Common Writing Mistakes and Pitfalls

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Having read the transcript of a recent interview with both David Mack and Greg Cox, I was struck by Mr. Mack's comment that part of writing a novel entails avoiding mistakes and pitfalls that are likely to get a story idea, outline or manuscript red-flagged by an editor. As such, I thought it would be fun to discuss what some of these issues are.

Please note that this thread is in no way intended to be a discussion about specific story ideas, as such threads are prohibited in this part of the forum. This thread is meant to house a discussion of general points and ideas that may compromise a novel's chances of getting accepted or published.

Please also note that although I mentioned two authors by name, anyone who wishes to share is welcome to post in this thread; additionally, Mr. Mack and Mr. Cox are not obligated to comment in this thread but are certainly welcome to do so. Thanks!

--Sran

 

[Greg Cox]

Some of it is just getting a feel for the licensor's tastes after working with them for years, and seeing their comments on previous projects, but in general:

1) Keep an eye on the source material and follow its lead when it comes to sex or violence or whatever. My own rule of thumb is to basically ask myself "Could they do this in the original show/movie/comic book/whatever?" If not, maybe I need to tone things down.

To my mind, Trek is basically a PG-rated franchise, so I'm not going to get as R-rated as I might when writing, say, a TERMINATOR or UNDERWORLD novel. For the same reason that I wouldn't use the F-word in a SUPERMAN book . . ..

2) If the show is still on the air, you probably need to listen to Smokey the Bear and leave the campfire the way you found it. In short, you need to restore the status quo by the end of the book. And avoid making any major changes to the characters, like revealing that they have a long-lost twin sister . . ..

3) If the show is off the air, you may have more latitude to shake things up since you're not going to run afoul of any future episodes, as with the latter 4400 books or the post-Nemesis Trek books

Hope that helps!

 

[Christopher]

1) Keep an eye on the source material and follow its lead when it comes to sex or violence or whatever. My own rule of thumb is to basically ask myself "Could they do this in the original show/movie/comic book/whatever?" If not, maybe I need to tone things down.

On the other hand, you'll generally find rather more nude scenes in Trek Lit than you'd see onscreen, since you can get away with more in print than you could in pictures. I've certainly written plenty of nude scenes, and Peter David and Dave Mack have done their share. I remember a couple of tales (Doors into Chaos and Buying Time) where Bob Greenberger had female characters choose to conform to Ferengi custom while on Ferenginar. And there was the rather intimate Keiko/Tasha nude scene in "A Terrible Beauty" in Mirror Universe: Shards and Shadows.

Which segues into another area where the books have been able to get away with stuff they couldn't have done in the show, namely the portrayal of LGBT characters and relationships. That's one area where we fortunately haven't been under the same limitations as the shows. Similarly with portraying ethnic diversity, since we aren't limited by the available casting pool (or the unconscious biases of casting directors).

Indeed, I've always thought that the whole goal in tie-in books is to do things you couldn't do onscreen -- whether to do things that would blow the budget like showing more exotic aliens or settings or depicting bigger action, or to do things that the prose medium is uniquely suited for like getting into the characters' heads or telling stories that don't rely on visuals.

Of course, I take your point, because you're thinking in terms of the intended target audience for the work and not wanting to do things that are inappropriate or off-putting for that audience. But I think the way you phrased it, in terms of "Could they do this on the original," is a little too broad without some caveats.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Cox!

2) If the show is still on the air, you probably need to listen to Smokey the Bear and leave the campfire the way you found it. In short, you need to restore the status quo by the end of the book. And avoid making any major changes to the characters, like revealing that they have a long-lost twin sister . . ..

It seems like this point is even more important when writing Star Trek as opposed to another series. As there are many different eras to choose from when writing a novel, it would seem that a story that takes place in the 23rd century may be treated differently than a century later.

3) If the show is off the air, you may have more latitude to shake things up since you're not going to run afoul of any future episodes, as with the latter 4400 books or the post-Nemesis Trek books.

How much does an author's experience play into this? Are more established writers given greater latitude if they want to make major changes (i.e., killing off a major character)? Are authors given greater latitude if they're making major changes that involve characters or ideas that they created?

Thanks again!

--Sran

 

[Christopher]

How much does an author's experience play into this? Are more established writers given greater latitude if they want to make major changes (i.e., killing off a major character)? Are authors given greater latitude if they're making major changes that involve characters or ideas that they created?

I don't know about killing off characters specifically, but in general, I think the licensing people are more willing to accept such suggestions from writers (or editors) that they know and trust. If you've proven repeatedly that you understand what makes a Star Trek story and respect the rules of the universe, they're more likely to trust that if you do something daring or strange, it will still do justice to the franchise.

