Love Old School Trek Classics? Let's Bantam Banter...

[Commishsleer]

A friend made this Si-s-s-s (click) costume, from "Death's Angel", then left for England - and I still have the papier-mache head in a suitcase. (The hands and gloves were used in a local TV commercial for pool chemicals - and eventually the rubber perished.):


Si-s-s-s (click) by Therin of Andor, on Flickr

Great costume.

But worst Star Trek book ever.
And that saying a lot because there's a fair amount of competition there.

 

[erastus25]

This year, I read "Spock Must Die!" by James Blish and I thought it was...hot and cold.

I thought there were some themes worthy of Trek, but I don't think Blish nailed the characters.

I know Blish wasn't at fault for Bones being replaced by Doc, but it was like a splash of cold water every time I read it.

I had the same thoughts. This story has the potential to be really good but it's limited by some practical problems. If Blish I had rewritten it in the '80s as part of the Pocket Books run I think it would have been an instant classic.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Great costume.

But worst Star Trek book ever.
And that saying a lot because there's a fair amount of competition there.

I could not disagree more. I thoroughly enjoyed Death's Angel. Almost as much as Trek to Madworld. Now, on the other hand, World Without End, The Starless World, and the ever-popular Devil World, now those were just plain nasty, especially since they were all basically the same story. And of course, Marshak & Culbreath's two "Phoenix" outings were long, dull, hard to follow, and more than just a tad K/S. And Ms. Sky's Vulcan was not her best effort, but then again, she was just getting started.

 

[Commishsleer]

Great costume.

But worst Star Trek book ever.
And that saying a lot because there's a fair amount of competition there.

I could not disagree more. I thoroughly enjoyed Death's Angel. Almost as much as Trek to Madworld. Now, on the other hand, World Without End, The Starless World, and the ever-popular Devil World, now those were just plain nasty, especially since they were all basically the same story. And of course, Marshak & Culbreath's two "Phoenix" outings were long, dull, hard to follow, and more than just a tad K/S. And Ms. Sky's Vulcan was not her best effort, but then again, she was just getting started.

***** SPOILER ALERT ******
***** SPOILER ALERT ******
***** SPOILER ALERT ******








Well I'll further qualify that.
Worst Star Trek novel that I have read.
I couldn't even finish it.
It sits on my book shelve as a reminder never to buy that book again.
If I believed in guns I would shoot it.

Worst Mary Sue character ever.
And I've read a lot of fan-fiction.

Although I'd like to say worst characterisation of Kirk ever I can't - I've read way worse. But its one of the worst I've read in a professional novel.

I'm just saying that I don't think Kirk and Spock would ever allow a Mary Sue to do what she did to Kirk's ship and roll over and take it because the Mary Sue was so wonderful and beautiful and clever. Picard, Janeway, Sisko, Archer would never allow it either IMO. No real Star Trek Captain.
I hate this novel so much.

End of rant.

 

[borgboy]

I recently read a lot of these Bantams. Price of the Phoenix was my favorite. The slash was thru the roof (and that's a good thing!), and I loved the characterization of the Romulan Commander. Fate of the Phoenix was ok but not nearly as good imo.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It sits on my book shelve as a reminder never to buy that book again.

Shouldn't that be true of all the books on your shelf, whether you liked them or not?

 

[Commishsleer]

It sits on my book shelve as a reminder never to buy that book again.

Shouldn't that be true of all the books on your shelf, whether you liked them or not?

No I actually bought that book twice (2nd hand) and dumped the first copy.
Then thinking it was a book I hadn't read I bought it again. OK maybe I wouldn't do it a third time but you know the book titles and covers aren't really that representative of whats in the book.

If only the blurb inside the cover said worst Star Trek book eva I wouldn't have bought it twice.

 

[UncleRogi]

This thread had me paging through my old Bantam collection and indulging in fond nostalgia.

Now I'm curious. We refer to some of these stories as "Mary Sue" stories. I started to wonder why? Does anybody know?

Was there actually a story or novel that the magic character was named "Mary Sue"? This particular reference isn't just confined to Trek either.

Does anyone have any cool anecdotes as to this?

 

[Defcon]

Now I'm curious. We refer to some of these stories as "Mary Sue" stories. I started to wonder why? Does anybody know?

