"Historian's Notes" need to change!

[IrritatingGameOfChess]

It IS kind of nerdy, but presented "within universe," so I don't see where it's that big of a deal.

It's no more nerdy than when a contemporary author publishes a new Sherlock Holmes story and the book states that it is "From the files of John Watson, M.D." and only EDITED by the real author. I'm also a Holmes fan and, while this sort of thing is rather silly, it doesn't really detract from the contents of the book, any more than the "Historian's Notes" detract from the Trek novels.

 

[Dayton Ward]

You're reading a Star Trek book.

By definition, you're a nerd, and whether there's a "Historian's Note" in the book or not, doesn't really matter at that point.

The only thing nerdier than reading a Star Trek book is...well...writing a Star Trek book, so...you know...we reach. Yay, brother.

Maybe you're just looking at the book in the store. You're a nerd there, too. You may not want to admit it, to yourself or anyone else, but within you lurks a nerd, seeking escape.

Embrace your nerdity.

I say this as a...you know...nerd.

 

[P0sitr0nic]

I like the Historians Note. Makes me realise all of Trek is being told as a history by those who will come after.

 

[JD]

I don't have any problem with the Historians' Notes, in fact I like them and find them incredibly usefull. As for the name, I don't really see why it should be changed, it gets it's point across fine now, so I really don't see any need to change it.

 

[Geoff Thorne]

Historian's Note:

This conversation takes place between me logging on and me screaming as the last shred of my sanity is burned away.

 

[William Leisner]

^ Do we have to read KRAD's posts first to understand yours?

 

[SicOne]

Yay! Preach, DaytonWard, Preach!

The only thing more nerdy than griping about the Historian's Note is logging on to a nerdy TrekBBS to vent your spleen about it to, well, quite frankly, nerds!

Revel in your nerdity, my friend; resistance is futile.

 

[SicOne]

And that's sayin' a lot, since I live in Nerdbraska...

 

[Geoff Thorne]

^ Do we have to read KRAD's posts first to understand yours?

I'd say that's a good rule in every case.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Historian's Note:

This conversation takes place between me logging on and me screaming as the last shred of my sanity is burned away.

Sanity is over-rated.

 

[captcalhoun]

The Star Wars books can get away with that timeline because they're situated to only reference each other and the films. Can't do that with the hours of TV shows, ten/eleven films and the huge back-catalogue of novels that Trek has. The Timeliners can probably tell us how daunting that would look on the page.

Likewise, the Star Wars books themselves are far fewer in number that Star Trek novels, and over a smaller section of time. Excluding the Darth Bane novels and the upcoming Nomi Sunrider novel, they've all taken place in the same period of about one hundred years, and there's a distinct focus on one particular family and their drama, while Star Trek novels take place over three different centuries, and focus on multiple ships and their crews.

um...

*points to Republic Commando novels and X-Wing series of NINE novels*

 

[JD]

Agreed. I think if you take every Star Wars book into account, it's actually quite a bit closer to the number of Trek books than you would think. There are still quite a few more Trek books, but it's still pretty close.

 

[Greg Cox]

Hey, if it works for DUNE . . . .

 

[Trent Roman]

Agreed. I think if you take every Star Wars book into account, it's actually quite a bit closer to the number of Trek books than you would think. There are still quite a few more Trek books, but it's still pretty close.

No, not even remotely. I don't have exact numbers to present, but as a reader in both I assure you the two are not comparable. The Star Wars fiction line only started up in the mid-nineties, and has never produced fiction at pace with the Trek line, even with the recent cutbacks. What would be a weak showing for Trek, quantitatively, would be a bumper crop for Star Wars. Counting the books I own, and alloting for those I don't have, I'd put the upper limit of Star Wars books at 150. TOS alone has more books than that; add in the rest, and the final number of Star Trek books must be the number of Star Wars books several times over.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[DGCatAniSiri]

The Star Wars books can get away with that timeline because they're situated to only reference each other and the films. Can't do that with the hours of TV shows, ten/eleven films and the huge back-catalogue of novels that Trek has. The Timeliners can probably tell us how daunting that would look on the page.

Likewise, the Star Wars books themselves are far fewer in number that Star Trek novels, and over a smaller section of time. Excluding the Darth Bane novels and the upcoming Nomi Sunrider novel, they've all taken place in the same period of about one hundred years, and there's a distinct focus on one particular family and their drama, while Star Trek novels take place over three different centuries, and focus on multiple ships and their crews.

um...

*points to Republic Commando novels and X-Wing series of NINE novels*

'Distinct' focus does not mean 'sole' focus. Besides, that's nearly fifteen novels out of... I'm estimating the number to be about a hundred and fifty, maybe? That's ten percent of the novels, meaning ninety percent of the novels focus on the Skywalker/Solo families.

 

[captcalhoun]

alright:

MedStar duology
Shatterpoint
Yoda: Dark Rendezvous
Darth Maul: Saboteur
Tales From/Of anthos. (five)
Lando trilogy
Death Star


that's 14. plus the other 13. that's 27 out of 150.

and IIRC, VOI was tooting over EIGHT HUNDRED Trek books/e-books in its contents and that's three years old.

 

[Thrawn]

Yeah; 800 sounds a lot closer.

 

[JD]

My bad, I guess I was overestimating by a few hundred. For some reason I was think they'd been going longer than the '90s.

So what about comics, which franchise would you say has more comics? I know there have definitely been alot more SW comics than novels.

 

[Stevil2001]

Well, there were seven SW novels in the 1970s, but I don't think that helps the numbers much.

 

[Christopher]

Well, there were seven SW novels in the 1970s, but I don't think that helps the numbers much.

Let's see, those would be Splinter of the Mind's Eye by Alan Dean Foster, the Han Solo trilogy by Brian Daley, and the Lando Calrissian trilogy by somebody-or-other? I think some of those were in the '80s.