Frustrations with Trek lit...

[Jarrod]

Thrawn - I have read every Star Trek book Pocket has published. Yes, I have been reading them steadily, as they came out, since the early 90's.

So yes, I would welcome more novels set during the run of the series.

I remember when Doctor Who had two ongoing book releases each month. One was part of an ongoing series featuring the Current Doctor, and another was 'Missing Adventure' style.

I would love it if we got one or two novels a year that were 'Missing Adventure' style rather than ongoing saga. There is no reason this couldnt be done.

**Edited to add**

And by Missing Adventures I am referring specifically to some featuring 24th Century Crews

 

[Overgeeked]

A lot of long-running series go through frequent cast changes, though. Doctor Who, M*A*S*H, Law & Order, superhero team books like X-Men and Avengers, it's just a fact of life. And a lot of people don't experience such series in strict order, but jump around and get exposed to different casts at different times. I first saw Doctor Who in reruns of the Fourth Doctor and went up through at least the Sixth before it looped back around to the first three. I've seen episodes from various seasons of Law & Order out of sequence, and I don't think I've ever seen the first season. I discovered the X-Men through the '90s animated series and only later read the '70s comics. And so on. It's possible to follow a series despite jumping over a cast change. Yes, you know you've missed something in between, but like I said, that backstory of how the cast changed doesn't matter to the story you're reading or watching now. It's something you might want to figure out later, but for the moment, you just need to watch the new characters in action and get a handle on them as you go.

Doctor Who is the perfectly wrong series to use as an example. The cast change you mention is baked into the premise of the show and every single story is a standalone. There's literally zero continuity to worry about. It's almost exactly the same with the other series you mention. None of them are serialized, they're all standalone...with the exception of X-Men, and that's mostly because Chris Claremont wrote it that way on purpose...and because the vast majority of series comics are serialized fiction. Constantly ending with a cliffhanger just to keep the reader hooked till next month. None of which is analogous to Star Trek on screen (with a few incredibly rare exceptions).

So to defend Star Trek novels becoming serialized fiction, despite the TV series being overwhelmingly standalone, you're pulling from a few other mostly standalone franchises as proof that serialized fiction works? Aside from that not making much sense, yes, serialized fiction works. That's not the question. The question is whether Star Trek, an overwhelmingly standalone franchise, works as serialized fiction. From where I'm standing, it doesn't. Because it no longer feels like Star Trek because of its now serialized nature.

The point being that with exception of certain story arcs in DS9, the overwhelmingly vast majority of Star Trek episodes are all standalone. To make the novels mostly serialized is to intentionally write them in a different way than the series, and for some fans, it's a decision to exclude them as part of the target audience. Unfortunately, I'm in that excluded segment. And frankly it sucks. And sure, we can throw out the dismissal of "you can't please all the people," but we can at least acknowledge that it is simply a dismissal rather than an honest engagement with the concerns expressed here by myself and some other fans.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think that's the issue, but rather that the characters you know from tv have changed since you saw them last time, 12 in-universe years ago

Yeah, but it's the same principle. Once you get past the initial "This isn't what I expected" phase, then you can learn what the characters are like now by just reading the story, just like you can learn about brand-new characters in a series premiere or standalone work by just reading/watching the story.

For example, look at The Wrath of Khan. The characters had suddenly changed massively from when we'd seen them last. Kirk's an instructor at the Academy? Spock is captain of the Enterprise? Chekov's first officer of some other ship? Kirk has a kid? And who's this young Vulcan woman they all seem to know? When did all this happen? But we got to know the new status quo just by watching the movie. We didn't need prior knowledge of how the changes had happened. The story caught us up. We were confused at first (indeed, the film actively used that confusion in the opening scene), but we soon got the hang of the changes.

Again, the ideal is to write every story as if it's someone's first. It doesn't matter if it's a continuation of a series -- you still want to make sure it contains all the information the readers need to follow the specific story you're telling. If some bit of background isn't included in the novel, then it isn't important to that novel. At least, that's the way it should be.

