Oddly enough, I made the exact same joke at his Shore Leave roast last summer. 
Michael Jan Friedman novels
- Thread starter RonG
- Start date
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
This makes me sad.
I really enjoyed Kahless. It was sort of a Klingon Take on First Contact, finding out the truth behind the legend. It would have been great if it was done in the style of The Final Reflection, with the current era only appearing at the beginning and end but it was still a fascinating look at a part of the Klingons we hadn't seen before.
In theory. It's been five years (and given what we know of the schedule, it'll hit six) since his last Trek novel. I demand evidence of his continued ability to write.How 'bout that fantastic Michael Jan Friedman, huh? Yeah, that guy sure can write.
Well, the Ghost Hunters have been keeping him busy . . . .
^ And we like more. And we're the ones writing the books. There's your answer. End of discussion.
It makes you sad that the authors, like most(?) of us, are ST fans who love to read/write tie-in novels that have lots of tie-ins?
There is nothing new in ST novels that were probably only permitted to exist with a (sometimes very "grafted on") bookend plot to reinforce their tie-in qualities for casual readers. "The Final Reflection" is not just a Klingon novel, it's a novel-within-a-novel, with a bookend plot about the TOS crew reading the novel and internal cameos of Sarek, Amanda, young Spock and a reference to newborn McCoy. Essentially to make the story viable as a tie-in ST novel, not just a SF novel that happened to be set in the pre-TOS universe. The author hoped the bookend plot wasn't needed at all, IIRC.
Certainly, books like "Strangers from the Sky", "Kahless" and "To Reign in Hell" have done similar to ensure they fit the demands of a tie-in novel.
Anything less than that and you're looking at original science fiction. And you said many threads ago that you already read a lot of SF. So I don't understand your need to read officially licensed ST novels without tie-ins to ST. What you seem to desire is probably not commercially viable, or may cause deep dissatisfaction in the more casual ST readers who pick up a ST novel and are stunned to see insufficient tie-ins to ST. Pocket Books pay a big licensing fee to use the ST brand and its characters.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
A tie in to ST doesn't necessarily have to be a character. It can be a place. A follow up to a previous adventure. A race that hasn't been seen much. When you start tying everything into TOS, for instance, it leads to the feeling that Kirk & company were the only ones that did anything. Everyone else in Starfleet is just their supporting characters.Was DS9 used for nothing except supporting TNG? Did Voyager reference Picard & company every other episode? Look at it this way, if Vanguard was a new TV series, would you want it to have as many ties to TOS or would you let it chart it's on course on the edges of the map that TOS established?
Vanguard has fewer ties to TOS than DS9 has to TNG. O'Brien and Keiko appeared in multiple TNG episodes before joining the DS9 cast; Dr. M'Benga only appeared in two TOS episodes. Worf, a TNG regular for seven seasons, became a regular on DS9. Carol Marcus and Clark Terrell were only in one TOS movie and only play supporting roles in VNG, and Nogura never actually appeared onscreen at all. DS9 had guest appearances by TNG characters like Q, Vash, Lwaxana Troi, Tom Riker, and Gowron (who became a major recurring player on DS9). Not to mention VGR-derived characters like Mirror Tuvok and Dr. Zimmerman. Not to mention making heavy use of the entire Maquis concept that was created as VGR backstory. Heck, for that matter, DS9's whole premise was a hodgepodge of elements introduced in TNG: Cardassians, Bajorans, wormholes, Trill, Ferengi, Wolf 359. DS9 was no less derivative than Vanguard, and in many ways even more so.
Vanguard is not just about "supporting" TOS. It's about expanding on the universe of TOS, in the same way that DS9 expanded on the universe of TNG. Both spinoffs had "pilots" featuring their contemporary starships Enterprise to help introduce them. Both spinoffs borrowed regular characters from their predecessors, but DS9 did it to a greater degree. Both spinoffs had/have occasional guest stars from their predecessors. Both spinoffs told/tell stories that were sequels or prologues to stories from other series (such as DS9's Mirror Universe and Maquis episodes).
If anything, Vanguard counters the impression that Kirk & co. did everything important. It establishes that a lot of what happened in TOS was actually a consequence of important decisions made by other people, that a lot of Kirk's adventures were merely peripheral aspects or aftereffects of the real stories happening somewhere else. The events in VNG are so big that they probably had ripple effects throughout known space, so the Enterprise was probably just one of multiple ships that were affected by the consequences of those events. So you've got it completely backwards. It's not the Vanguard authors who are treating Kirk as the center of all things -- it's just you.
But it's not a new TV series, it's a tie-in novel series to TOS. As such I expect to see tie-ins.
If it were a ST spin-off TV series, being made today, I would fully expect to see lookalike actors popping in regularly - in cameo, supporting and feature roles - as previously-known TOS characters (and TOS actors playing ancestors), plus namesakes of various 24th century characters. Ditto the various alien races and familiar tech designs.
Bingo. Comparisons to VOYAGER or DS9 miss the point. Those were actual tv shows, not tie-in books. They were the dog. The books are the tail. Tails are not meant to do their own thing. They only work if they remained attached to the dog!
The more closely, the better!
Sometimes the tails wag furiously, and sometimes, once upon a time, Richard Arnold docked 'em.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
If that's the case then why create Cervantes Quinn rather than use Harry Mudd? Why not have Alden from WNMHGB rather than using Ming? Instead of Zeke Fisher why not Doctor Piper? He could have left the ship an Vanguard and M'Benga could have replaced him as acting CMO on the Enterprise until they picked up McCoy.
If more closely is better, why create a new character at all if you can shoehorn in an existing one, even a minor one?
^ Because clearly - CLEARLY - there has to be a balance, and no one is arguing otherwise. They just put it slightly to one side of where you put it; it's not like their goal is any different from yours.
If it matters any, I think some authors (including Cox and KRAD) often overuse continuity, but I don't think Vanguard does. It's obviously a continuum.
If it matters any, I think some authors (including Cox and KRAD) often overuse continuity, but I don't think Vanguard does. It's obviously a continuum.
Exactly. At a certain point, we just have to accept that some things are just purely matters of subjective taste, and that the authors have different subjective tastes than we do.
For instance, David R. George III. Love the guy's writing. But some of his creative decisions -- such as the recent, highly controversial arc for a major character from Deep Space Nine in the recent book Typhon Pact: Rough Beasts of Empire -- just don't work for me. That doesn't mean I don't see his logic in why he made the decision he made, or that I think he's a bad writer. It just means that my subjective tastes are different from his. At that point, my choice is to either accept that we have different tastes and move on to enjoy the book for what it is, or to decide that I dislike the creative decisions made so much as to no longer want to read the book.
IMO it's better to add depth to a massive shared universe like Star Trek by reusing a character (or concept or whatever) or two than to tell a story that could just as easily not be Trek at all. Sometimes it's overdone a bit (Peter David and season four of Enterprise fanwanked themeselves blind), but when the right balance is achieved, all is good.
Exaggeration. Some of Treklit's most memorable original characters are PAD creations:
Quinton Stone, Rhianna Bonaventure, Cray the Andorian, Mackenzie Calhoun...
Guilty as charged. It's a matter of taste. Honestly, I probably would have used Harry Mudd instead!
The way I see it, if I'm going to write a STAR TREK book, I'm going to want to use Trek characters. The same way I'd want to use Catwoman, the Joker, or Renee Montoya in a BATMAN book.
Similar threads
