Save the pity for someone who deserves it. I thoroughly enjoy Trek novels and labor under no illusion they will be used on screen. Novels and screen works are separate for me. A lesson I learned the hard way but now am happy to have more Trek. Adaptation to screen does not guarantee success. Let the novels be the novels.
Just like Star Wars has Disney canon and Legends, Star Trek has new Trek which starts with Abrams 2009 movie and on. If you look at New Trek and any books/comics that come after it, I would consider those different than anything written for Star Trek before 2009 so I'm not surprised a bit that they contradict each other. Of course that's not to say that some books might contradict other books too. It will happen given all the various authors who write stories about Star Trek. I try not to dig too deep it's not really worth it.
No, I'm really not missing out, I assure you. My interests are varied enough to keep me in a backlog of books waiting to be read, either for entertainment or research. Star Trek has kept me more or less entertained since 1966. I haven't watched every series, or even every episode of the series I have watched. The tie-in novels and comic books aren't interesting to me in the least. And yet, I'm able to follow along with the current live action shows just fine which is all that matters to me. So no, not missing out on anything important.
That's not true at all. At least in my experience. I don't see the issue. Why does it matter if there's contradictions? Enjoy the stories for what they are on their own. I just see everything that isn't explicitly tied into something else as its own universe. The Trek novels were also mostly consistent with each other between the mid 2000s and now. The authors referenced each others works all the time where appropriate.
I've read those books and while they have some interesting scenes overall I don't agree with your assessment at all.
Yeah, they were both enjoyable reads at the time, but seeing how Hollywood more often than not makes rather significant changes to original book to movie scripts, I highly doubt either would come out faring well now-a-days.
Have you got any idea how many books, movies, etc. there are in the world that don't have the Star Trek brand attached to them? Seriously? In fact, I have read some of Carey's output. Ghost Ship? Dreadnought? Nope.
In what way does SNW "trample over" Countdown to Darkness? Considering SNW is set in the Prime Universe while Countdown to Darkness is set in the Kelvin Timeline. There's supposed to be differences and contradictions, they're set in two different timelines! The Picard Autobiography actually did get referenced in the show. In episode 1x8, Picard is telling Rios about when he was an ensign serving as the night shift science officer on the Reliant, a fact about his background established in the Autobiography. Star Wars Legends was never consistent, as proven when they tried to implement that "tiers of canon" nonsense as an attempt to wave away so many of the inconsistencies that were popping up. Regardless, Star Trek never attempted to have an "expanded universe" aside from the Litverse, which actually did manage to maintain a surprisingly good rate of internal consistency over its twenty year run. Regardless, the comics, novels and video games were never intended to have a shared universe with each other, so it's silly to complain they didn't. Indeed, aside from Star Wars, no one really does that level of consistency across their tie-in media. It's generally considered bad marketing to do so, Star Wars just got away with it because in the 1990s everyone was hungry for more content besides what was in the three original movies.
I don't actually give a fuck per se, I'm just genuinely curious how anyone can claim something "tramples over" something set in a completely different continuity it was never meant to be consistent with to begin with. It's one of the strangest complaints I've seen in a while.
I love very few Trek novels. As far as I'm concerned very little in them should be mined for canonical ideas.
This is a perfect example of why I don't have time for convoluted fictional novel-verses like Star Wars and Star Trek. There's enough contradictory/convoluted/just plain weird stuff to sort through with actual history that I have to deal with, and it's infinitely more fascinating to boot.
Most Star Wars novels aren't any good or are overrated and the same can be said for the majority of Trek novels from any decade.
There was a time I read every Trek novel that came out. Well except for Warped which was so bad even I couldn't finish it.
The vaunted Legends continuity is in fact shockingly bad overall. Sure, there are a few good book here and there, but it's hardly the masterpiece the crying fanboys would have you think since 2014. As someone who has finished it, let me assure you, you aren't missing out on anything.
Well, this is set years after the comics... So transporters are still an immortality machine. How can any prime timeline show contradict Countdown to Darkness? As some one else who finished it...I remember nothing.
Robert April's birth predates the divergence. Admittedly this is only a new contradiction if you don't count TAS as canon (and the encyclopedias back in the 1990s said it wasn't)