Doctor Who is the perfectly wrong series to use as an example. The cast change you mention is baked into the premise of the show and every single story is a standalone. There's literally zero continuity to worry about.

Not necessarily. Imagine what it was like for me seeing the opening scene of "Robot." It just picks up in the middle of an ongoing scene, even in the middle of a line of dialogue -- "Now, just a moment!" There's a military man and a young woman, and the woman says "Look, Brigadier, look. I think it's started!" and then we cut to a white-haired fellow unconscious on the floor, but he then immediately turns into a younger, curly-haired fellow, and the man addressed as Brigadier says "Oh, well, here we go again." That's a pretty confusing scene to be your introduction to the entire franchise. So it took me a while to catch up and understand what was going on. I had to learn as I went. (And it didn't help that I never saw the inside of the TARDIS until six serials later.) But I still got the hang of it even so.

So to defend Star Trek novels becoming serialized fiction, despite the TV series being overwhelmingly standalone, you're pulling from a few other serialized franchises as proof that it works. Yes, serialized fiction works. That's not the question. The question is whether Star Trek, an overwhelmingly standalone franchise works as serialized fiction. From where I'm standing, it doesn't. Because it no longer feels like Star Trek because of its now serialized nature.

That's not what I'm trying to demonstrate at all. I'm just saying that it's possible to experience a series out of sequence, or to jump over a large portion of it and pick up at a later point where the cast and situation have changed, and still be able to catch up. There are a lot of shows where I've come in midway through and then gone back to see the earlier parts, or dropped out for a length of time and then come back after things had changed. There are novel series that I've read out of order because I couldn't track down all the books at the same time. And some of those have been very serialized, others more episodic. It's not ideal, but it's doable.

To make the novels mostly serialized is to intentionally write them in a different way than the series, and for some fans, it's a decision to exclude them as part of the target audience.

Except that, again, there are still standalone novels and novellas being published. Yes, sometimes they're set at a later time after the cast has changed, but their individual plots are still self-contained and understandable. Pocket's goal has not been to exclude any audience, but rather to offer a range of different types of story to appeal to a range of target audiences. Not every work will appeal to every reader, but ideally there will be something for every taste. Admittedly, there haven't been a lot of 24th-century standalones in recent years, but maybe that's a lack that will be made up for in the future. There's no deliberate agenda to be exclusionary.

 

[Greg Cox]

Anthologies also provide a good opportunity to revisit the 24th-century crews during the TV era. I think the last TNG standalone I wrote was for the Seven Deadly Sins anthology.

(And I can't resisting pointing out that my recent Kirk/Seven of Nine crossover was at least partly a standalone VOYAGER story set during the the run of the TV show.)

The new ebook novellas might also be a a good home for pre-"Relaunch" stories set back during the TV seasons . ...

 

[Overgeeked]

Yeah, but it's the same principle. Once you get past the initial "This isn't what I expected" phase, then you can learn what the characters are like now by just reading the story, just like you can learn about brand-new characters in a series premiere or standalone work by just reading/watching the story...

Right. But that becomes an issue when the writer stops the story dead to info-dump about the meta-plot or play unnecessary catch-up on where the characters are now or why a given situation is happening.

For example, look at The Wrath of Khan. The characters had suddenly changed massively from when we'd seen them last. Kirk's an instructor at the Academy? Spock is captain of the Enterprise? Chekov's first officer of some other ship? Kirk has a kid? And who's this young Vulcan woman they all seem to know? When did all this happen? But we got to know the new status quo just by watching the movie. We didn't need prior knowledge of how the changes had happened. The story caught us up. We were confused at first (indeed, the film actively used that confusion in the opening scene), but we soon got the hang of the changes.

Right. But notice how none of those details matter at all to the story presented in Khan? And further notice that almost zero time is spent explaining them, at most a throwaway line of dialogue. That's kinda the point, there's a jump in continuity that doesn't matter, so it's not explained in the story. Most of the continuity Trek lit novels go to great pains to explain in excruciating detail all those irrelevant and unnecessary details. (But admittedly, I could have just head first into a wall of especially continuity heavy books). I don't need an info-dump paragraph to explain why some villain is a bad dude...in the middle of the opening scene where said bad dude is actively doing bad dude stuff. I see he's a bad dude because he's being a bad dude there in the scene, grinding the scene to a halt and including a paragraph of info-dump about the meta-plot or continuity catch-up is kinda bad writing.