Was there actually a story or novel that the magic character was named "Mary Sue"? This particular reference isn't just confined to Trek either.

From wikipedia:

The term "Mary Sue" comes from the name of a character created by Paula Smith in 1973 for her parody story "A Trekkie's Tale"[2]:15 published in her fanzine Menagerie #2.[3] The story starred Lieutenant Mary Sue ("the youngest Lieutenant in the fleet — only fifteen and a half years old"), and satirized unrealistic Star Trek fan fiction.[4] Such characters were generally original female adolescents who had romantic liaisons with established canonical adult characters, or in some cases were the younger relatives or protégées of those characters. By 1976 Menagerie's editors stated that they disliked such characters, saying:

Mary Sue stories—the adventures of the youngest and smartest ever person to graduate from the academy and ever get a commission at such a tender age. Usually characterized by unprecedented skill in everything from art to zoology, including karate and arm-wrestling. This character can also be found burrowing her way into the good graces/heart/mind of one of the Big Three [Kirk, Spock, and McCoy], if not all three at once. She saves the day by her wit and ability, and, if we are lucky, has the good grace to die at the end, being grieved by the entire ship.[5]
​

"Mary Sue" today has changed from its original meaning and now carries a generalized, although not universal, connotation of wish-fulfillment and is commonly associated with self-insertion. True self-insertion is a literal and generally undisguised representation of the author; most characters described as "Mary Sues" are not, though they are often called "proxies"[6] for the author. The negative connotation comes from this "wish-fulfillment" implication: the "Mary Sue" is judged as a poorly developed character, too perfect and lacking in realism to be interesting.[7]

 

[Desert Kris]

One of the more intriguing curiosities are these references to the various humanities, including some that haven't been discovered; almost as if they are suggesting the Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans are branchings of humanity. Not sure what to make of it.

I don't think Duane's intention was to claim that those species were actual members or offshoots of genus Homo. After all, she applied the term "humanities" to nonhominid forms like Sulamid and Denebians as well. She was using "humanity" more in a conceptual and ethical sense than a biological one -- humanity in the sense of personhood, of beings who possess the mental qualities and moral rights that we today consider the particular purview of human beings. Basically Duane posited that in the future we would extend our definition of "human" as we extended human rights and recognition to other species.

It's the kind of thing I could have seen happening with a drastic new-Battlestar Galactica type of reimagining for Star Trek; re-conceptualizing the time period and the nature of the characters and situations and so forth.


The rational is just one of the concepts that flitted through my mind, and the concept of all those other races being branchings from the original human race was another. Part of the fun of trying out these older novels is to allow my brain to sample the “flavor” of different possible continuities ST might have had before TNG and it's follow up shows steered that background information into different directions. I guess in another sense the book itself leaves the door open for at least one other possible universe that seems very likely to have some iteration of the Enterprise and her crew, open to any and all changes a reader or writer could imagine.


Coming back to your point about how to interpret “the humanities” it made me think of two readings of it offered by the first and last of the older TOS movies. The Undiscovered Country has a line of dialogue that I feel could be a warning to be cautious with it's usage: “Inalien? Human rights...if you could only hear yourselves. The Federation is no more than a Homo Sapiens only club.” Perhaps cynical, I'm sure some might look at it as a realistic commentary on how we can be a bit casual with our use or misuse of language, without thinking about where it's coming from.


Then there's The Motion Picture's tagline: The Human Adventure is Just Beginning. I love that tagline, and have spend time pondering on what it's trying to communicate to the audience about the movie's content, and the movie's place in the totality of the Star Trek fictional realm as it stood at the moment in time (and how it subsequently unfolded over the next several years). The interpretation you suggest for The Wounded Sky works smoothly when applied to The Motion Picture, which gets into the casual interaction with a mult-species crew for the Enterprise and a multi-species population for the Federation (not meaning to discounting TAS's contributions). Otherwise, I can only get a contradictory vibe, or the worrying notion of the Human race as having a more special significance in the ST narrative (beyond our metafictional knowledge that it's a movie made by humans for human consumption), or a hint at a deeper, undisclosed relationship between humans and the other sentient beings in the galaxy (though this is a perspective that is informed by having seen that TNG episode where they explore an ancient link between life in the galaxy, so I don't know if I could have conceptualized differently or similarly without having seen that one and had it there available for my mind to add or subract into these deliberations).


