General Q & A Session For The Authors

[Greg Cox]

This is where I again recall writing an UNDERWORLD novelization that completely contradicted one of my own UW novels, published just five years earlier. As I recall, my editor seemed a little more uneasy about this than I was, breaking it to me gently.

I cut to the chase: "Look, if you're wondering whether I would have an issue writing a book that renders my previous book apocryphal, I have just two questions: what's the deadline and how much is the advance?"

This did result, however, in at least one amusing review on Amazon: "GREG COX, MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!"

 

[Christopher]

This is where I again recall writing an UNDERWORLD novelization that completely contradicted one of my own UW novels, published just five years earlier.

Well, I wrote a novel (Arachne's Crime) that contradicted some of the specifics of my first published story, rewriting it with greater scientific accuracy and more character depth and replacing it in the continuity. So we even do this with our own original universes sometimes. Arthur C. Clarke did it with Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars. David Gerrold did it with both Yesterday's Children and When HARLIE Was One.

There is no "correct" version of fiction. There are just ideas being explored.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Well, I wrote a novel (Arachne's Crime)

Gee, ya think? (considering that it's your current avatar)

Arthur C. Clarke did it with Against the Fall of Night/The City and the Stars.

ADF, too: he later contradicted a lot of his early Humanx Commonwealth stuff. Like Thranx being into body-surfing, and even into playing "living surfboard" for a human friend. Now, they're terrified of any body of water larger than a kitchen sink.

David Gerrold did it with . . . When HARLIE Was One.

Ironically, the first version (with massive computer networks and marijuana as a commercial product) is closer to today's reality than the "Release 2.0" version.

 

[Christopher]

Ironically, the first version (with massive computer networks and marijuana as a commercial product) is closer to today's reality than the "Release 2.0" version.

What's fascinating about Yesterday's Children/Starhunt is that the expanded edition does not alter a word of the original novel -- it just adds a bunch of new chapters afterward that completely reverse the original ending and thus completely change the meaning of the story. I actually prefer the original ending, but that's okay, since I can just stop reading at that point and I get the original version of the novel. So it's like two books in one. I used to have both versions of the book, but then I compared their texts a page at a time and confirmed that they were absolutely identical up to that point. So I sold the un-expanded edition, since the expanded edition still contains it.

It's practically a literal example of Orson Welles's line, "If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Or at least if you want your preferred ending.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

DG certainly got lots and lots of mileage out of his unsold "Tomorrow Was Yesterday" (not to be confused with the time travel episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday") spec ST outline: it was the genesis of Yesterday's Children, and in turn, of the whole Star Wolf series, and it was also the genesis of The Galactic Whirlpool.

Disclaimer: When HARLIE Was One is the only one of DG's non-ST books I've actually read. I've never read Yesterday's Children, or anything else in the Star Wolf series. There may be another visit to Alibris coming up.

 

[Damian]

I don't see a difference. In both regular science fiction and media tie-in fiction, we're taking a set of known facts and extrapolating from them to speculate about the unknowns. In both cases (provided the media franchise is still active), new data can supersede our speculations

The main difference is that with changes in real science, there is nothing anyone can do about that. You can't say 'gee, I kinda wish they didn't do that because it completely undid the work I did on that.' With a fictional change in a story, they made a choice to do that. Now I realize they didn't make a choice to undo or overwrite a previous story, sometimes they may not even be aware of it. But I think that makes it a little different from a change in real science that nobody has any real control over one way or another.

As far as being proprietary about our creations, that's just not an appropriate attitude for tie-in work.

I understand that, and thought I was clear in acknowledging that. I know you guys all realize with your tie in work that your story can be overwritten, negated, undone....whatever the appropriate word is.....at any time. I'm not suggesting otherwise. But I also know you guys are human beings too. I just wanted to know was there ever some backstory element someone wrote in a Star Trek novel that they thought really came out strong and good that they kinda wished hadn't been 'overwritten' in a future show. And like I said, what got me thinking about that was SNW and how it upended your backstory for Uhura in Living Memory (and how quickly that was done--if the novel was from years ago, maybe it wouldn't have been as noticed I guess).

But I know you guys know that's just the rules of playing in the tie-in sandbox. I don't even mean that someone would be angry about that, that would be inappropriate. Just maybe disappointed.

Of course at the same time I know those stories still exist and Paramount isn't going to recover all copies of Living Memory and have them burned just because they are inconsistent now with canon. Ditto for all my relaunch novels I love so much (and in that case it's been established that was a parallel timeline). So I suppose there's that.

