Diane Carey?
- Thread starter Rush Limborg
- Start date
Piper is anything but a textbook Mary Sue. A textbook Mary Sue is a woman who's smarter and better than Kirk, Spock, and McCoy combined; Piper is three steps behind Kirk the whole time. A textbook Mary Sue can do no wrong; Piper screws up constantly. A textbook Mary Sue saves the day singlehandedly; Piper has a whole team of friends that help her. A textbook Mary Sue wins the love (often physical) of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, or all three; Piper only wins their respect and has her own separate romantic entanglement (which doesn't turn out well for her). If you want to see a truly textbook Mary Sue, read the Bantam novel Death's Angel by Kathleen Sky.
Just because a character has one or two attributes in common with a Mary Sue (such as being an author surrogate), that doesn't make her a "textbook" example. Piper is more of an apprentice character for Kirk in a "Lower Decks"-type story that sets her up with her own surrogates for Spock, McCoy, and Scotty. She's the Robin to Kirk's Batman, and her friends are the Teen Titans to the big guys' Justice League. Okay, that's a crummy analogy, but I can't remember the really good one that someone used last time this came up. Maybe she's Jonny Quest to Kirk's Race Bannon? The Mutt to Kirk's Indiana Jones? Or maybe it's kind of like that early proposed idea for TAS, where the show would focus on teen cadets/apprentices of the TOS characters.
Just because a character has one or two attributes in common with a Mary Sue (such as being an author surrogate), that doesn't make her a "textbook" example. Piper is more of an apprentice character for Kirk in a "Lower Decks"-type story that sets her up with her own surrogates for Spock, McCoy, and Scotty. She's the Robin to Kirk's Batman, and her friends are the Teen Titans to the big guys' Justice League. Okay, that's a crummy analogy, but I can't remember the really good one that someone used last time this came up. Maybe she's Jonny Quest to Kirk's Race Bannon? The Mutt to Kirk's Indiana Jones? Or maybe it's kind of like that early proposed idea for TAS, where the show would focus on teen cadets/apprentices of the TOS characters.
Last edited:
Well...I did find the bunny-hop thing to be going a little too far. Other than that, though, I found Dreadnaught! rather enjoyable!
I really liked Final Frontier and Best Destiny. Loved April, loved George Kirk, loved the young maverick who will one day become Captain James T. Kirk.
I didn't read New Earth, so the first few pages of Chainmail were a little confusing, but once I got into the tale, it was good. ("I will hit you now." "I beg you're pardon?" POW!
)Ships of the Line was okay. I liked Captain Bateson and his buds. I found Picard going all Kirk and psyching out Gul Madred was a bit much, but I DID like "Oh, by the way... how many lights are up there?" PAYBACK! Yeah!
The Great Starship Race was pretty engaging. I mean, Star Trek meets NASCAR? What's not to love?
Her episode novelizations were good. The Dominion War books were a bit choppy, though.
Currently reading Station Rage. Good so far.
Red Sector was good, action-packed adventure, but the ending left me going... "That's IT???" Too many loose threads in the end.
Well, she was always one of my favorite Trek authors.
The Piper POV for Dreadnaught and Battlestations put me off, but I liked the story. I liked the Bozeman characters in Ship of the Line, but the rest was a bit iffy. Putting a pair of 23rd century refugees in charge of building and shaking down the newest ship in the fleet seemed to strain credulity a bit, and I as I recall Ship of the Line is one of many, many attempts to cover the Enterprise-Es first mission(s). That being said, I'd love to see more with the Bozeman crew, and even more to see the early adventures of Captain April and the Enterprise when it was still a more unique marvel to the universe.
It's the only one I'm aware of that purports to be its very first mission.
For some reason, I remember there being a couple others floating around. Not neccesarily a whole book dedicated to it, tho. I might be thinking of something in the comics, RPG supplements, things like that.