Again, the ideal is to write every story as if it's someone's first. It doesn't matter if it's a continuation of a series -- you still want to make sure it contains all the information the readers need to follow the specific story you're telling. If some bit of background isn't included in the novel, then it isn't important to that novel. At least, that's the way it should be.

Or only include the information relevant to the story at hand. As with Khan. Almost no explanation needed or given for the jumped continuity. Because it doesn't matter it's left out.

Not necessarily. Imagine what it was like for me seeing the opening scene of "Robot." It just picks up in the middle of an ongoing scene, even in the middle of a line of dialogue -- "Now, just a moment!" There's a military man and a young woman, and the woman says "Look, Brigadier, look. I think it's started!" and then we cut to a white-haired fellow unconscious on the floor, but he then immediately turns into a younger, curly-haired fellow, and the man addressed as Brigadier says "Oh, well, here we go again." That's a pretty confusing scene to be your introduction to the entire franchise. So it took me a while to catch up and understand what was going on. I had to learn as I went. (And it didn't help that I never saw the inside of the TARDIS until six serials later.) But I still got the hang of it even so.

To be fair, that's literally happened four times in the entire history of the show. First Doctor to Second, forgiven for being the first regeneration / renewal story in the show's history. Third to Fourth, as you mention. Fourth to Fifth. And Seventh to Eighth. Every other regeneration was completed in the outgoing Doctor's final episode or simply not shown...for the very reason you mention, it's confusing for a new viewer. So in the 826 episodes of Doctor Who, what you describe has happened literally four times. Bad luck on your part, and bad planning on the writers' part.

I'm just saying that it's possible to experience a series out of sequence, or to jump over a large portion of it and pick up at a later point where the cast and situation have changed, and still be able to catch up.

Sure, but it's a hell of a lot easier if it's standalone, and not serialized. It's a defining feature of serialized fiction that the next story builds on the previous one. If I haven't experienced the first story, the second will be confusing. Reading the Two Towers without reading Fellowship of the Rings for example. Sure, you could do it. But it's one complete story across three novels. (Yes, I know Tolkien scholars, just ignore the dog whistle).

There are a lot of shows where I've come in midway through and then gone back to see the earlier parts, or dropped out for a length of time and then come back after things had changed. There are novel series that I've read out of order because I couldn't track down all the books at the same time. And some of those have been very serialized, others more episodic. It's not ideal, but it's doable.

Right, so we agree that it's less than ideal to start a series in the middle. Serialized fiction is good for long-time readers, whilst creating a huge hurdle for new readers. That's precisely my point.

Pocket's goal has not been to exclude any audience, but rather to offer a range of different types of story to appeal to a range of target audiences. Not every work will appeal to every reader, but ideally there will be something for every taste...There's no deliberate agenda to be exclusionary.

It may not be their goal or part of their agenda, but it's certainly a consequence of their decision to do mostly serialized and continuity heavy novels.

Admittedly, there haven't been a lot of 24th-century standalones in recent years, but maybe that's a lack that will be made up for in the future.

I for one certainly hope so.

 

[DBR]

Think maybe part of the point is that you can't really jump in anymore at all. (I've never left the pool, so I'm all set, but in general).

That's exactly where I'm at now. I read everything up until about 2008, then only the odd book from about 2009 to maybe 2012, then nothing for a few years. Now I constantly ask myself 'where the hell do I jump in, and do I even bother?' My reading time has been drastically reduced, and frankly I don't want to spend all my free time playing catch up. So I haven't been.

 

[Thrawn]

Overgeeked - what books did you try to read? It is possible you hit some especially continuity-dump-heavy entries; we'd be able to say so.

 

[Christopher]

Right. But that becomes an issue when the writer stops the story dead to info-dump about the meta-plot or play unnecessary catch-up on where the characters are now or why a given situation is happening.