 

[Christopher]

The main difference is that with changes in real science, there is nothing anyone can do about that.

That's not a difference at all, as far as my work is concerned. There's nothing that a tie-in writer like me can do about what the makers of a fictional canon choose to depict. That is the "reality" of that universe, and I have no more control over it than I do over physical reality.

In my own original universes, I'm God. They work however I want them to. But with tie-ins, I have to work with the established body of canonical evidence, which is, from a functional standpoint, exactly the same as researching science or history or any other subject matter you build a work of fiction around. And there's always the possibility of new evidence emerging that invalidates your speculations. Whether it comes from reality or from another writer's imagination makes no meaningful difference here, because in neither case do I have any power to change it.

You can't say 'gee, I kinda wish they didn't do that because it completely undid the work I did on that.'

Of course I can say that about the real world. There are a ton of things about the real world that I wish had been different. Like, I've often wished Earth's gravity were five or ten percent lower, and that the Sun weren't as blindingly bright. Since when were wishes limited to things you could actually change?

 

[KRAD]

BUT....that being said I'm curious if any of our authors who post here have ever developed some backstory that they were really proud of. They got done with that and thought, 'damn, I really liked how that turned out.' Then some episode comes out and blows that backstory right out of the water and just feel like 'what a bummer' and wish the show hadn't done that.

Not yet, though it wouldn't surprise me if season three of Picard finally gave Worf's mother a name that's different from the one I gave her in The Art of the Impossible. (It also wouldn't surprise me if it didn't, since no one seems to give a shit about Worf's Mom. Sigh.)

I also wish I'd known that Enterprise was going to establish that Jonathan Archer was an early Federation President in time for me to work it into Articles of the Federation, but the book had already gone to press when that revelation occurred. But that doesn't really fit your criteria....

 

[Damian]

I also wish I'd known that Enterprise was going to establish that Jonathan Archer was an early Federation President in time for me to work it into Articles of the Federation, but the book had already gone to press when that revelation occurred. But that doesn't really fit your criteria....

Well, sure it can. It's not a major plot point perhaps. For that it's just a case of poor timing. If you had some information just a bit earlier your novel could have been consistent with what was shown on screen in what would likely have been just a minor editing change.

Sometimes those are the things that can be more frustrating. A simple change that could have kept things consistent if the timing was just a little different.

That's not a difference at all, as far as my work is concerned. There's nothing that a tie-in writer like me can do about what the makers of a fictional canon choose to depict. That is the "reality" of that universe, and I have no more control over it than I do over physical reality.

I dunno. I think there is a difference. The showrunners make choices about fictional story ideas. They (nor anyone) has control over new facts about science. I think that makes it a bit different. Perhaps not to you, but overall. Yes, when it comes to story ideas it may be a blind choice in the sense they may not even be aware that some novel may have already covered that story idea (and it very well may not make a difference if they did). But they can choose to do that, or not to do that when it comes to a fictional idea.

Of course I can say that about the real world. There are a ton of things about the real world that I wish had been different. Like, I've often wished Earth's gravity were five or ten percent lower, and that the Sun weren't as blindingly bright. Since when were wishes limited to things you could actually change?

Kind of going off into the deep end here, aren't we ? I'm just talking about story ideas you guys worked on that have been overwritten by canon in Star Trek and if there was ever something you were so happy and proud of that you just sorta wished had been left alone basically (even knowing that goes with the territory). So just a specific wish. Not general fantasy wishes like I wish cupcakes were good for you (BTW, that would be awesome, just sayin ).

 

[Christopher]

I dunno. I think there is a difference. The showrunners make choices about fictional story ideas. They (nor anyone) has control over new facts about science. I think that makes it a bit different. Perhaps not to you, but overall.

But your question was specifically about me and people like me. Wthin the parameters of the question as you yourself defined it, a question about how we, the writers feel about it, my answer is that for me, there's no functional difference. In neither case do I have any control over what new information may be revealed after what I wrote has already been published.

If there is a difference, it's that in original fiction, a writer sometimes has the opportunity to re-release it in rewritten form to correct scientific errors, as I did when I expanded "Aggravated Vehicular Genocide" into Arachne's Crime, or as Poul Anderson did with some of his early Dominic Flandry and Nicholas van Rijn stories when he later collected them. But there's at least one case of that happening in Trek, with Diane Duane's novels being adjusted in The Bloodwing Voyages to make them slightly more consistent with the canon timeline.

