Burning Dreams

[Steve Roby]

Warped9 said:

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.

Oh, the elitist card. I know it well. In the past I've mentioned in discussions that I've got a degree in English, I've been reading SF and fantasy for about 35 years and I've read from HG Wells to Richard Morgan, Lord Dunsany to China Mieville. I've read my share of nonSF, too, from mysteries and thrillers to standard literary canon stuff to transgressive fiction. I've mentioned that in the past to establish my bona fides in discussions like this.

And no one cared.

Some people like Burning Dreams. Some don't. Neither group is necessarily wrong, regardless of how many other books they have or haven't read or how much they prefer TOS to other Star Trek series.

 

[Ward Fowler]

Warped9 said:

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.

I completely agree with you on this point. During Richard Arnold's reign of terror alot of Trek novels were of the cookie cutter variety that I'm sure were judged as "good enough for who they're for." That's a horrible demeaning attitude to have and its a good way to kill a line of books. However, during the past several years the Trek book line has really improved. Are they all winners? Certainly not. But I think the overall quality is better. Of course that doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of my favorite Trek novels came out in the Pre-Arnold years. It seems to me that many of the novels took more risks and some had a harder sci-fi edge to them. That being said, I really enjoyed Burning Dreams. However, I didn't go into it expecting a space adventure. If I had, I probably would have been disappointed as well.

 

[William Leisner]

Warped9 said:
^^ Yes, there may well be. Particularly those of the hurt/comfort crowd. Then again I've never really considered them Star Trek fans, right along with the slash fans, but that's my opinion. And shame on me for expressing it. One should remember around here that if you don't by reflex embrace everything post TOS and you accept Star Trek as science fiction then you're not a true Star Trek fan.

Just too funny.

Just thought this was worth repeating, now that Warped is trying to tell everyone he's just a nice guy giving his own opinion...

 

[Warped9]

Steve Roby said:

Warped9 said:

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.

Oh, the elitist card. I know it well. In the past I've mentioned in discussions that I've got a degree in English, I've been reading SF and fantasy for about 35 years and I've read from HG Wells to Richard Morgan, Lord Dunsany to China Mieville. I've read my share of nonSF, too, from mysteries and thrillers to standard literary canon stuff to transgressive fiction. I've mentioned that in the past to establish my bona fides in discussions like this.

And no one cared.

Some people like Burning Dreams. Some don't. Neither group is necessarily wrong, regardless of how many other books they have or haven't read or how much they prefer TOS to other Star Trek series.

Nothing elitist about it at all. I'm simply exercising my right to compare one work to something else similar and the better work wins. If in my estimation a Trek novel doesn't rank with lit I've read previously then it's a perfectly valid opinion. And if you think this is elitist then I feel it says more of your opinion of Trek lit then it does of my perspective.

 

[Warped9]

William Leisner said:

Warped9 said:
^^ Yes, there may well be. Particularly those of the hurt/comfort crowd. Then again I've never really considered them Star Trek fans, right along with the slash fans, but that's my opinion. And shame on me for expressing it. One should remember around here that if you don't by reflex embrace everything post TOS and you accept Star Trek as science fiction then you're not a true Star Trek fan.

Just too funny.

Just thought this was worth repeating, now that Warped is trying to tell everyone he's just a nice guy giving his own opinion...

I am a nice guy just expressing my fucking opinion in my own particular way. It isn't my problem if there are too tender sensibilities around here who feel it should be expressed as politically correct bullshit. If an author has the courage to put his or her work out in the public domain to compete with what else is out there then they'd better be prepared to take even the most scathing criticism if a reader is rather less than enamored with their work.

 

[Timo]

Umm, I don't think anybody here is actually having problems with your political incorrectness.

It's just that you can't grasp basic politeness. You have no manners whatsoever, a failing that would sooner or later cost you your health and perhaps your life in a face-to-face conversation.