I haven't advocated either of those things. There are more organic ways to incorporate necessary exposition than that kind of infodump (although I haven't always been successful at finding them myself, admittedly), and I've specifically said that backstory not relevant to the specific tale you're telling should be left out.

Right. But notice how none of those details matter at all to the story presented in Khan? And further notice that almost zero time is spent explaining them, at most a throwaway line of dialogue.

Exactly my point. Just because the characters have changed or moved on, that isn't the same thing as plot serialization. You can have a reasonably standalone story even with a changed status quo -- like, say, TNG: Indistinguishable from Magic or DS9: The Missing. There are still standalones being published.

That's kinda the point, there's a jump in continuity that doesn't matter, so it's not explained in the story. Most of the continuity Trek lit novels go to great pains to explain in excruciating detail all those irrelevant and unnecessary details. (But admittedly, I could have just head first into a wall of especially continuity heavy books).

I'll grant that I've read some Trek books that did overdo the exposition. It can be an occupational hazard, since so many of us are continuity geeks. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way in every case. I've spent a lot of years trying to develop subtler and more organic ways of working in exposition, and to improve my sense of what exposition is needed and what isn't. It can be a tricky balance to find.

To be fair, that's literally happened four times in the entire history of the show. First Doctor to Second, forgiven for being the first regeneration / renewal story in the show's history. Third to Fourth, as you mention. Fourth to Fifth. And Seventh to Eighth. Every other regeneration was completed in the outgoing Doctor's final episode or simply not shown...for the very reason you mention, it's confusing for a new viewer. So in the 826 episodes of Doctor Who, what you describe has happened literally four times. Bad luck on your part, and bad planning on the writers' part.

Beside the point. I'm not talking about what the writers did, I'm talking about what I was able to do -- namely, figure out what was going on and get a handle on the story despite the fact that it opened in such a confusing way. The point is, readers can figure these things out by being alert and observant. Coming into situations with incomplete information and catching up as you go is not an uncommon thing in life.

Sure, but it's a hell of a lot easier if it's standalone, and not serialized. It's a defining feature of serialized fiction that the next story builds on the previous one. If I haven't experienced the first story, the second will be confusing. Reading the Two Towers without reading Fellowship of the Rings for example. Sure, you could do it. But it's one complete story across three novels. (Yes, I know Tolkien scholars, just ignore the dog whistle).

Yes, and that's exactly why it's a poor example of serialization. Or rather, it represents just one extreme. There are degrees of serialization. Not every serialized tale is just one big story cut into pieces. Many are sequences of distinct but connected stories, and that's far more common in Trek Lit. The only tales that go to the LOTR-like extreme are duologies and trilogies under a single title. Even the longer series under blanket titles tend to be more loosely serialized.

Right, so we agree that it's less than ideal to start a series in the middle. Serialized fiction is good for long-time readers, whilst creating a huge hurdle for new readers. That's precisely my point.

And that is absolutely not my point. You're talking as though it's impossible. I'm just saying it's a challenge, which is a very different thing. Being challenged can be good. You just need to have more faith in your own ability to meet the challenge.

 

[Overgeeked]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and conversation. I'm bowing out now as I don't feel like being condescended to anymore.

 

[The Wormhole]

1. I want stand alone books, not continuity porn. Just once in awhile, maybe...please? Not every book needs to be part of a duology, trilogy, or push some tiny piece of the ever evolving meta-plot. Just gimme a novel I can pick up and enjoy that doesn't require reading a dozen other novels (or summaries) first just to know what the hell is going on.

It can certainly be daunting, in fact I briefly gave up on Trek novels because of what I felt was unnecessary cross-continuity between the various other novels. And to be fair, when they were first starting to do this, particularly in 2004-ish the novels did have a lot references to other novels that didn't have any real relevance to the novel's story, it was just a sort of putting the fact that they are a shared universe in the spotlight.