Yes, when it comes to story ideas it may be a blind choice in the sense they may not even be aware that some novel may have already covered that story idea (and it very well may not make a difference if they did). But they can choose to do that, or not to do that when it comes to a fictional idea.

Because it belongs to them, so they have every right to do whatever they want with it. We're just hired contractors working on their behalf. It's like getting hired to paint someone else's house. It's not your house, so you don't get to feel proprietary about the work you did there. They paid you to do it, so it belongs to them, and it's theirs to do with as they please, without you having a say in it. It would be foolish and unprofessional to get upset about that. It's just not the same as the work you do on your own property.

It's because I value my control over my original universes that I defer to other people's control over their universes. I think about how I'd feel about letting someone else write in one of my worlds, how I'd want them to respect my vision of the universe and my control over how it goes, and I try to behave the same way when I'm the one invited into someone else's universe. I respect their ownership of their own property. I don't get upset that I don't get to be in control, because I have no right to expect to be.

 

[Greg Cox]

Along the lines of something I wish I'd known: I could have used the term "Augment" when I was writing the Eugenics Wars books back in the day, just so I didn't have to keep typing "genetically-engineered superhuman" or whatever. But, of course, ENTERPRISE didn't introduce that term into Trek's technology until after those books saw print.

I did, however, get to use it in my new Khan short story in STAR TREK EXPLORER magazine. Finally!

 

[Damian]

It's because I value my control over my original universes that I defer to other people's control over their universes.

And I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But you're still a human being too. Just because some author might have wished the story they wrote was not overwritten by canon doesn't mean they don't respect the right of the showrunners/creators to do what they want with the show.

Really I just go back to the original question, whether there was some background story element about a character or event in Star Trek that they provided in a novel that they wish was not overwritten by canon. But it's not about who has control over the franchise. That is established. Ultimately Paramount has final say as the owner of course.

Perhaps a better way to ask the question would be, let's say in a fantasy world if Paramount said to a book author we will allow one story element (a backstory on a character or event) to be preserved in the canon and the future shows would keep that story intact, what would that be? Is there one that you are especially proud of that you wrote in Star Trek that in a perfect world would be kept intact? A favorite? I know it's utter fantasy of course. But I'm just trying to phrase the question a little differently.

Along the lines of something I wish I'd known: I could have used the term "Augment" when I was writing the Eugenics Wars books back in the day, just so I didn't have to keep typing "genetically-engineered superhuman" or whatever.

Yeah, I can see that being a little easier to type out then 'genetically-engineered superhumans" . In that case an editorial change that would have made your life easier.

I guess there are probably times after you guys write a book and something comes up on a show later on and you actually like what they did better with that story idea or character and think, damn, wish I thought of that LOL.

 

[Christopher]

And I wouldn't suggest otherwise. But you're still a human being too. Just because some author might have wished the story they wrote was not overwritten by canon doesn't mean they don't respect the right of the showrunners/creators to do what they want with the show.

I don't know why you keep harping on a question I've already answered multiple times. Yes, I regret it. But I'm an adult and a professional and and I knew going in that it was bound to happen someday, so I'm not going to throw a tantrum over it. Can we move on now?

Perhaps a better way to ask the question would be, let's say in a fantasy world if Paramount said to a book author we will allow one story element (a backstory on a character or event) to be preserved in the canon and the future shows would keep that story intact, what would that be? Is there one that you are especially proud of that you wrote in Star Trek that in a perfect world would be kept intact? A favorite? I know it's utter fantasy of course. But I'm just trying to phrase the question a little differently.

For that to happen, you have to join the show's writing staff. Or else create your own universe where it's all yours to do as you wish.

I mean, good grief, even that isn't a guarantee that future shows will keep something intact. Look at what Strange New Worlds did with the Gorn. Hell, I've thrown out pieces of my own universe. Canon is never a guarantee of immutability. Creativity is a process of change and adjustment. The only creative works immune to change are the ones no longer being actively created. And even those can be altered -- movies get remastered on re-release, books get re-edited or translated, paintings or sculptures suffer wear and get restored.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'll admit that, while writing my Q trilogy, I lived in fear of some new VOYAGER ep coming along and messing up my plot -- while I was actually writing those books.

Once the books were safely published, I stopped worrying about it.

 

[Damian]

For that to happen, you have to join the show's writing staff. Or else create your own universe where it's all yours to do as you wish.

Yes, yes. I understand that. That's why I posed it as a wishful thinking type of question. I thought I was clear about that. I know the rules with tie ins, and I understand you all know that even better than I. This was just something I was curious about from an author's perspective. I simply wanted to know if there was something someone wrote for a Star Trek novel/story that they were really proud of that in a perfect world would have been kept intact (at least mostly) but was 'over-written' by a future show. That's all. No expectations whatsoever that would ever actually happen.

