• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Did Peter David call out J.M. Dillard?

You know, in a standalone, original work of fiction, having characters reference things beyond the story is generally seen as a good thing, a way of giving a believable sense of a larger world beyond what's on the page or on the screen. In life, you don't always know the whole story behind what the people around you are saying or doing, so that sense that a character has their own ongoing story taking place offscreen, or a history that we only get a glimpse of, helps give realism and texture to the tale. But you do the same thing in something that's known to be an ongoing series and people complain about being "required" to read everything that's referenced. That's bull. You don't have to understand every last reference in a story. Sometimes not understanding them is the point. (How much less fun would it have made Calvin and Hobbes if we'd actually seen the Noodle Incident?) Knowing that there's stuff in the fictional world that you don't know helps make it feel like a richer, fuller reality.
 
You know, in a standalone, original work of fiction, having characters reference things beyond the story is generally seen as a good thing, a way of giving a believable sense of a larger world beyond what's on the page or on the screen. In life, you don't always know the whole story behind what the people around you are saying or doing, so that sense that a character has their own ongoing story taking place offscreen, or a history that we only get a glimpse of, helps give realism and texture to the tale. But you do the same thing in something that's known to be an ongoing series and people complain about being "required" to read everything that's referenced. That's bull. You don't have to understand every last reference in a story. Sometimes not understanding them is the point. (How much less fun would it have made Calvin and Hobbes if we'd actually seen the Noodle Incident?) Knowing that there's stuff in the fictional world that you don't know helps make it feel like a richer, fuller reality.

Oh, I'm not talking about writing something where you're supposed to not know the details of some referenced event, something where the details of a reference aren't actually important. In those situations, I entirely agree with you. I'm saying that a lot of those storylines I'm talking about are written by people assuming you know what's going on, and throwing out references that are actually important to the plot - sometimes even heavily so - without explaining them in any fashion, even when it's not just part of an ongoing storyline or something; calling back to a past storyline from, say, years ago in an entirely different book, weaving some major event from it into your storyline, maybe even using it as the resolution to your plot or some great plot twist, and just assuming the readers know what you're talking about without giving any sort of exposition or recap, just a little "See Iron Man #27! - ed." note. Sometimes not even that. It happens in comics all the time, and it is extremely annoying every time it does; it is somewhat less so in the modern Wikipedia age, but still aggravating.

The good writers do exactly what you've described on both sides, either giving enough to understand a reference where understanding it is important, or not making the details of a reference important to the plot when it isn't. But there are a lot of bad writers that include references while doing neither of those, and those were the writers I was referring to.
 
I'm saying that a lot of those storylines I'm talking about are written by people assuming you know what's going on, and throwing out references that are actually important to the plot - sometimes even heavily so - without explaining them in any fashion, even when it's not just part of an ongoing storyline or something; calling back to a past storyline from, say, years ago in an entirely different book, weaving some major event from it into your storyline, maybe even using it as the resolution to your plot or some great plot twist, and just assuming the readers know what you're talking about without giving any sort of exposition or recap...

Are you saying there are examples of this in Trek literature? If so, what are the examples?
 
The Romulan Way. First time around, the ending made no sense to me, having not yet read My Enemy, My Ally.

Ditto. I remember the same experience. I loved the book but the ending was waaay out of left field if you had no idea who Ael was...

Now that I've read them all (and reread them in order), they're some of my favorite books.

I can't really think of any other examples, other than the various duologies and trilogies. But if you read one book of a trilogy you should expect to be confused.

The Rihhansu books were recently re-marketed as a trilogy (or however many books there are?) but as originally published were standalone novels.

Far more often, the issue is not that the story is not comprehensible, its just knowing there's a good story there, being teased, and wanting to know more. At least most of the time though, you can go find and read the book whose events were mentioned, or check Memory Alpha / Beta for summaries.

What I found really frustrating though were the recent DS9 novels, where they refer obliquely to past events in novels that HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET but that I am dying to read. :)

(And yes I am being optimistic hoping these books will be written eventually... get on it guys!)

Same with The Cage - I always wanted to know exactly what happened in the away team mission. Sometimes though these sorts of stories are better left untold (cough Star Wars Prequels cough).
 
I'm saying that a lot of those storylines I'm talking about are written by people assuming you know what's going on, and throwing out references that are actually important to the plot - sometimes even heavily so - without explaining them in any fashion, even when it's not just part of an ongoing storyline or something; calling back to a past storyline from, say, years ago in an entirely different book, weaving some major event from it into your storyline, maybe even using it as the resolution to your plot or some great plot twist, and just assuming the readers know what you're talking about without giving any sort of exposition or recap...

Are you saying there are examples of this in Trek literature? If so, what are the examples?

Having not read SCE, I found the portions of A Singular Destiny that those characters were in incredibly annoying. Yes, I didn't *have* to read SCE to understand them, in theory, but there was no reason for them to be in the story aside from a callback for people who *did* know them. So it was just wasted pages where I clearly wasn't in on the joke.

I bet the IKS Gorkon appearances would've been the same if I hadn't read those, too.
 
DorkBoy [TM];4980149 said:
Same with The Cage - I always wanted to know exactly what happened in the away team mission.

Then you'll want to read issues 3-4 of Marvel's Star Trek: Early Voyages comic. Issue 3 is the mission to Rigel VII, and issue 4 shows Colt coming aboard (to replace Pike's dead yeoman) and tells the events of "The Cage" largely from her perspective.
 
DorkBoy [TM];4980149 said:
Same with The Cage - I always wanted to know exactly what happened in the away team mission.

Then you'll want to read issues 3-4 of Marvel's Star Trek: Early Voyages comic. Issue 3 is the mission to Rigel VII, and issue 4 shows Colt coming aboard (to replace Pike's dead yeoman) and tells the events of "The Cage" largely from her perspective.