Ironically, one of the factors that drew me back to Trek novels was the cross-continuity. After taking a break from most Trek literature for fives or so, I found the idea of Star Trek references I didn't get a fun and exciting prospect. As an uberfan in 2011, there was no new Trek since 2005 aside from Trek XI. I pretty much was a Trek Master, and so to experience references to Star Trek events I wasn't intimately familiar with, was really fun. But truth be told, it doesn't really distract from the story at all. Even though I had no idea at the time what the hell the Typhon Pact was or what Voyager was up to, I was able to quickly catch up to this, no problem.

2. I want something that feels like an expanded episode, not something wildly different than 99% of Star Trek that happens to occupy the same universe and use some familiar character names. Yes, I know it's a mandate from the publisher to do bigger, broader, and more far-reaching stories than could possibly have fitted into an hour or two of television, but that's missing the bloody point. I'm reading Trek tie-in novels because I want to get more of what I've seen on screen. I want Trek tie-in novels to feel like longer versions of episodes I've watched and loved. And yes, I know a done-in-one 45-minute episode doesn't have enough story to fill a novel, but a two- or three-part story could.

This is essentially what the TOS 5YM novels are, essentially TOS episodes in prose form. While they do tend to include some stuff that wouldn't be possible to do on a 1960s TV budget, they basically feel like TOS episodes. Now, I do agree they should do more TV series related novels for the other shows, there are reasons they don't and I understand those reasons. That being said, one of the highlights of Greg Cox's No Time Like the Past for me was that it was one of the first novels in years to depict TV series era 24th century, in this case Voyager, even if only briefly.

Just look at the Star Wars and Doctor Who tie-in novels. They feel like a story from their respective franchises. Why? Because they actively emulate their source franchises.

Eh, both franchises have broken their franchise mold. Especially Doctor Who during the era of the Virgin New Adventure novels, which are infamous for being far more adult than the show has ever been, with gratuitous profanity, sex, and violence.

3. I want something that's not trying so damned hard to be EPIC!!! Really, I get it. We all love the franchise and when a writer gets their hands on a beloved franchise like this they want to really blow out the training wheels, but calm down, this isn't Game of Thrones. I don't need 17 different time periods, with 20 different viewpoint characters, with planets from across half the damned galaxy to enjoy a story.

We usually only get those kind of storylines every two to three years. Granted, this year there's more because of the 50th anniversary.

 

[Christopher]

Eh, both franchises have broken their franchise mold. Especially Doctor Who during the era of the Virgin New Adventure novels, which are infamous for being far more adult than the show has ever been, with gratuitous profanity, sex, and violence.

I never saw it as gratuitous, in the sense of not serving a story purpose. It's just that the stories were targeting an older audience. Personally I found the more adult content incongruous for Doctor Who, but I didn't find it prurient or badly written. (I was more turned off by how dark and dystopian the books tended to be.)

 

[RandyS]

Yes, this exactly. I have less than zero interest in some grand unfolding meta-plot that's a continuation of the series I love. I want more TOS with the whole crew on the ship, series or movie era. I want more TNG with the whole crew on the ship, series or movie era. I want more DS9 with the whole crew on the station, and the station at the mouth of the wormhole...because apparently it's since moved in the lit universe...

But that's kinda the whole point. There's no jump-on point. It's a continuing serialized story at this point. Either you read recaps of most of the stuff since the relaunch or you're shit out of luck and confused to no end. As the tail of the meta-plot gets longer, the harder it will be for new readers to get on-board.

And no offense to the Trek lit writers, but I'm not interested in most of the side characters that have been promoted to center stage, nor am I that interested in stories centering on one on-screen main cast member surrounded by characters I've never heard of and don't care about. Clearly you're doing something right because people are reading your books, and well done for that. But I just want straight TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT fiction. Something recognizable and familiar. Which is the entire point of reading tie-in novels. To me at least.

Agreed. And all of your points are why I gave up on the 24th century novels and stick mainly with TOS these days.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way, but I still don't expect things to change any time soon.

 

[donners22]

I stopped buying Trek novels in 2001 (the Millennium series being the final straw), having bought around 100 over the previous decade. I still borrowed them from my library for a while, but few sparked my interest.

