No more Shatnerverse?

[Saul]

His books were new york times best sellers so he should at least get to print this next book as it seems only two books were planned, why not finish the series?

I have loved the Shatner books, they are a lot of fun to read and these are also written by J&G too so there is lots of cool stuff and ideas to fill the imagination. I like Kirk's character. He is a Hero after all. I was also highly interested in seeing more of Academy since I thought his adventures in the 24th Century had run it's course and the character should be taking it more easy. I felt the most recent 24th Century story not as good as the others although I liked how it ended.

Atleast the Academy years are something fresh and unexplored so far.

 

[elaithin]

Uh, it's not the publisher saying they won't print it. It's Shatner saying he won't write it because, in his opinion, the publisher "didn't market the book enough". That's his decision.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I read "The Return" and as a result haven't felt the urge to read any of his other books.

 

[Steve Roby]

I think people who feel like Kirk is used to the detriment of the other characters frankly haven't read the novels.

Well, you can think that all you want, but it won't make it any more true. As I said, I read the first trilogy and formed my opinions from what I read. If you don't agree, that's fine, but please don't act as thought the people who dislike these books have uninformed opinions, because--in many cases--that isn't true.

FWIW, I've read every one of the Shatnerverse novels, and I pretty much agree with EliyahuQeoni. But as a TOS fan, I like Kirk in the 23rd century.

I'm curious, do those of you who don't like the Shatner novels prefer Kirk or Spock? Those who like the novels?

I like both Kirk and Spock. I wouldn't say I dislike the novels, though. Most of them are entertaining enough. I just don't accept them as believable within the context of the Star Trek universe. They're too preposterous and over the top.

 

[Christopher]

Uh, it's not the publisher saying they won't print it. It's Shatner saying he won't write it because, in his opinion, the publisher "didn't market the book enough". That's his decision.

No, that's how he conveys the situation in one interview. He could just be putting spin on it to save face, blaming the publisher for lack of sales and talking about it as though the decision about the next book is solely his. Of course he has a say in that decision, but he doesn't own the publishing company so he can't tell them what to do. If they decide not to take the financial risk of doing a sequel to a book that didn't perform well, he can't make them change their minds.

Of course, all this is hypothetical. We don't really know what the sales figures were or what decisions are being made for what reasons. We know one person's public spin on events, but that doesn't prove anything.

 

[elaithin]

Right, which is what I was saying. There's absolutely no indication that Pocket said "We're not going to publish your next book", which is what some other posters seem to think. Shatner's not a victim here.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They should, at least, publish the next book.

It was announced, IIRC, that Shatner wrote "Academy: Collision Course" as part of a two-book contract so, unless sales were that disastrous, I'd assume he'll eventually write a second Young Kirk novel. But I don't think he's even started writing it yet.

It actually makes sense not to rush it. Once the new movie is out, he can incorporate some details from the new movie. We saw a similar strategy happen with the "Vulcan's Soul" trilogy, where Sherman and Shwartz were able to loop in the Remans from "Nemesis" into their already-planned trilogy - midway through writing it.

Shatner has complained that Pocket's marketing department didn't put much support behind that last book, but the Shatner novels have always sold well, so even lower-than-average sales were probably still not too shabby.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I won't lose any sleep either way. I've been fairly vocal in the past about my dislike of the uberKirk and his lackeys (within the novels) and also about J&G's writing talents being wasted on that little slice of the Trek universe. However, all that said, taking a look at the Amazon sales for the book in both the UK and the US, you can see that it sold quite well.

US sales: 45,158

UK sales: 83,471

Even if the UK sales are conflated by the US sales, that's still not a bad run for a ST Hardcover, and that's internet sales from one supplier. Factor in other internet sites and those sales from bookstores around the world and you can probably double that if not more. Just because a few people on the TrekBBS didn't like Collision Course (I haven't read it and therefore can't accurately comment) it appears that there are more than enough people who do buy his books.

This is all of course assuming (oceanful of salt, anyone) that Amazon's figures are accurate to some degree.

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

I'm not interested in a Young Kirk adventure. Shatnerverse was over for me with "Captain's Glory" - pretty perfect a way to say goodbye to Kirk and co. to the 24th century.

That said, I love the Shatnerverse. They were the Trek stories that kept me company during the crapiness of VOY and ENT. I very much value them, and aknowledge them in my personal continuity. They're that essential to me.

