Morgan Bateson

[Jedi_Master]

However, there have been ones who just don't like this book or Carey at all whereas I've liked every Carey book I've read and enjoyed the naval/sail perspective of this book and that Bateson reminded me A LOT of Frazier Crane. Her style may not fit in with the current style of trek lit but during the time she was a prolific trek writer, i considered Diane Carey and Michael Jan Friedman my favorite authors. I've missed their contributions.

Agreed. Maybe not so much about MJF, but as far as Diane Carey goes, I think you're dead-on.

I think that if TOS was the only Trek we knew, Carey would be at the top of the heap as far as treklit goes. But, trek sensibilities ahave changed since the advent of TNG. I always repsected that she didn't try to shoehorn the later trek "feel" (for lack of a better word at the moment) into her TOS work.

There are days that I miss the old- school freewheeling nature of Trek fiction.

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.
Now Star Wars novels seem to bounce around all over the place, and Star Trek novels are fairly tightly controlled.

Weird.

 

[Christopher]

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.

Well, that can't be right. That was the time period when Trek novels were subject to the most stringent restrictions by Paramound Licensing (in the person of Richard Arnold), when they became required not only to avoid contradicting canon, but to avoid introducing any major ideas beyond what was in the canon. It was the most "strictly controlled" era in all of Trek Lit history. Hell, it was the era when the term "canon" first became a factor at all.

And even earlier, in the early '80s when authors like Vonda McIntyre and John M. Ford and Diane Duane were free to bring their own idiosyncrati interpretations to the Trek universe, that wasn't about ignoring "canon;" it's just that there was so little canon at the time, so much about the universe that hadn't been locked down, that there was a lot more room to interpret the broader universe in a variety of ways.

 

[DS9Continuing]

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.

Well, that can't be right. That was the time period when Trek novels were subject to the most stringent restrictions by Paramound Licensing (in the person of Richard Arnold), when they became required not only to avoid contradicting canon, but to avoid introducing any major ideas beyond what was in the canon. It was the most "strictly controlled" era in all of Trek Lit history. Hell, it was the era when the term "canon" first became a factor at all.

If I may, I think that's probably what he meant. That, because the books couldn't establish anything within current ongoing storylines or make any substantial changes in the status quo, the Literature had to be necessarily detached from the onscreen adventures. Thus seeming like "any story the author wanted" - like just any old story that happened to have Star Trek characters plugged into it, rather than the much more relevant and closely related stories we get these days.

As you say, I'm sure the sheer amount of canon to be adhered to affects that perception. There is enough canon - and enough holes in that canon - that completely random and unrelated stories aren't really required anymore. There's always another hole to be filled.

I do however suspect that JediMaster is using the word "canon" differently to you, Christopher - in the sense of "what's going on on the show right now" as opposed to "what must be officially acknowledged." I'm sure you're probably about to go off on how there's only one meaning of the word anyway...

 

[mindx2]

There are days that I miss the old- school freewheeling nature of Trek fiction.

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.
Now Star Wars novels seem to bounce around all over the place, and Star Trek novels are fairly tightly controlled.

Weird.

I respectfully disagree. I love the direction Trek lit is taking, and has taken, since the DS9 relaunch. I think the authors stories are MORE varied and unique than in the Arnold-era! The new continuity also gives the lit universe a... hard to think of the right word... "grounded in reality" feel. What I mean is that dramatic, and sometimes tragic, events effects these characters going forward without the dreaded reset switch going off. We see ourselves grow as individuals, as well as relatives and friends and now we get to see our beloved Trek characters grow as well.

So kudos to the authors and editors responsible for the current trend of excellent Trek lit

 

[Steve Roby]

Ah, it's good to agree unreservedly with Christopher again.

 

[DS9Continuing]

I respectfully disagree. I love the direction Trek lit is taking, and has taken, since the DS9 relaunch. I think the authors stories are MORE varied and unique than in the Arnold-era! The new continuity also gives the lit universe a... hard to think of the right word... "grounded in reality" feel. What I mean is that dramatic, and sometimes tragic, events effects these characters going forward without the dreaded reset switch going off. We see ourselves grow as individuals, as well as relatives and friends and now we get to see our beloved Trek characters grow as well.