 

[borgboy]

This makes me think of how Peter David really brought depth into the Riker/Troi and Picard/Beverly relationships. He didn't change the status quo, but the development he gave those relationships made me even more invested in the tv versions of those characters and relationships, specifically with Imzadi/Imzadi II and Q-Squared.

That is a problem with media tie in fiction, there's a limit to what you can do with the characters and relationships, so the writer has a bigger challenge to make the story feel important.

The LGBT inclusion in Trek lit is really important to me as a gay Trek fan. The tv shows and movies have really failed in that area, which I consider to be an important part of Trek's legacy, it's portrayal of diversity and a united humanity. In many ways I embrace Trek Lit as more personal to me, more "mine" because of that.

I'd use Ex Machina as a good example of Trek lit developing what was on screen far better than the original source. The OMP era is really brought to life beautifully, complete with excellent and well developed alien diversity, and exploring where the characters were in that largely unexplored time.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

I don't know about killing off characters specifically, but in general, I think the licensing people are more willing to accept such suggestions from writers (or editors) that they know and trust. If you've proven repeatedly that you understand what makes a Star Trek story and respect the rules of the universe, they're more likely to trust that if you do something daring or strange, it will still do justice to the franchise.

That makes sense; thanks, as always, for your comments, Mr. Bennett!

--Sran

 

[Etoile]

This makes me think of how Peter David really brought depth into the Riker/Troi and Picard/Beverly relationships. He didn't change the status quo, but the development he gave those relationships made me even more invested in the tv versions of those characters and relationships, specifically with Imzadi/Imzadi II and Q-Squared.

I'm going to disagree with you on Riker/Troi in Imzadi. I love that book dearly, but I just never felt like the love and intimacy depicted in the book was remotely alluded to on the show. It comes up more in the movies for me - I mean, hey, they get married - but what I took away from Imzadi was that Troi and Riker were the greatest loves of each others' lives, and in the show I just got...well, they're former lovers who are still close, but then Troi dates Worf. Now, that obviously relates to the points in this thread about how books can do more than the movies, but Imzadi gave so much more to the relationship that I was actually a little disappointed it wasn't that way on screen.

The LGBT inclusion in Trek lit is really important to me as a gay Trek fan. The tv shows and movies have really failed in that area, which I consider to be an important part of Trek's legacy, it's portrayal of diversity and a united humanity. In many ways I embrace Trek Lit as more personal to me, more "mine" because of that.

On this part I wholly agree with you. It's a major social issue that on-screen Trek has never addressed fully, but as shown in this lengthy thread, it's come up over and over in TrekLit. It makes the world more real to me, and honors IDIC - if there are heterosexual relationships in any given universe, it would naturally follow that there are non-heterosexual relationships as well. (We do get a little bit of non-binary on-screen with "The Outcast," but it's not much, because Riker swoops in.)

I don't think I'd want much more than a nude scene (for any type of relationship) in licensed work, though. It wasn't on the show, so it would feel out of place in a book. Besides, there are other zines^H^H^H^H^H websites for that...

Thanks for starting this thread, Sran, it's been interesting so far and I hope it continues.

 

[voyager1]

I am really surprised by the comments about the LGBT thing. Something to consider is where LGBT rights as a movement was in the 1980s with TNG the 1990s with DS9. I think trek really has pushed the boundaries for when they were aired. Also
many of the themes about fighting discrimination and bigotry, while
taking a Scifi bent have real parallels then and today.

But yes one can do more with a book,
and our society has moved so forward
since the shows aired.

 

[Idran]

I am really surprised by the comments about the LGBT thing. Something to consider is where LGBT rights as a movement was in the 1980s with TNG the 1990s with DS9. I think trek really has pushed the boundaries for when they were aired. Also
many of the themes about fighting discrimination and bigotry, while
taking a Scifi bent have real parallels then and today.

But yes one can do more with a book,
and our society has moved so forward
since the shows aired.

The thing is, there was a lot more that was proposed over the years to include more LGBT representation - David Gerrold's "Blood and Fire" script that was rejected, Frakes pushing for a man to play Soren in The Outcast - that the production staff would always shoot down. Even Guinan refering to two people marrying when talking to Lal was offscript. To quote Memory Alpha:

In one of the scenes with Guinan tutoring Lal about Human sexuality, Whoopi Goldberg altered one of her script lines in order to turn a strictly heterosexual explanation into a gender-neutral version: "According to the script, Guinan was supposed to start telling Lal, 'When a man and a woman are in love ...' and in the background, there would be men and women sitting at tables, holding hands[...] But Whoopi refused to say that. She said, 'This show is beyond that. It should be 'When two people are in love.'" It was also decided on set that the background of the scene show a same-sex couple holding hands, but "someone ran to a phone and made a call to the production office and that was nixed. [Producer] David Livingston came down and made sure that didn't happen."