 

[Christopher]

However, all that said, taking a look at the Amazon sales for the book in both the UK and the US, you can see that it sold quite well.

US sales: 45,158

UK sales: 83,471

Even if the UK sales are conflated by the US sales, that's still not a bad run for a ST Hardcover, and that's internet sales from one supplier.

Uhh, those are sales ranks, not sales numbers. 45,158 means that there are 45,157 things in Amazon.com's stock that sold better than Collision Course. Look below where it gives the overall sales rank and it tells you that Collision Course is ranked #1 of all SF novels by Shatner, William; #19 of all Star Trek novels; and #43 of all books categorized as "Science Fiction/High Tech," whatever that means.

For comparison, A Burning House is currently ranked 19,994th, or the #6 best-selling Trek novel, and Terok Nor: Day of the Vipers is ranked 10,461st, or the #1 best-selling Trek novel. Forged in Fire is only the 77th-best seller in the Trek category, but that may just be because it's a few months older and most people have bought it already. So for a book that's similarly old, #19 maybe isn't a bad rank. (In fact, the first installment of Myriad Universes, which I'm in, is ranked #20 among ST books right now.) Although Homecoming and The Farther Shore are currently #2-3, despite being years old.

However, most of those numbers are artificially low, since Amazon's list of ST bestsellers includes various titles that aren't ST books at all. So A Burning House is actually 5th and Collision Course is actually 16th.

 

[Wowbagger]

^ Incidentally, how many copies does a Star Trek novel typically sell in, say, the first year of release? I've always wondered.

 

[elaithin]

Pocket never releases numbers.

 

[BrotherBenny]

However, all that said, taking a look at the Amazon sales for the book in both the UK and the US, you can see that it sold quite well.

US sales: 45,158

UK sales: 83,471

Even if the UK sales are conflated by the US sales, that's still not a bad run for a ST Hardcover, and that's internet sales from one supplier.

Uhh, those are sales ranks, not sales numbers. 45,158 means that there are 45,157 things in Amazon.com's stock that sold better than Collision Course. Look below where it gives the overall sales rank and it tells you that Collision Course is ranked #1 of all SF novels by Shatner, William; #19 of all Star Trek novels; and #43 of all books categorized as "Science Fiction/High Tech," whatever that means.

For comparison, A Burning House is currently ranked 19,994th, or the #6 best-selling Trek novel, and Terok Nor: Day of the Vipers is ranked 10,461st, or the #1 best-selling Trek novel. Forged in Fire is only the 77th-best seller in the Trek category, but that may just be because it's a few months older and most people have bought it already. So for a book that's similarly old, #19 maybe isn't a bad rank. (In fact, the first installment of Myriad Universes, which I'm in, is ranked #20 among ST books right now.) Although Homecoming and The Farther Shore are currently #2-3, despite being years old.

However, most of those numbers are artificially low, since Amazon's list of ST bestsellers includes various titles that aren't ST books at all. So A Burning House is actually 5th and Collision Course is actually 16th.

Mea culpa, but the UK site generally doesn't have those additions otherwise I would have spotted my own mistake.

I would still like to see some numbers though

 

[RookieBatman]

Well, throw cans at me if you want, but having read both Collision Course and the Crucibles, I must say I VASTLY preferred Collision Course to Crucible: Kirk. It seems popular on this forum to bash Shatner and proclaim Crucible to be The Greatest Books That Have Ever Been Written, but don't assume that everyone else agrees with you on that.

I love the stories Shatner and the Reeves-Stevens cook up. Of course they're about Kirk... you do know he played Kirk in the series, don't you? Does anyone complain when John De Lancie writes a book about Q, or the Garak guy writes a Garak book?

So tell us some things you liked about it. So far, I've read a lot of reviews that give a lot of reasons not to like the book, but I haven't really seen any positive ones besides the generic "it was fun" types of things. I would say that for me, the whole "small-universe" thing, not only Kirk and Spock meeting back then, but also cadet Kirk getting the Enterprise before anyone ever knew he would be commanding it (why didn't he get some other Connie, like the Lexington or Constellation?) is just to frustrating a coincidence for me. It's like Smallville; some of the same circumstances, just younger. And I don't really buy young Kirk being so rebellious. Where's the "stack of books with legs" that Mitchell talked about. I've never seen any indication ever onscreen that Kirk would've been like that. Not even his cheating on the KM; that just indicates that he's chronically unable to lose, not that he's a reprobate.
But I digress. I guess what I'm asking is for you to either counterpoint some of those factors, or else speak in defense of why the book is worth it despite them. I think I've said before that I find the R-S's to be the best Trek writers ever, so I really want to like this book, but I haven't heard anything that makes me think it'll be good. So, like, say something (specific) that's good about it.