I'm almost done with The Wounded Sky now, it's only slow going because I'm a slow reader. They just returned to the Enterprise in realspace after their little worldbuilding exercise. It would be really hard for the book to crash in the remaining couple pages at this point, it's one of the best ST books I've read, and one of the best books I've read, period. In some sense, it's the Star Trek novel, the kind of novel that is the reason that novels are written for the Star Trek universe. What an amazing experience! I kind of wish this could be made into a ST movie, but another part of me is content to cherish it as an experience that I only saw in my mind's eye, with all the “inconsistencies” embraced as part of the novel's unique identity.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know if I'd call The Wounded Sky the perfect Trek novel, because it does idealize the main characters a bit too much to be believable. It is, however, the ultimate Star Trek myth, elevating the characters to the level of mythic archetypes and sending them on a cosmic quest that makes them players in a creation myth of their own.

 

[OverlordSpock]

I think Vulcan! was the first Star Trek novel I ever purchased. I'm not 100% sure on that, but it seems right to me. It's definitely not the best, but it didn't stop me from buying more Star Trek novels.

I guess I'm in the minority, but Death's Angel is my favorite of the Bantam line. In fact, Death's Angel is the first book I ever read cover to cover in one sitting (actually lying bundled up in bed on a particularly cold, snowy evening with nothing but my lamp and a pinging radiator to keep me company—one of my fondest memories). Yes, there is a HUGE Mary Sue character, but I loved just how oddball some of the ambassadors were and I really loved how the author portrayed non-humanoid aliens. It always bothered me how all the aliens mostly looked like humans in TOS.

I despised the Phoenix novels. Pure and utter trash. The less said about them the better.

The Galactic Whirlpool is enjoyable. Spock Must Die! and Spock, Messiah! are just weird, textbook definitions of how fluid Star Trek fiction was back in the day.

I have never read any of the others.

And, in response to whomever was talking the Crucible trilogy, I firmly believe the McCoy novel is one of the best Star Trek novels ever written. Absolutely beautiful. That made the other two, entirely forgettable entries in the trilogy all that more disappointing.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

It's been years since I've read any of the old Bantam and early Pocket novels, although I read all of them when they came out and reread many of them back when I had time to reread books. The great thing about those that were written when Star Trek was just the original series, the animated episodes, and one or two movies was that many of the authors gave their own personal "spin" to the ST universe, giving some fascinating interpretations .

I really liked Joe Haldeman's Planet of Judgment and suspect it still holds up well. I also remember enjoying The Price of the Phoenix and Death's Angel quite a lot, although I doubt I'd find as much to enjoy about them today.

Of the Pocket books, I read Vonda McIntyre's The Entropy Effect several times, and still think it's among the best ST novels ever published. It's a great science fiction story, and she has some intriguing ideas about the various characters, especially Kirk. My Enemy, My Ally is a great take on the Romulans, complementing the earlier The Final Reflection's exploration of Klingon culture.

Sure, a lot of these books don't fit with what the later movies and series established, but so what? Nice that people are still reading and enjoying them now.

 

[Christopher]

I guess I'm in the minority, but Death's Angel is my favorite of the Bantam line. In fact, Death's Angel is the first book I ever read cover to cover in one sitting (actually lying bundled up in bed on a particularly cold, snowy evening with nothing but my lamp and a pinging radiator to keep me company—one of my fondest memories). Yes, there is a HUGE Mary Sue character, but I loved just how oddball some of the ambassadors were and I really loved how the author portrayed non-humanoid aliens. It always bothered me how all the aliens mostly looked like humans in TOS.

Ironically, the book's aliens are one of the things I hate most about it. Aliens that look exactly like giant versions of Earth animals like cats and koalas and crocodiles and lampreys are no more plausible or imaginative than aliens that look exactly like humans. After all, humans are just another species of Earth animal anyway. (Not to mention the lame names. A pyramid alien named Hotep? A cat named Neko, which is Japanese for "cat"? That's not even trying. Although I guess names like "Romulan," "Saurian," and "Caitian" aren't that much better.)