Oh, really? I haven't been following the latest film (on purpose), but I've got a vague idea of what it's about. What did the writers say about Best Destiny? That, I don't mind knowing. In fact, I hope they take a lot of inspiration from that novel - I rather liked the characterization of Kirk there.
It's kinda weird as when I was younger and reading Trek books I got the impression that, along with Peter David, Diane Carey was the other heavyweight of the Trek Lit scene, trusted with all the big stories and such so her stuff must have been popular at some point.
IIRC from early interviews with the screenwriters, the names of George Kirk Snr and Winona Kirk came from Carey's ST novels, and are being used in the movie, plus the feisty nature of young Jimmy Kirk as seen in "Best Destiny".
Actually Vonda McIntyre coined George Sr. and Winona's names in Enterprise: The First Adventure, though Carey and other novelists later reused them.
Well, I guess you can call me a Diane Carey apologist. She's long been my favorite Star Trek author, and Final Frontier my favorite Trek novel of all time. That's not to say I've loved, or even liked, every book she's written. Ship of the Line is probably the worst of her works, but not the worst Trek novel ever.
Anyhow, Carey *is* a good writer, but the thing that puts people off about her are her more Libertarian politics and worldview. Those sentiments, and her understanding and use of proper naval terminology (Starfleet does bear more similarity to the US Navy than NASA), are well-suited to the TOS era. It was a time of "cowboy diplomacy," more independent and "militaristic" (for lack of a better term) than the 24th century, and while very socially liberal and accepting, not stupidly-PC as the TNG era. Carey can't put her own worldview aside to write Picard and company "in character," really, and so her TNG works usually fail. She's a TOS writer, a TOS fan, and really only works in that context.
But, in her element, she captures the feel of the 23rd century perfectly, and writes Kirk better than anyone. Shatner and the Reeves-Stevenses included.
Anyhow, Carey *is* a good writer, but the thing that puts people off about her are her more Libertarian politics and worldview. Those sentiments, and her understanding and use of proper naval terminology (Starfleet does bear more similarity to the US Navy than NASA), are well-suited to the TOS era. It was a time of "cowboy diplomacy," more independent and "militaristic" (for lack of a better term) than the 24th century, and while very socially liberal and accepting, not stupidly-PC as the TNG era. Carey can't put her own worldview aside to write Picard and company "in character," really, and so her TNG works usually fail. She's a TOS writer, a TOS fan, and really only works in that context.
But, in her element, she captures the feel of the 23rd century perfectly, and writes Kirk better than anyone. Shatner and the Reeves-Stevenses included.
Yeah, I nearly added that bit last night, but I thought that might start a debate about whether the screenwriters were also influenced by "Enterprise: The First Adventure" as well, especially since ST XI might cover the "first adventure".
I managed to read every Carey ST book up to "Double Helix: Red Sector" before anyone pointed out her political leanings or her "worldview" to me. Call me naive, but I really hadn't noticed, and I still don't really care.
I love her TOS characterizations, I really enjoyed her April-era crew, I thought the Piper books were wonderfully unique for their time. And I found "TNG: Red Sector" and "VOY: Fire Ship" to be page-turners, where I know people who loathe both of those.
My main quibble was with her all-male timeslipped bridge crew for Bateson's ship in "Ship of the Line". It seemed like Carey was relying on memory and, even though it was such a brief TNG sequence, the presence of women on Bateson's bridge seemed pretty obvious.
Tell me about it.
I remember an older blog here, in which every other blogger resorted to calling her a "right-wing nutcase", or words to that effect. *Sigh*
Come to think of it, wasn't ab Hugh criticized for the same kinda thing?
I'm gonna be facing one tough market....
Therin, I gotta hand it to you. You make me heave a BIG sigh of relief. I'm glad there are those in fandom who are willing to look BEYOND party lines, and read the author BECAUSE HE/SHE'S JUST A DARN GOOD WRITER!
Myself, I may strongly disagree with Mike's and Andy's political views, but I keep on buying their books, because they're just darn good WRITERS!