None of the relaunches other than Enterprise interested me for a variety of reasons, there seemed to be an excess of mass-disaster plots and I didn't particularly like the work of some of the new authors.

I also share the OP's frustrations with info dumps - and it's not just for info from the litverse. I remember one relatively recent book which recited TOS episodes for pages, and offered such little insight or creative spin that they felt like copy-and-pastes from Memory Alpha.

Thankfully I can still re-read those old novels now and again and find them enjoyable, but it would be nice to have some fresh material.

 

[Jarrod]

My takeaway from this thread is that I am SOL when it comes to getting a new 24th Century Star Trek book that in any way resembles the show whose name is emblazoned on the cover any time soon.

 

[DeepSpaceYorks]

Really, my biggest problem is very limited funds. A new book is a luxury item to me and I have to really justify it 100%. I'm wary to pick up a Trek novel that is part of an ongoing continuity. £7.99 is a lot for me.

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, personally, my only real frustration is with DS9 and where it's gone. I'm all for a change in status quo in the titles after their TV runs--I liked where TNG, VOY, and ENT went--but I just feel that too much changed in DS9 for me. It might be because of where my favorite characters went, and I'm not really digging who replaced them.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Some books have a "The story so far..." section at the front that you can choose to read or not to read, detailing what you missed. But really, when it's a tie-in of a popular franchise, you can just look a lot of it up on the Internet

I read mostly only TOS 5YM books too for the same reason. There's more room to play around with there in show-set stories - all the ambiguous times in between. When you have TV series story arcs, inserting an in-novel incident which doesn't go with the rest of the larger story and is never mentioned again and never seems to affect anyone long term seems like another universe. But Trek can have such things.

 

[flandry84]

The situation being described seems analogous to where television itself is at now.
The traditional episodic TVs show is now becoming a rarity being replaced by ongoing multi-arc series that the viewer either gets on board with...one doesn't.The new Trek series is like this I think.
Myself,I love the new DS9 and Titan,am ambivalent about TNG(hate almost every character),have given up entirely on Voyager and never engaged with Enterprise at all,so perhaps I am an atypical reader.

 

[Scout101]

Guess I never minded the 400-year long 5 year mission, I'm ok with not all the stories hanging coherently. Nice when they do, and between some authors, that attempt was made, but I'm good with taking the toys out, playing with them, and putting them back occasionally. Yeah, can't kill anyone (major) or blow up the Enterprise, but that's ok sometimes. Just a good romp with a comfortable cast of old friends.

I'm perfectly fine with the entire EU that has sprung up around 24th century Trek, but it definitely feels like a bit of an obstacle at times. And I own every book, and still can't always remember who is who. Which kinda leads to caring less about them when they come up. This is way more organic and makes sense in-universe (as opposed to Kirk's crew staying together cradle to grave), but I care a lot less about the new people and sometimes zone out a bit when they come up. Not intentionally, but with the slower publishing schedule, I sometimes only 'see' them once a year or so, and don't have a visual to go with, so they don't always stand out any more than random crewman x.

Another item I've found is that I re-read the newer books much less than I do the older stand-alone books. I buy the new ones, read them, organize them on the shelf, and then can't say I usually touch them again. Maybe a good, concise trilogy or a random stand-alone I'll grab on occasion, but generally I look at the shelf, see Typhon Pact book 7, and my eye just keeps moving. Sure, it told a stand-alone story while advancing the overall narrative, but unless I'm reading that whole series again, I'm usually skipping over it for a re-read and grabbing a stand-alone, or at best a contained trilogy. I've literally read some of the old numbered and 'giant' novels until the covers fell off, and then had to buy another copy.

May just be a mental block, as I remember liking most of the books, just what comes up when I go to grab one to read on a plane or whatever.

 

[Greg Cox]

May just be a mental block, as I remember liking most of the books, just what comes up when I go to grab one to read on a plane or whatever.

Funny you put it that way. I always try to keep one eye on what I think of as "the airport reader" who just grabbed a random tie-in book at the airport and may have only a casual knowledge of whatever series or character I'm writing.