Do you prefer it when the books were numbered???

[Nathan]

For old time readers, remember back in the day, the Trek books were numbered??? Except if it was a special series (ie. New Earth or Lost Era) those were not numbered.

I do sorta miss it as it helped me keep track of what to read. Yeah, most of the numbered books were stand-alones, but I find it easier when books are read in publication order.

As a side note, I miss when the book would have the last couple of pages of books that were published. I used it as sorta a checklist to keep track of what I have yet to read. Of course, I've been reading Trek for almost 30 years and I overall kept on top of it.

I feel sorry for the folks who are just now getting into Trek with a zillion books it seems of Trek Lit and that he or she will NEVER get to them all.

 

[JD]

I've been following the series so for ages, so I'm aware of the order, but for some of the series like Vanguard or the DS9R & VoyR that are more arc heavy it would have been kind of nice if they had numbered the individual books.

 

[RoB]

For the German editions of the newer novels like DS9 or Voyager relaunch, Cross Cult (the publisher) numbered the books, so the readers know where to start and in what order to read.

 

[Markonian]

I'm one of those facing a 'gazilllion books'. I started reading Trek novels in 2008 as German editions.

Quickly I got on top of the current releases, in German and English.

Personally, I'm not overwhelmed by be amount of books I still have to read - publication order is available on Memory Alpha, and because most of the older books are standalone, you can read them individually, like picking a random episode from your DVD.

If you know where to look, there's no trouble to see where to start. And don't forget the Lit-verse charts available in the forum.

 

[E-DUB]

It does kind of seem like they numbered the books when it didn't matter (because most stories were "stand alones") and stopped when it did (because most books now are part of a novelverse continuity).

 

[Therin of Andor]

it would have been kind of nice if they had numbered the individual books.

In a way, they are still numbered. Just put them in publication order. The original month and year of publication appears in each book. The only titles which would complicate that is if you bought the paperback reprint of a hardcover or trade.

It does kind of seem like they numbered the books when it didn't matter (because most stories were "stand alones") and stopped when it did (because most books now are part of a novelverse continuity).

I actually think it was wise to stop the numbering of the TOS books at #97. I know several friends who had been planning to stop buying the novels at the end of the announced-but-never-released trilogy, "The Last Roundup" (#98-100). It's never a good marketing strategy to give readers a "jumping off" point.

 

[Ktrek]

At first I was against discontinuing the numbering system because I like "sets" of things and I like "complete" sets, but as time has gone by I found it no longer bothers me. I buy every book as they are released and I have them in order on my shelves. Also there are sufficient enough tools online to help with reading order (especially Thrawn's and 8 of 5's Almighty Trek Reading List Flow Chart) I think it's pretty much a non-issue now.

Kevin

 

[bbailey861]

I am on record as being an unabashed lover of numbering the books. I simply found it easier tracking what I had and what I needed and determining the order in which everything fell. Understandably, it becomes more difficult with all the series involved being multi-arched but I am sure something could have been figured out.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I simply found it easier tracking what I had and what I needed and determining the order in which everything fell.

Sets of numbered stickers are readily available at stationers.

 

[Markonian]

Sets of numbered stickers are readily available at stationers.

A good idea! And don't even need to deface the books themselves - simpy stick it to the shelf's front directly underneath the book. And if you add numbers to the stickers, you can count series and multi-series arcs simultaneously (e.g. Zero Sume Game as TP 1 and DS9 10.1).

Or you just number your books in a Excel file.

 

[Relayer1]

No, it somehow dates them and takes away their individuality. I like things the way they are now.

 

[Mimi]

As someone very new to star trek literature, I will admit...I could have never gotten through the books without the help of outside guides. I'm not sure if numbering is the answer, but if books even had a small guide inside that took up like a page or so it would have been very handy.

At the very least, it would be nice to put "book X of X" on some of the 'series' type books, like typhon pact. As it is I have them all on my ipad, and no idea what order they go in without looking it up.

I can see that being really intimidating to someone just casually wanting to start reading trek books.

 

[jpv2000]

I started reading back in '71 with the early novels, took a huge break from the late '80s until the late '90s and without sites like the ones mentioned here I would have been totally lost.

 

[BillJ]

I miss the 24th century books that take place during the various series runs.

 

[Greg Cox]

I miss the 24th century books that take place during the various series runs.

This is the part where I shamelessly point out that my upcoming book, No Time Like the Past, takes place, in part, during the sixth season of Voyager . . . .

 

[Starbreaker]

There are too many crossovers, special events, and series to keep everything numbered now. It's also a detriment to new readers who want to read a TNG book but see that Cold Equations: The Body Electric is #128 or something.

 

[Mimi]

That's true, but at the very least mini-series could be numbered in the order that they are intended to be read. At the moment they are only occasionally numbered.

They could also make things seem less intimidating by branching them into 'seasons', for instance.

 

[Christopher]

That's true, but at the very least mini-series could be numbered in the order that they are intended to be read. At the moment they are only occasionally numbered.

Well, most Trek "miniseries" are just groups of thematically connected standalones that are more closely linked to their individual series than to each other. So numbering them would create the misleading impression that you had to read them all. Generally when there is a closely linked sequence like a duology or trilogy, it is numbered. The only recent exception I can think of is Plagues of Night/Raise the Dawn (which retroactively formed a trilogy with Rough Beasts of Empire).

 

[JD]

it would have been kind of nice if they had numbered the individual books.

In a way, they are still numbered. Just put them in publication order. The original month and year of publication appears in each book. The only titles which would complicate that is if you bought the paperback reprint of a hardcover or trade.

Yeah, but to someone who is new to the books and just happened to stumble across them in a bookstore or something it would be a lot easier to just look for Vanguard #1 or Titan #1 than to either search for pub dates in the books or find a trustworthy website that has accurate information. (Yes, I know about all of the websites available, I'm talking about someone who is totally new to Trek Lit and about to make an impulse buy).

 

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but if Titan #1 is years out of print and the book currently on the shelves is Titan #9, a potential impulse-buyer may think "Oh, it's the ninth in a series so I won't be able to understand it, so I'll look for something else to buy." Which would be wrong, since Titan is the most episodic of the 24th-century series and can pretty much be picked up at any point.

You may have a point about Vanguard, though.