This is the argument I always make as regards the Deep Space Nine versus Voyager dichotomy.

On DS9, the show was designed to be sequential, with new stories building off previous ones. VOY was the opposite - designed to be anthological, which each new story beginning and ending within itself and having little to do with past stories. (Obviously this is a generalisation in both cases, but it plays to the averages.)

And this affects the kind of stories they can tell. If you're not allowed to make any significant changes in the status quo, and all episodes have to be individual, as on VOY, well there are only so many stories out there. So what you come up with is inevitably going to become predictable and repetitive.

Whereas DS9 always looked back at what they had already done, and simply asked, "What happens next?" And that leads to more interesting stories because they're based on long-term situations rather than "42 minutes and it's over."

I'd say that the current TrekLit environment tries to do a balance of both, but with a definite preference for the DS9 model.

 

[JD]

There are days that I miss the old- school freewheeling nature of Trek fiction.

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.
Now Star Wars novels seem to bounce around all over the place, and Star Trek novels are fairly tightly controlled.

Weird.

I respectfully disagree. I love the direction Trek lit is taking, and has taken, since the DS9 relaunch. I think the authors stories are MORE varied and unique than in the Arnold-era! The new continuity also gives the lit universe a... hard to think of the right word... "grounded in reality" feel. What I mean is that dramatic, and sometimes tragic, events effects these characters going forward without the dreaded reset switch going off. We see ourselves grow as individuals, as well as relatives and friends and now we get to see our beloved Trek characters grow as well.

So kudos to the authors and editors responsible for the current trend of excellent Trek lit

I'm with you there mindx2. I'll admit, the last couple years might not have been the best, but I'll still take modern Trek over the Arnold era stuff. I'm really starting to wonder if Jedi Master is reading the same Trek Lit as the rest of us.

 

[NSTrekfan]

The problem with having continuity between the books is that it can lead to Small Universe Syndrome. Just because everyone can meet up, sooner or later they will. One of these days I'll sit down and figure out which of the characters from the canon series Elias Vaughn HASN'T met yet.

 

[Christopher]

^The whole idea behind Elias Vaughn was to create a character with so much life experience behind him that it was plausible that he could've met so many different people. If a character who was only 22 years old were portrayed as crossing over with every established series in the course of a year, that would be contrived and unlikely. But if a man who's been in Starfleet for over 80 years is shown interacting with characters from multiple series over the entire span of that career, with years or even decades between such encounters, that's far more believable.

 

[Jedi_Master]

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.

Well, that can't be right. That was the time period when Trek novels were subject to the most stringent restrictions by Paramound Licensing (in the person of Richard Arnold), when they became required not only to avoid contradicting canon, but to avoid introducing any major ideas beyond what was in the canon. It was the most "strictly controlled" era in all of Trek Lit history. Hell, it was the era when the term "canon" first became a factor at all.

And even earlier, in the early '80s when authors like Vonda McIntyre and John M. Ford and Diane Duane were free to bring their own idiosyncrati interpretations to the Trek universe, that wasn't about ignoring "canon;" it's just that there was so little canon at the time, so much about the universe that hadn't been locked down, that there was a lot more room to interpret the broader universe in a variety of ways.

My statement was based on my personal perception of events, and was entirely my own personal opinion so of course I was "right".

However seeing my offhanded reminiscing has started a discussion, let me clarify my statements for some of the contrarians (cough.Christopher.. cough)

When I was a teenager, Star Trek novels had no connection to the established "canon" of the shows or novels save the fact that they used the same characters, places, etc.
The events in the novels had little to no impact on the shows or movies, and in fact some of the historical interpretations found in the novels in the late eighties and early nineties (namely "Federation" by the Reeves - Stevens) were directly contradicted by later "canon" material. Therefore when you picked up a Star Trek novel, you knew you could just enjoy the story without having to keep track of the secondary characters, planets, events, ships, or tech because none of them would likely show up again. You just picked up the book, and enjoyed.