Which is pretty weird, considering that your disability seems to be limited to this single topic and doesn't manifest elsewhere. Has somebody pushed a button of yours? Garamet? DG3? Somebody utterly unrelated?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[David R. George III]

Warped9 said:

I am a nice guy just expressing my fucking opinion in my own particular way. It isn't my problem if there are too tender sensibilities around here who feel it should be expressed as politically correct bullshit. If an author has the courage to put his or her work out in the public domain to compete with what else is out there then they'd better be prepared to take even the most scathing criticism if a reader is rather less than enamored with their work.

You know, I agree that you should be able to offer your opinion about the novels, and as I've said all along, I have no problem with that, including any scathing criticisms you have of the work. And I'm not interested in political correctness. But you seem to be unwilling to admit that you have done more than offer literary criticism here. Not only have you criticized the work, which I think is fine, but you have said some negative things about any readers who disagree with your opinion (in addition to making an assumption about the writer's motives in one instance where you accused her of "padding" the novel). You'll note that the writer herself has not objected to your critique of the work, nor have I. I even commended you when you offered commentary on the novel without lambasting anybody.

But this is my fault. I should know better than to engage in this sort of online discussion. I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you want to pick a fight, so I'm throwing in the towel and choosing discretion. I've made my point, and if you don't understand it, don't want to believe it, or simply don't agree with it, well, there's nothing I can do about that. For what it's worth--which I'm guessing is nothing--I actually thought that by suggesting you concentrate on critiquing the work rather than insulting readers who liked it, you'd be standing yourself in good stead.

 

[Steve Roby]

Warped9 said:

Nothing elitist about it at all. I'm simply exercising my right to compare one work to something else similar and the better work wins. If in my estimation a Trek novel doesn't rank with lit I've read previously then it's a perfectly valid opinion. And if you think this is elitist then I feel it says more of your opinion of Trek lit then it does of my perspective.

Perhaps I'm reading something into your posts that isn't there. When you say "for me Trek doesn't exist in a vacuum" and so on, there's a possibility that you're implying that the people who disagree with you have less context or lower standards for judging the merits of Star Trek novels.

 

[Warped9]

Timo said:
Umm, I don't think anybody here is actually having problems with your political incorrectness.

It's just that you can't grasp basic politeness. You have no manners whatsoever, a failing that would sooner or later cost you your health and perhaps your life in a face-to-face conversation.

Which is pretty weird, considering that your disability seems to be limited to this single topic and doesn't manifest elsewhere. Has somebody pushed a button of yours? Garamet? DG3? Somebody utterly unrelated?

Timo Saloniemi

No offense, but I'd say you don't know me. But I will say that one thing that really bothers me is the sense I often get in this forum is that idea that a lot of this hyped Trek lit is somehow great work when the vast majority of it is very mediocre if that. And I resent the idea that somehow I'm being unfair and unduly harsh in comparing Trek lit (or whatever) to other works that are available.

Basic Politness? No where did I tell anyone what they could do to themselves or anything of the like. In so many words I essentially said this book was crap such that I'd just as soon throw away. I further elaborated why I didn't think it was good. Yes, I was emphatic and direct with my remarks and I don't apologize for it. I was straight to the point and didn't dance around about it. The truth is I can get impatient when I see heaps of praise and hype for something I believe is not deserving of such.

I've seen A LOT worse around this site and others without people getting called on it.

 

[garamet]

One of the cool aspects of posting anonymously on a bbs is that one can adopt a godlike attitude of being above it all, and often other posters won't suspect a thing.

 

[JD]

Warped9 said:
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.

See there's your problem, you were expecting a Kirk-era TOS story, and what you got was more along the lines of The Cage and what Gene Roddenberry originally planned. But, I can't say for certain because I haven't read the book.

And just out of curiosity, have you read or ,and enjoyed, anything that wasn't TOS related?

 

[Warped9]

Steve Roby said:

Warped9 said:

Nothing elitist about it at all. I'm simply exercising my right to compare one work to something else similar and the better work wins. If in my estimation a Trek novel doesn't rank with lit I've read previously then it's a perfectly valid opinion. And if you think this is elitist then I feel it says more of your opinion of Trek lit then it does of my perspective.

