Ok, I confess: I miss the numbers
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
On a related note, if the complete novel list that used to be in the back of every book would be helpful, I keep an updated one on my site.
https://startreklitverse.com/complete-pocket-books-novel-list.php
https://startreklitverse.com/complete-pocket-books-novel-list.php
I noticed that the other day! I appreciate the detail you put into reproducing the typography of the old list, gave me a nostalgic glow for the early 2000s.
Thanks! That was my hope so I’m glad someone noticed.
I just noticed when skimming that The Future Begins is inadvertently credited to Heather Jarman. If that was true, it would be a much better book!
@Stevil2001 Oh no! I’ll get that fixed. Probably a mistake of repeated copy and paste to easily keep the formatting.
Oh I did, I made a website and everything :P
My recently updated list of the audio novels is here:
https://therinofandor.blogspot.com/p/i-hear-star-trek.html
I've been having a grand ol' time reading them, and have fallen in love with a number of aspects about them! I love the space fantasy feel of Boris Vallejo's cover art. I love the mixing of elements from the movies and show (characters in series-era uniform, with the movie Enterprise hovering in the background). I love the triple-lined border on the front and back covers, and I like how the back cover has a zoom-in from the front cover art. I get a kick out of how titles have a font-type that is unique to Star Trek, and it's a great image that the titles have a 3-dimensional quality from the shadowing effect beneath and behind.
I don't feel too obsessive compulsive about the editions matching, per se, and I don't feel picky about not having them all, because my guidelines for reading the ones I've chosen includes some of the non-numbered any way. What does disconcert me, though, is how they stopped numbering them at 97. It's such a random number to stop at. I wish that they would finish the count to 100, and then move on.
I don't feel too obsessive compulsive about the editions matching, per se, and I don't feel picky about not having them all, because my guidelines for reading the ones I've chosen includes some of the non-numbered any way. What does disconcert me, though, is how they stopped numbering them at 97. It's such a random number to stop at. I wish that they would finish the count to 100, and then move on.
I am the Number Killer.
Wasn't that the original plan? I thought I read once (probably in this very forum?) that originally Christie Golden's The Last Roundup was supposed to be a trilogy, which would have been #98, 99 and 100... and then the numbers were going to end.
Plans obviously changed, and it was released as a hardcover instead.
A lot of people forget the numbering was a retroactive thing. They didn't start doing it until somewhere in the teens, and reprints of the earlier novels got the number added. The decision to end the practice apparently was made after the covers for #97 (mine) and the counterpart novels in the other series were printed. I don't remember there being any real discussion about it, beyond a desire to move away from the model used by men's adventure novel series like Mack Bolan or The Destroyer where the numbers more often than not indicate a sequential/linear nature to the stories in those series. As this wasn't the case for Trek novels, I guess some thought it might confuse new readers.
I bet I know why they stopped. Lots of readers, desperately running out of room, may have decided to stop at #100. IIRC, there was a MMPB trilogy planned, to be called "The Last Roundup", which was to have been #97-100. The title, "The Last Roundup", eventually became an unnumbered hardcover.
Similar threads