 

[Christopher]

Something to consider is where LGBT rights as a movement was in the 1980s with TNG the 1990s with DS9. I think trek really has pushed the boundaries for when they were aired.

Not really. There were a couple of times that they nudged against the boundaries a little -- "The Outcast," "Rejoined," "Warlord" -- but they were far from pioneers, since other contemporary shows had pushed the boundaries farther and earlier. "Rejoined" was the only time they did anything really daring and boundary-pushing for its time, with the same-sex kiss between Terry Farrell and Susanna Thompson, but L.A. Law had shown the first lesbian kiss on TV four years earlier, the same year that the sitcom Roc showed the first gay marriage on US television. There were shows with lesbian or gay regular characters by the mid-90s, and have been pretty much ever since. But "Rejoined" was the farthest that Trek ever pushed the envelope, and it avoided attempting any further progress even while the rest of TV was moving forward.

 

[borgboy]

Jeri Ryan wanted Seven of Nine to be gay. There was consideration for Malcolm Reed to be gay - I remember reading an interview, I think in tv guide, when Enterprise first came out where they were asked about gay characters and the answer was that they weren't sure if any of the leads would be gay yet. I wasn't impressed that they didn't know that much about their leads supposedly - but then by the first couple of episodes every main character had shown interest in the opposite sex, even if it was just male gaze ogling of T'Pol.
And then Enterprise was supposed to do a "gay" episode and they just made it all about Vulcan taboo against mindmelds, a very weak metaphor at best.
Even the new movies have failed to have even a background gay character.
I love Trek to bits, but outside of the novels they have disappointed me many many times with failing to include LGBT diversity.

 

[Etoile]

Not really. There were a couple of times that they nudged against the boundaries a little -- "The Outcast," "Rejoined," "Warlord" -- but they were far from pioneers, since other contemporary shows had pushed the boundaries farther and earlier.

I would go so far as to say "The Outcast" is the opposite of helpful to the cause. They had a great opportunity when they created a non-binary species, and then they go and have the point of the episode become "it's okay to be heterosexual!"

I will note that TrekLit has been better in this regard; races like the Hermat and Talosians are shown to be dual-gendered and use alternative pronouns and nobody bats an eyelash.

 

[rfmcdpei]

Jeri Ryan wanted Seven of Nine to be gay. There was consideration for Malcolm Reed to be gay - I remember reading an interview, I think in tv guide, when Enterprise first came out where they were asked about gay characters and the answer was that they weren't sure if any of the leads would be gay yet. I wasn't impressed that they didn't know that much about their leads supposedly - but then by the first couple of episodes every main character had shown interest in the opposite sex, even if it was just male gaze ogling of T'Pol.

Malcolm Reed did read as potentially gay to me in early episodes of Enterprise. That may have been something of an achievement, given that I'd not realized my own sexual orientation at that time.

 

[Christopher]

I would go so far as to say "The Outcast" is the opposite of helpful to the cause. They had a great opportunity when they created a non-binary species, and then they go and have the point of the episode become "it's okay to be heterosexual!"

Well, it was going for a sort of inverted allegory, trying to get heterosexual people to think, "What if you were the group being discriminated against the way you discriminate against gays?" In a similar vein to Roddenberry's Planet Earth pilot about a society where women dominated and kept men as pets, or the story pitch from his original 1964 Trek proposal involving a "Plantation-Era" planet with black masters and white slaves. The idea is to get people in the privileged group to put themselves in the position of the subordinate group and recognize the injustice of their privilege. But I can certainly see how it could backfire and come across as "We have to end this backward system and restore our proper privilege!"

And no, it wasn't a very bold statement, but that's exactly my point -- that TNG fell so far short of pushing the envelope that its one effort to do a gay allegory comes off as feeble, even backward.

 

[Idran]

Not really. There were a couple of times that they nudged against the boundaries a little -- "The Outcast," "Rejoined," "Warlord" -- but they were far from pioneers, since other contemporary shows had pushed the boundaries farther and earlier.

I would go so far as to say "The Outcast" is the opposite of helpful to the cause. They had a great opportunity when they created a non-binary species, and then they go and have the point of the episode become "it's okay to be heterosexual!"