Hmm - actually I have read that, and recently too. On the Comics DVD, which I recently mostly finished. (I managed to make it through everything except the Gold Key stuff. Good grief what drek!)

I'll have to go back and re-read it now that you bring it up. :) I don't remember it very well.

All I remember is, I *loved* that series and was real disappointed that it ended; rather abruptly and with a lot of loose ends too as I recall?
 
I'm saying that a lot of those storylines I'm talking about are written by people assuming you know what's going on, and throwing out references that are actually important to the plot - sometimes even heavily so - without explaining them in any fashion, even when it's not just part of an ongoing storyline or something; calling back to a past storyline from, say, years ago in an entirely different book, weaving some major event from it into your storyline, maybe even using it as the resolution to your plot or some great plot twist, and just assuming the readers know what you're talking about without giving any sort of exposition or recap...

Are you saying there are examples of this in Trek literature? If so, what are the examples?

Oh, no, nothing offhand I can think of in Trek lit...which makes me now wonder why I brought it up in the first place :P

Sorry for the derail.
 
Um... from your little paraphrased recap, you CLEARLY know what this passage was in reference to, and that it wasn't Resistance.

Uhm, no. I had just read 'Resistance', as I stated. The book was making reference to 'Vendetta', [...]
Yes, that's right. The book was making reference to Vendetta. You just confirmed that you knew the reference was to Vendetta. And in doing so, confirmed you had no good reason for starting a thread "wondering" if PAD was getting in a dig at another author.
 
Well, that's not fair. He didn't know it was a reference to Richard Arnold's objections to Vendetta -- there's no way you could've known that from the text itself. I can see how someone who didn't know that backstory might be confused by the reference and think it was somehow directed at Resistance, if Resistance was a book they'd just recently read.
 
Oh, here's one. Reading Paths of Disharmony. I'm fairly new to the Novel-verse, well the relaunch, anyway. I found that the Andorian sexes were a bit lacking in explanation. We got a lot of "they have four sexes," but not much was explained about it. On the other hand, that book did go out of its way to give complete synopses of three or four entire Next Gen episodes.
 
^ For some reason, other novels often get name dropped without filling us in, but episodes get the full synopsis treatment. Rough Beasts of Empire was a recent example of this with its referencing other books about the Romulans.

The TNG book Immortal Coil on the other hand went out of its way to make cute roundabout references to TOS plots about androids/artificial intelligence without even giving enough of an explanation to allow you to look in up on Memory Alpha. I remember a lot of people taking issue with that one when it came out several years back.

I really like the approach the Vanguard novel Open Secrets took with the mission briefing at the beginning of the book filling everyone in. Serialized TV shows have the previously on Fringe/Burn Notice/Enterprise season 3 bit recapping major bits from prior shows. It would be nice if each of the relaunch series along with NF (if it comes back...) and other original novel series could do something like this at the beginning of new books. I understand that Pocket Books fears people will think the book continuity is too complicated and might not buy the books if faced with a major reference section or even a list of all the past books so this might be a happy compromise to at least cover major cross-cutting developments in the various book series.
 
We got a lot of "they have four sexes," but not much was explained about it.

Did the plot and resolution of "Paths of Disharmony" require an explanation of how the four sexes work?

Nope.

The TNG book Immortal Coil on the other hand went out of its way to make cute roundabout references to TOS plots about androids/artificial intelligence without even giving enough of an explanation to allow you to look in up on Memory Alpha.

Such as?

They were Easter eggs. Not everyone "gets" every Easter egg. And to footnote them all runs the risk of making people think they have to watch all those TOS episodes first.

Did the plot and resolution of "Immortal Coil" require explanations of who all the TOS sentient A.I.s were?

Nope.
 
The TNG book Immortal Coil on the other hand went out of its way to make cute roundabout references to TOS plots about androids/artificial intelligence without even giving enough of an explanation to allow you to look in up on Memory Alpha.

Such as?

They were Easter eggs. Not everyone "gets" every Easter egg. And to footnote them all runs the risk of making people think they have to watch all those TOS episodes first.

Did the plot and resolution of "Immortal Coil" require explanations of who all the TOS sentient A.I.s were?

Nope.

True, they didn't. Fair point. But I (and several others at the time the book was published) found those Easter egg references incredibly annoying to the point that the reader could constantly be knocked out of that book's narrative by the Easter eggs.

Hell aside from the background of the Enterprise-E security chief of the month, that's what I remember about it from 2002. Continuity is really cool when balanced correctly, but things don't work sometimes with too much (especially referencing other shows or obscure books) or too little.

Crazy to think that book is nine years old now. It came out when I was a freshman in college... :eek:
 
That is crazy. It seems like a recent book to me, too.

As a big TOS fan, I have to say I got all of the easter eggs, but I still found them distracting. I was constantly stopping to think "now what is he obliquely referring to here" and scratching my head.

The Greg Cox Khan books were kind of the same way, except that was really the whole fun of those.

To an extent the same is true of Immortal Coil; it was all part of the fun. (And, I really enjoyed that book.) But I agree that too much "continuity porn" and references to other stories can be a distraction from the narrative of a book, and that book is a good example. "Recent" Pocket trek books have crossed that line a few times. (Where recent to me is anything since the 90s.) Still, its waaaaay better than the alternative, the bad old "thou shalt not reference another book EVER" days. So I'm NOT complaining. :)

And it is good to get followup to dangling plot threads. The modern trek books weave a rich tapestry. That's the idea anyway. Sometimes it can be painful though, when plot threads are dangled and then never followed up on (cough DS9 relaunch hack wheeze). And yes I am complaining about that. :)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top