Perhaps I'm reading something into your posts that isn't there. When you say "for me Trek doesn't exist in a vacuum" and so on, there's a possibility that you're implying that the people who disagree with you have less context or lower standards for judging the merits of Star Trek novels.

Perhaps they do, but without knowing someone beyond an occasional post seen onscreen that would be rather difficult to really judge. Candidly I'm not familiar with the majority of posters in this forum, surely not as I am with certain others who frequent other forums. I will say that much of the Trek lit I've been exposed to in recent years does seem unambitious to me, or at least not very dynamic. In that assessment I'm comparing it to other sf lit I've read that I thoroughly enjoyed. A couple of examples that come to mind are Robert Sawyer's Starplex, David Gerrold's Voyage Of The Starwolf and some of David Weber's books. Each of those had very strong aspects of space adventure and drama and left me feeling, "Man, I'd love to read a good Trek book written like this." Alas, IMO, I haven't yet found any contemporary ones. I've tried some of the more recent lauded titles (Ex Machina, Vanguard: Harbinger and now Burning Dreams) and each has left me with little to no motivation to seek out others which I must admit I find rather disappointing.

I've long thought that TOS and some of TNG and DS9 to be among the best sf seen on television and film, but sadly for the most part I don't feel that Trek lit in general can stand with the better literary sf. And I'm somewhat saddened by that because I think it has the potential to do so.

 

[Warped9]

Ens. Brodsky said:
And just out of curiosity, have you read or ,and enjoyed, anything that wasn't TOS related?

I've read some of the early TNG and early DS9 novels that I enjoyed.

 

[Smiley]

Warped9, I recommend that you give Titan: Orion's Hounds and TOS: Constellations a try. The former has plenty of space adventure and ambition, and the second is an anthology of short stories set during the TOS series run, so it should retain a lot of the feeling of the episodes.

 

[JD]

Smiley said:
Warped9, I recommend that you give Titan: Orion's Hounds and TOS: Constellations a try. The former has plenty of space adventure and ambition, and the second is an anthology of short stories set during the TOS series run, so it should retain a lot of the feeling of the episodes.

I'd also like to recommend New Frontier, it has alot of space adventure and character drama. But just to warn you, it does have a fair amount of sex and violence.

 

[FatherRob]

Getting back to Burning Dreams, I think a lot depends on what kind of expectations you have in science fiction in general and Trek in specific.

For example, I generally only enjoy space-based Science Fiction (with the Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea exception)... so credible space battles and adventures are very important to me (i.e., Honor Harrington, The Kinsman Saga, Voyage, etc...). On the other hand, I want to get to know the folks in my stories. I want to become intimately flamiliar with them (well, not THAT intimately!)... thus I also enjoy a lot of Arthur C. Clarke's work, as well as Ben Bova...

In my Star Trek, I want good stories with some emotional ties, some adventure...

Given that THE CAGE is one of my favorite Star Trek episodes ever, and that -in my mind- Captian Pike is definately a different CO than Jim Kirk, MWB's Burning Dreams fit my bill just fine.

So... I might end this little second-plug for this book by asking MWB if she has any further plans to dabble in the Star Trek universe...

Rob+

 

[garamet]

FatherRob said:
So... I might end this little second-plug for this book by asking MWB if she has any further plans to dabble in the Star Trek universe...

Rob+

Well, I'm still working on my contribution to Mere Anarchy.

After that, anything's possible.

 

[Smiley]

She's been announced as the author of Mere Anarchy's sixth installment.

 

[FatherRob]

Smiley said:
She's been announced as the author of Mere Anarchy's sixth installment.

A thousand pardons if this has been asked elsewhere, but will this (eventually) be collected and published as an omnibus/collection (similar to SCE)?

I definately do NOT do e-books...

Rob+

 

[Christopher]

FatherRob said:
A thousand pardons if this has been asked elsewhere, but will this (eventually) be collected and published as an omnibus/collection (similar to SCE)?

I definately do NOT do e-books...

Theoretically, yes, it will eventually be collected in trade-paperback form, but there's no telling when that will be.