I will note that TrekLit has been better in this regard; races like the Hermat and Talosians are shown to be dual-gendered and use alternative pronouns and nobody bats an eyelash.

Indeed, though the name "Hermat" has always put me a little off. I'm cis so I can't tell if I'm just being oversensitive or if it's legitimately a little on the offensive side, but the obvious "hermaphrodite" reference strikes me as being a little ugh. Though I guess when David came up with the name, it might not have fallen out of favor as an acceptable term yet?

 

[Christopher]

I wasn't aware that "hermaphrodite" was anything more controversial than a scientific term for an organism with both male and female organs, like many plants and invertebrates. Checking Wikipedia, I see that it used to be used for humans of ambiguous sexual anatomy and that "intersex" has come to replace it, but I think that's probably because it just wasn't quite accurate for humans. For a nonhuman species, it might be more literally correct.

Honestly, I'm more bothered by the conceit of giving an alien race a name that's a variant of an English or Latin word. It'd be a huge coincidence if they actually called themselves that.

 

[Idran]

I wasn't aware that "hermaphrodite" was anything more controversial than a scientific term for an organism with both male and female organs, like many plants and invertebrates. Checking Wikipedia, I see that it used to be used for humans of ambiguous sexual anatomy and that "intersex" has come to replace it, but I think that's probably because it just wasn't quite accurate for humans. For a nonhuman species, it might be more literally correct.

As far as I understand, it was less a question of accuracy and more a question of avoiding dehumanization that led to moving away from "hermaphrodite" and towards "intersex"; nowadays, so far as I'm aware, "hermaphrodite" isn't considered inaccurate so much as slightly offensive and outdated when used to refer to a person. Like how calling a woman a "female" has a vague sense of dehumanization and a slight offensive connotation to it despite the fact that it's technically correct; it's about on that level.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I wasn't aware that "hermaphrodite" was anything more controversial than a scientific term for an organism with both male and female organs, like many plants and invertebrates. Checking Wikipedia, I see that it used to be used for humans of ambiguous sexual anatomy and that "intersex" has come to replace it, but I think that's probably because it just wasn't quite accurate for humans. For a nonhuman species, it might be more literally correct.

As far as I understand, it was less a question of accuracy and more a question of avoiding dehumanization that led to moving away from "hermaphrodite" and towards "intersex"; nowadays, so far as I'm aware, "hermaphrodite" isn't considered inaccurate so much as slightly offensive and outdated when used to refer to a person.

An odd idea, in my opinion (meaning no confrontation here). Some humans are hermaphrodites (whether the term is being used with strict technical accuracy is another matter). Suggesting that for some reason a human hermaphrodite shouldn't be called such, as though there should exist some division or conflict between the concepts of "human" and "hermaphrodite", seems far more "dehumanizing" to me. It sounds to me like an extension of the idea (a bizarre one in my mind) that use of the terms male and female are "dehumanizing", as though I were degrading myself somehow by referring to myself as a human male, which I am.

Also, I thought the term "intersex" was a catch-all for anyone that isn't clearly male or female, of which the relatively rare true hermaphrodrites are one variant? So maybe a "safer" word for identification purposes, admittedly, since it's more inclusive and not dependent on a scientific precision that might be violated.

 

[Etoile]

As far as I understand, it was less a question of accuracy and more a question of avoiding dehumanization that led to moving away from "hermaphrodite" and towards "intersex"; nowadays, so far as I'm aware, "hermaphrodite" isn't considered inaccurate so much as slightly offensive and outdated when used to refer to a person. Like how calling a woman a "female" has a vague sense of dehumanization and a slight offensive connotation to it despite the fact that it's technically correct; it's about on that level.

You're correct that it has to do with humanization, but it's also about accuracy. Scientifically, as Christopher notes, it's a term to describe organisms with both male and female sexual organs. The main issue with it for humans, though, is that such a result is exceptionally rare. Most people with intersex conditions do not have two sets of genitalia - the variety is much greater than that. "Hermaphrodite" is still used in the scientific community for organisms it applies to, but "intersex" is preferred for humans because it's a broader term, it's more respectful, and - frankly - it's what the community has asked to be called. Jeffrey Eugenides discussed the difference in detail when explaining why he chose "hermaphrodite" in his book Middlesex.

Honestly, I didn't pick up on "Hermat" alluding to hermaphrodite, perhaps because I didn't say it out loud. But I did notice that the Memory Beta page for the species calls them "hermaphroditic" - and I was thinking it should be intersex, but then I realized I don't know what fleshy bits the Hermat have. Maybe they are scientifically hermaphroditic - they're not human, after all.