At about the same time (When "Heir to the Empire" was released) Star Wars novels and comic books were the only new Star Wars stories being told. Therefore they all connected. The secondary characters in the novels and comic books would show up elsewhere. A reader would need to read almost all available material if he or she wanted to stay abreast of developments within the Star Wars universe.


Now we come to today. Star Wars is a sprawling media empire yet again, with a MMORPG, a TV series, comics, recently released movies, etc. There are dozens of individual stories and story lines one can follow, most of which do not interact with the other. You can follow the adventures of the big 3 (luke, leia, han) or you can watch the cartoons, or you can play Old Republic online, and you don't need to know more than the basics.

Star Trek on the other hand is in a little bit different situation. New material is almost exclusively found in the novels. Characters, events, tech, and other details are connected to some extent, and the reader at times is forced to look up stuff on Memory Beta just to keep track of things.
They are still very enjoyable, but I agree that the Small Universe issue is creeping in a bit.
Elias Vaughn, Spock, Scotty, and other characters seem to be everywhere. Tiny bit characters from the TV shows are expanded on and given backstories (another thing that Star Wars was big on in the early nineties).

I personally enjoy the novels a great deal, and am almost certain that I am reading the same ones as JD, I just was making offhanded comment about how much they seem to have changed, both in their role and in their linked continuity, from the novels of my youth.

 

[Jedi_Master]

There are days that I miss the old- school freewheeling nature of Trek fiction.

When I was growing up (back in the wild days of the late eighties and early nineties) Star Wars novels from Zahn on held to a strictly controlled path and Star Trek novels just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted, "canon" be damned.
Now Star Wars novels seem to bounce around all over the place, and Star Trek novels are fairly tightly controlled.

Weird.

I respectfully disagree. I love the direction Trek lit is taking, and has taken, since the DS9 relaunch. I think the authors stories are MORE varied and unique than in the Arnold-era! The new continuity also gives the lit universe a... hard to think of the right word... "grounded in reality" feel. What I mean is that dramatic, and sometimes tragic, events effects these characters going forward without the dreaded reset switch going off. We see ourselves grow as individuals, as well as relatives and friends and now we get to see our beloved Trek characters grow as well.

So kudos to the authors and editors responsible for the current trend of excellent Trek lit

I also consider the modern novels to be excellent.
Just to expand on your grounded in reality comment, sometimes the family and friends list in the novels is so large that a reader is forced to figure out who this character is that everyone already seems to know.
The novelverse has grown quite large, and each character is important, and reappears fairly often. This leads to discussions like this thread where we are analyzing the support staff of a celebrity cameo on TNG!
So while I would be happy to see some members of the "family" such as Capt. Bateson show up again, when Lieutenant Ricky's third cousin Ensign Billy has a bit part in five novels - each of which treat him as a person that is well known, it gets a little confusing.

 

[Christopher]

When I was a teenager, Star Trek novels had no connection to the established "canon" of the shows or novels save the fact that they used the same characters, places, etc.
The events in the novels had little to no impact on the shows or movies, and in fact some of the historical interpretations found in the novels in the late eighties and early nineties (namely "Federation" by the Reeves - Stevens) were directly contradicted by later "canon" material. Therefore when you picked up a Star Trek novel, you knew you could just enjoy the story without having to keep track of the secondary characters, planets, events, ships, or tech because none of them would likely show up again. You just picked up the book, and enjoyed.

Well, that's not what you said. What you said was that it seemed to you that at that time, the novels "just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted." In fact, the opposite was true -- that was the time when the authors had the least freedom to tell whatever stories they wanted.

Because when we do have the freedom to tell whatever stories we want, Trek authors generally choose to build on continuity from screen canon and other novels. It's not something we're ordered to do by any higher authority, it's just something that emerges by authorial and editorial preference. That's why the novels published by Pocket in the mid- to late '80s had an emerging internovel continuity building on John M. Ford's Klingons, Diane Duane's Rihannsu, and the like, and why the novels published in the past decade or so have had an increasingly interwoven continuity. When we get to tell whatever stories we want, we often want to build on other stories, to explore connections between things, and so forth. The kind of situation you're saying you prefer, where each story is completely standalone and unconnected to everything else, is what you get when the authors are not free to tell whatever stories they want, but are required to work within strict limitations.

