does not follow the sensibilites of TOS. Rather she has taken but a small part of the material and exaggerated it far beyond reasonable proportion. I also strongly disagree with her interpretation of the PIke character. Yes, he was quite evidently introspective, but I don't believe he was the endlessly tortured soul she makes him out to be. But MWB took that one small part of Pike's character, exaggerated it to extreme and then spent pretty much the entire book picking away at it and beating the reader over the head with it. To a large extent this makes this little more than a hurt/comfort story where Pike ceasless picks at the scabs of his soul. And THAT (as a story and in execution) is not a genuine Star Trek story that reflects the original material.

Not that it really matters, but to me, this is a better means of expressing yourself. In this post, you talk about your dislike of the novel without resorting to criticizing other readers who enjoyed the book.

 

[blakbyrd]

David R. George III said:
Not that it really matters, but to me, this is a better means of expressing yourself. In this post, you talk about your dislike of the novel without resorting to criticizing other readers who enjoyed the book.

The boy's learning...

(I just joking, Warped )

 

[japol]

I was a little disappointed in Burning Dreams. I very much enjoyed the characterization of Pike, especially the angst he showed in The Cage (the author captured that quite nicely), but the fact that the one look back at Pike's career before taking command of the Enterprise was lifted from the plot of Crimson Tide was a bit of a turn-off for me. Having been a fan of Strangers from the Sky this one problem was pretty distracting for me.

 

[Warped9]

Warped9 said:
A person's life can still be adventurous and convey that. John Pearson wrote a fictionalized biography of 007 and it was as good as any of the Fleming novels and even better than some of them. If MWB had written a Pike biography anything like Pearson wrote for 007 then we would have really had something. And Fleming's Bond (upon which Pearson based his extrapolated biography) was just as brooding and introspective as MVB's interpretation of Pike.

These points seem to have been overlooked.

I would also add that for me Trek doesn't exist in a vacuum, either onscreen or in print. It must compete with what else is out there. I've read some damn good sf of different kinds as well as some darn good Trek lit and therefore I have a reasonable basis for comparison. And so my disappointment with BD is based not only on my likes and dislikes, but also in comparison to sf and Trek lit that I believe was well done in the past.

At the risk of offending someone far too often I suspect that some, and perhaps even many, approach Trek onscreen and Trek lit as if, "Oh well, it's good enough." That's little different than saying, "oh well, this is good enough for kids or for teens or whatever." Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned Trek lit--to be well appreciated--has to compete with the better sf I've read before and continue to seek out.