Let us learn to follow Therin's example. Let us look beyond our differences, and learn to accept one other as fellow members in the brotherhood of STAR TREK!!!
YES!!! WE!!! CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!
Rush, I think in general the morality espoused by Star Trek - letting other cultures develop without interference, conflict as a last resort, inclusion rather than isolationism, tolerance of other cultural beliefs, interracial and interspecies and even (heh) intragender couples, equality / lack of desire for economic gain, among others - tends to be more closely associated with the Liberal end of the spectrum than the Conservative, at least these days. Obviously you yourself are an exception to this rule, it's not cut and dry, but I'm not making this up - I read somewhere that one of the writers of Star Trek thought of it as a kind of atheist bible.*
So, I realize this is an exaggeration, I don't think the situations are quite comparable, but if an atheist were to write the next entry in the Left Behind series, regardless of whether it was a great story, you'd expect people to be bothered wouldn't you?
That said, Dafydd ab Hugh is someone I find to be a truly foul person. It's not that he's conservative, it's that he writes long articles full of blatant lies and over exaggerations, and seems to have made a living out of it. But three of his works - Invasion 4, Balance Of Power, and Fallen Heroes - are some of my favorite Ordover-era novels. And as I posted earlier, the only Carey novel I've read recently, First Strike, was one I liked quite a lot.
So I guess I can see both sides on this one.
* Edit: It was Brannon Braga, and the quote was "atheistic mythology". http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Brannon_Braga Sorry for the mistake.
So, I realize this is an exaggeration, I don't think the situations are quite comparable, but if an atheist were to write the next entry in the Left Behind series, regardless of whether it was a great story, you'd expect people to be bothered wouldn't you?
That said, Dafydd ab Hugh is someone I find to be a truly foul person. It's not that he's conservative, it's that he writes long articles full of blatant lies and over exaggerations, and seems to have made a living out of it. But three of his works - Invasion 4, Balance Of Power, and Fallen Heroes - are some of my favorite Ordover-era novels. And as I posted earlier, the only Carey novel I've read recently, First Strike, was one I liked quite a lot.
So I guess I can see both sides on this one.
* Edit: It was Brannon Braga, and the quote was "atheistic mythology". http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Brannon_Braga Sorry for the mistake.
Last edited:
Who writes the novel is irrelevant, or should be. In a shared, pre-established universe, the author(s)' predilections should be subsumed beneath the ideology that already permeates the setting. For many writers, this is easy enough because there's a good deal of overlap between their value system and the one espouse by Star Trek, and one just glosses over the areas where there's disagreement. Authors who belong to opposite schools of thought, however, have to be more careful because it's all the more obvious, and all the more jarring, when something slips through the buffer of the shared universe.
But, as Therin mentions, there can be a preconditioned bias as well. I eventually picked up on the fact that Carey was trying to shoehorn in some rather conflicting philosophy into a universe that just didn't accomodate it, but I never knew about ab Hugh. I never liked his Rebels trilogy, but it's only in retrospect that I can identify the puzzling characterization of Kai Winn as stemming from his ideological affiliations. But, knowing what I know now, if ab Hugh were to write another Trek book, I'd think I'd always have that awareness floating in the back of my mind, and I would be, despite myself, on guard for evidence of extreme-right influences in the narrative.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
But, as Therin mentions, there can be a preconditioned bias as well. I eventually picked up on the fact that Carey was trying to shoehorn in some rather conflicting philosophy into a universe that just didn't accomodate it, but I never knew about ab Hugh. I never liked his Rebels trilogy, but it's only in retrospect that I can identify the puzzling characterization of Kai Winn as stemming from his ideological affiliations. But, knowing what I know now, if ab Hugh were to write another Trek book, I'd think I'd always have that awareness floating in the back of my mind, and I would be, despite myself, on guard for evidence of extreme-right influences in the narrative.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Similar threads