 

[Csalem]

I liked The Return and Avenger but felt the books started going downhill after that, but on a gentle grade not a sudden drop. I'll buy CC when it is out in pb.

 

[Broccoli]

So tell us some things you liked about it. So far, I've read a lot of reviews that give a lot of reasons not to like the book, but I haven't really seen any positive ones besides the generic "it was fun" types of things.

I'll bite. I liked how Kirk was portrayed. I like the fact that he is shown to be clever and smart, but at the same time, doesn't know what to do with it. I liked how we actually learned how Kirk was brought into Starfleet. In the show, Kirk was always a wild card in terms of command style. Starfleet, for the most part, has been depicted as having a strict sense of rules. How does a guy like that get into it and, even more so, get to eventually be a captain? The story, I felt, seemed to address that and I felt it worked.

The Spock story seemed very plausible for a young Spock as well. Along the same lines of Kirk, Spock doesn't know what to do with his life. He is intrigued with his human half, but doesn't want to betray his Vulcan half, so he gives himself a "Vulcan mystery" to solve that forces him to explore many human situations (stealing, nightclubs, girls).

Also, the story goes into some detail on how Kirk, who in all likelihood should have been scared shitless after his situation with Kolos, gets from recovering from that and jumping into the service. This was also explored in Best Destiny (which, I admit, I think did a better job exploring that issue there, but it still was written interestingly here).

Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise, I suppose, was a case of "small universe", but it didn't bother me. If they didn't do that, I bet there would be people going "Wouldn't it be neat if they went to the Enterprise?" In reality, though, this really was the only case of "small universe" in the book. Kirk and Spock meeting each other wasn't that bad, I thought. Besides, that theory has been around for many, many moons. And, for what little we know, may or may not factor into Trek XI. I also liked the fact that Kirk and Spock part ways at the end of the book.

As for the throwaway line of Kirk being a stack of books with legs...that could still possibly happen. He just started at the Academy when the book ended. Something might happen during his studies that would cause him to turn that way, at least while at school. Maybe if Trial Run is ever written, we might see that. I have faith enough in the Reeves-Stevens to account for this tidbit of info.

Also...it was fun.

 

[Steve Roby]

In the show, Kirk was always a wild card in terms of command style.

Was he really? In the show, not the movies? Some of the writers here have addressed that claim in the past and pointed out that Kirk played by the rules almost all the time. In the movies he was more of a wild card, but there were 79 episodes and only seven movies with Kirk.

As for the throwaway line of Kirk being a stack of books with legs

Throwaway line? When it's coming from a former classmate and best friend? When it's consistent with Kirk's own assessment of himself at the Academy from another episode? From "Shore Leave": "Serious? I was absolutely grim."

The book is consistent with the cliche of Kirk, not with the character of Kirk as actually portrayed in the TV series.

 

[PaulSimpson]

In the show, Kirk was always a wild card in terms of command style.

Was he really? In the show, not the movies? Some of the writers here have addressed that claim in the past and pointed out that Kirk played by the rules almost all the time. In the movies he was more of a wild card, but there were 79 episodes and only seven movies with Kirk.

As for the throwaway line of Kirk being a stack of books with legs

Throwaway line? When it's coming from a former classmate and best friend? When it's consistent with Kirk's own assessment of himself at the Academy from another episode? From "Shore Leave": "Serious? I was absolutely grim."

The book is consistent with the cliche of Kirk, not with the character of Kirk as actually portrayed in the TV series.

Before the latest Kirk novel controversy began, one of the TrekLit writers had already pitched a debunking the "Kirk the Maverick" feature for our ongoing series in the mag - so look out for the latest KRAD endeavor in the 100 page original series special out end August US / mid-September UK

Paul

 

[Emperor-Tiberius]

there were 79 episodes and only seven movies with Kirk.

Make that, 101 episodes and seven movies.

 

[Steve Roby]

Make that, 101 episodes and seven movies.

Argh. Forgot TAS.