I'll admit that, while writing my Q trilogy, I lived in fear of some new VOYAGER ep coming along and messing up my plot -- while I was actually writing those books.

Once the books were safely published, I stopped worrying about it

That's another way of looking at it . I can imagine being paranoid that you're halfway through writing the 3rd book of the trilogy and suddenly Voyager does something that totally makes your trilogy incompatible and now you're stuck trying to put the pieces back together.

I wonder how many times that has happened. An author is more than halfway writing a Star Trek novel when suddenly something on screen makes their novel impossible and now all that work is for nothing. They either have to scrap it altogether, or they have to go back and redo large parts of the novel to be consistent with the new episode/movie.

 

[Christopher]

I simply wanted to know if there was something someone wrote for a Star Trek novel/story that they were really proud of that in a perfect world would have been kept intact (at least mostly) but was 'over-written' by a future show.

I think we wish that about all our work, but know that there's no way to guarantee it. Again, from my perspective, it's exactly the same as writing any science fiction. I hope my conjectures won't be contradicted too soon by new discoveries or future events, but I have to face the reality that they could be.

I wonder how many times that has happened. An author is more than halfway writing a Star Trek novel when suddenly something on screen makes their novel impossible and now all that work is for nothing. They either have to scrap it altogether, or they have to go back and redo large parts of the novel to be consistent with the new episode/movie.

It's not unusual for a writer to do work that goes unpublished. Generally you get a lot of rejections before you finally break in; there's a saying that a writer's first million words are practice. And even once you're established, there's no guarantee everything will sell. And rewriting a work, often massively, is more the norm than the exception. Creation is a process of successive approximation, of refining and fixing as you go.

Certainly it would be frustrating to get halfway through a book and then find out you have to start over, especially if you're on a deadline. But this profession is full of frustrations.

And unpublished work is not "for nothing." It's practicing your craft. Writing is not about getting every last word and idea published. It's about trying a bunch of things out and narrowing them down to the parts that work. For every word that reaches an audience, there are many words that never will, because they're from unsold stories or rough drafts or abandoned dead-end paths, or from outlines or background notes that are for your eyes only.

And the stuff that doesn't sell the first time is a source of ideas that you can recycle in something else. I turned one of my first unsold spec novels into Titan: Over a Torrent Sea. I turned a rejected story for the Strange New Worlds anthology into the first half of Titan: Orion's Hounds. An abandoned TOS novel pitch became the B plot in DTI: Watching the Clock. None of it is for nothing.

 

[Damian]

And unpublished work is not "for nothing." It's practicing your craft. Writing is not about getting every last word and idea published. It's about trying a bunch of things out and narrowing them down to the parts that work. For every word that reaches an audience, there are many words that never will, because they're from unsold stories or rough drafts or abandoned dead-end paths, or from outlines or background notes that are for your eyes only

I suppose that's true enough. Worse case scenario is that something you wrote is completely abandoned, but even then, it's still practice. And like you noted, you may still salvage something of what you wrote in some future story, perhaps even in an unrelated franchise or original work.

Come to think of it that even happens a lot in scripted shows. I recall a number of the Phase II story ideas found their way into TNG. So this is something that can occur in any writing.

 

[Christopher]

Come to think of it that even happens a lot in scripted shows. I recall a number of the Phase II story ideas found their way into TNG.

Only two, and only because the 1988 writers' strike necessitated revisiting them (although "Devil's Due" took a couple more years before they got a draft they were willing to film). But there have certainly been cases where a writer has reworked a rejected script for one show into a successful script for another. I recently learned that Marvel's Civil War storyline in the comics was originally developed for their Ultimate universe instead of the main "616" universe where it ended up. It would probably have been a better fit for Ultimate, which was a lot darker.

 

[Greg Cox]

Oh, I recycle rejected pitches and outlines (as opposed to actual stories) all the time, although sometimes they change a lot in translation. I've turned rejected VOYAGER pitches (for the TV show) into TOS, TNG, and even FARSCAPE stories. (Trust me, turning Seven of Nine into Aeryn Sun was easier than you might think.)

And my TERMINATOR novel incorporates a whole plotline from a rejected FIREFLY proposal.

Waste not, want not!

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

While reading the above, for some reason I had Farscape confused with Futurama. Not that I'd seen either one. (Why don't we have a Pakled emoticon?)