 

[Desert Kris]

I don't know if I'd call The Wounded Sky the perfect Trek novel, because it does idealize the main characters a bit too much to be believable. It is, however, the ultimate Star Trek myth, elevating the characters to the level of mythic archetypes and sending them on a cosmic quest that makes them players in a creation myth of their own.

Sorry, sometimes I struggle with precision in word choice, especially when writing rapidly. I don't think I said that I thought it was perfect, and I definitely agree with you it's not perfect and the characters are a bit idealized. The opening sequences were heaviest with a sense of the saccharine for me, but I was happy with when the book got on with the story. It was also good for me, as a depressive type, to have a book that's just trying to be a cheerful, positive and wondrous adventure.

I think I meant The Star Trek novel in the sense you are describing above, the ultimate Star Trek myth. Just worded differently. I'm not trying to retcon my previous post, but I like the way you've expressed it, that's kind of what I thought I was going for.

Edited to add:

Looking at my last post, I guess maybe I overstated a little bit. When I fight with depression, what I choose to read or watch can sometime impact me, whether I want it to or not. The Wounded Sky has been good for my psyche; sometimes its good to have nice things to help get out of a mood slump. It's been a "best" book for me.

 

[Stevil2001]

I don't think you overstated it at all. The Wounded Sky is incredible. If you like the kind of stuff she does there with science-as-myth/legend, her Young Wizards books are worth checking out.

 

[OverlordSpock]

Ironically, the book's aliens are one of the things I hate most about it. Aliens that look exactly like giant versions of Earth animals like cats and koalas and crocodiles and lampreys are no more plausible or imaginative than aliens that look exactly like humans. After all, humans are just another species of Earth animal anyway. (Not to mention the lame names. A pyramid alien named Hotep? A cat named Neko, which is Japanese for "cat"? That's not even trying. Although I guess names like "Romulan," "Saurian," and "Caitian" aren't that much better.)

I agree that most of them were based on familiar things. I'll agree with you there. But, I just liked that they weren't just humans or humanoids. Plus, despite some of the subject matter, the novel was a bit of a fun romp too. I think a lot of it was tongue-in-cheek. But, keep in mind that the first time I read this novel, I was twelve years old, so that could very much have affected my perception of it.

 

[T'Avri]

Thinking of Mary Sue's (by the way, great explanation via Wikipedia, Defcon!) has anyone picked up a copy of Demons by J.M Dillard lately?

Although the character Anitra in many ways fits the Mary Sue profile, I actually have always loved this book. It may be just because it takes a peek into the more personal lives of Sarek and Amanda at D'H'riset or because it delves deeper into the lore and reality of ancient Vulcan psi lords... Or because Spock finally gets a believable girlfriend who doesn't make me puke up my plomeek soup... let's just say, besides the tragic girl wonder and unrequited love of McCoy it is a great read with many insights into Vulcan culture.

 

[Commishsleer]

Thinking of Mary Sue's (by the way, great explanation via Wikipedia, Defcon!) has anyone picked up a copy of Demons by J.M Dillard lately?

Although the character Anitra in many ways fits the Mary Sue profile, I actually have always loved this book. It may be just because it takes a peek into the more personal lives of Sarek and Amanda at D'H'riset or because it delves deeper into the lore and reality of ancient Vulcan psi lords... Or because Spock finally gets a believable girlfriend who doesn't make me puke up my plomeek soup... let's just say, besides the tragic girl wonder and unrequited love of McCoy it is a great read with many insights into Vulcan culture.

To me its not the female love interest that's the problem in any novel. Its when the main characters dote/admire them so much that they act out of character.
But the guys can have love interests and still have a good novel eg "The Entropy Effect" had a pretty admirable female character. But she wasn't perfect - in fact she was a pain or some of the time but you could see why Kirk might like her.

 

[T'Avri]

If I couldn't stomach a sappy love story, I never would have made it through the Shatnerverse books... that's totally unrelated and I most certainly do not want to contaminate this fine thread with the ashes of any Shatner created eden; but to be clear, I did like those books, especially Avenger. They don't hold any special place in my heart like many other earlier Trek novels do.


I also really enjoyed The Entropy Effect. It's a pretty solid novel and one of the better early publications. For some reason when I think about it I have a difficult time separating the plot from Greg Bear's Corona. Too many deadly spatial singularities I suppose.