 

[Jedi_Master]

When I was a teenager, Star Trek novels had no connection to the established "canon" of the shows or novels save the fact that they used the same characters, places, etc.
The events in the novels had little to no impact on the shows or movies, and in fact some of the historical interpretations found in the novels in the late eighties and early nineties (namely "Federation" by the Reeves - Stevens) were directly contradicted by later "canon" material. Therefore when you picked up a Star Trek novel, you knew you could just enjoy the story without having to keep track of the secondary characters, planets, events, ships, or tech because none of them would likely show up again. You just picked up the book, and enjoyed.

Well, that's not what you said. What you said was that it seemed to you that at that time, the novels "just seemed to tell whatever story the author wanted." In fact, the opposite was true -- that was the time when the authors had the least freedom to tell whatever stories they wanted.

Because when we do have the freedom to tell whatever stories we want, Trek authors generally choose to build on continuity from screen canon and other novels. It's not something we're ordered to do by any higher authority, it's just something that emerges by authorial and editorial preference. That's why the novels published by Pocket in the mid- to late '80s had an emerging internovel continuity building on John M. Ford's Klingons, Diane Duane's Rihannsu, and the like, and why the novels published in the past decade or so have had an increasingly interwoven continuity. When we get to tell whatever stories we want, we often want to build on other stories, to explore connections between things, and so forth. The kind of situation you're saying you prefer, where each story is completely standalone and unconnected to everything else, is what you get when the authors are not free to tell whatever stories they want, but are required to work within strict limitations.

Chuckle. The joy of the internet is that people are free to take a few words and reinterpret them ad nauseum.
What I "said" is clearly recorded, and it is up to each individual reader it seems to interpret those words. The comments made by "lvsxy808" come the closest to my original intent.
It seems you have a point to make - and are arguing with perception of a teenager viewed through the fog of memory.

Whatever the reason - the stories in when I was a teen were loosely connected at best, and often diverged in plots, details, and even character representations. I enjoyed those novels, and enjoyed the casual aspects of reading them.

Of course I also enjoy the current novels, and have purchased almost all of them, including "Over a torrent Sea" and "Watching the clock". I appreciate the effort you and other authors go to when it comes to research and development. However, there was something fun about just grabbing a book at random and enjoying an adventure that seemed unconnected to the rest, it reminded me of TOS.

You have been kind enough to correct my impression, but you have to acknowledge the fact that it is counter-intuitive to look at a bunch of wholly unconnected books and see strict editorial control, and then look at a bunch of thoroughly connected books and see loose editorial control.

And again, my comment was meant to be offhanded. The only thing that unifies Star Trek fans is diversity, diversity in our tastes, preferences, and the like.

 

[Christopher]

You have been kind enough to correct my impression, but you have to acknowledge the fact that it is counter-intuitive to look at a bunch of wholly unconnected books and see strict editorial control, and then look at a bunch of thoroughly connected books and see loose editorial control.

Sure, but that's why I clarified what the situation actually was. What does it matter what you thought before, now that you know what was really going on?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Keep in mind that it's very likely that a lot of pre-Richard Arnold novels were still on the shelves of his local bookstore at the time, making for a very eclectic mix.

 

[Amaris]

I love Ship of the Line, and it's primarily because of Bateson. Plus, I'm a Diane Carey fan (along with my other favorite Diane, Diane Duane). I would love to see a Morgan Bateson series in Trek fiction. Hell, I'd love to see Bateson show up in a movie or series (played by Kelsey Grammer of course).

 

[Amaris]

I love Ship of the Line, and it's primarily because of Bateson. Plus, I'm a Diane Carey fan (along with my other favorite Diane, Diane Duane). I would love to see a Morgan Bateson series in Trek fiction. Hell, I'd love to see Bateson show up in a movie or series (played by Kelsey Grammer of course).

 

[Christopher]

^Oh no, J. Allen likes Bateson so much, he's trapped himself in a repeating time loop!

 

[captcalhoun]

THREE! THREE! THREE!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Quick question is he on the little ship or the big one it hits that blows up?