which also gave us books like 'Star Trek: The Next Generation #41 Invasion Book 2 The Soldiers of Fear', which was obviously a sequel to 'Star Trek #79 Invasion! Book 1: First Strike'
Ok, I confess: I miss the numbers
- Thread starter EnriqueH
- Start date
which also gave us books like 'Star Trek: The Next Generation #41 Invasion Book 2 The Soldiers of Fear', which was obviously a sequel to 'Star Trek #79 Invasion! Book 1: First Strike'
Yeah, I'd always assumed that this was the reason. The ST book line had just gotten too diverse and fractured.
Another good point. Some readers might have assumed that the books were more serialized than they were.
It's not like the numbers provided anything other than order of release date. The numbers had zero bearing on the story or where it took place in the timeline, so what difference does it make?
Of course, I sort mine alphabetically by author, so what do I know?
Yeah, it was. Titan started with Chain of Attack, numbering it #1. Later, they started printing earlier books in the series, in between new titles, but numbering them all in a single series -- so Yesterday's Son was #8 in the Titan series, and Time for Yesterday was #9. In the US and Canada, these were separated by several years, rather than a single month.
I think it was The Final Reflection that was the first numbered novel, with the other 15 being assigned their numbers.
But I wish they still did them. The Voyager line looks really great on a shelf with their digitally numbered spines and colored boxes.
It's really not that hard to find the order of the books online, we have the flowchart, @ryan123450's site, and both Memory Alpha, Beta, and Omega (which is a work in progress, but we're getting their).
As already expressed above, I liked the numbers because it was a very simple way to keep track of what I did and did not have. I generally bought all TOS books and dabbled in the others. So, if I last had #90 on my shelf and saw #92 in the book stores, that meant I missed one and needed to find it.
I understand there are other resources for tracking, but that was the easiest. I did not find it confusing as to whether or not the books were related. It just allowed me to know if I had all of the series I was interested in - understanding, of course, that hardcovers, specials, cross-overs, etc., were not numbered.
Consider unnumbered trading cards - that would be somewhat unwieldy, no?
I understand there are other resources for tracking, but that was the easiest. I did not find it confusing as to whether or not the books were related. It just allowed me to know if I had all of the series I was interested in - understanding, of course, that hardcovers, specials, cross-overs, etc., were not numbered.
Consider unnumbered trading cards - that would be somewhat unwieldy, no?
That's certainly true, but in a way, it was part of the problem. The numbers were great for collectors, but for others, they sort of conveyed the impression that you were supposed to collect them all, which could be forbidding once the numbers neared triple digits. There was a perception that more casual readers were intimidated by the high numbers, or felt it was too late in the series to jump on board. (This is why comics today frequently restart their series with new #1 issues, since those are seen as easier jumping-on points.) The fact that the books didn't connect wasn't immediately evident to newcomers, so the numbers gave them the wrong impression.
I really didn't care for the numbers on anything other than (1) volumes of short story/novella/novel adaptations of episodes, and (2) serialized works.
Although outside of ST, I can say that I am the proud owner of the complete Bobbsey Twins series of children's novels. Some in more than one version (in the case of "Baby May" and "Cherry Corners," the rewrites are completely unrecognizable from the originals). Some are quite rare (at least one exceedingly so, because the only known edition was printed on really bad paper, full of both acid and lignin, because of wartime rationing).
Although outside of ST, I can say that I am the proud owner of the complete Bobbsey Twins series of children's novels. Some in more than one version (in the case of "Baby May" and "Cherry Corners," the rewrites are completely unrecognizable from the originals). Some are quite rare (at least one exceedingly so, because the only known edition was printed on really bad paper, full of both acid and lignin, because of wartime rationing).
We know from comics that once a collected edition series hits double digits in volume numbers, book channel sellers order fewer on the assumption that new readers think they’ve missed too much — which is one reason so many comics series restart so quickly. (I have an essay on how comics numbering has changed over the years at https://www.comichron.com/faq/legacynumbering.html.)
That said, I suspect here there may have also been a sense that such numbering with paperbacks just looked downscale — the tactic of pulp action and similar novel series. As soon as there was a sense the numbers hurt sell-in to retailers more than they helped, they wouldn’t be likely to last long.
That said, I suspect here there may have also been a sense that such numbering with paperbacks just looked downscale — the tactic of pulp action and similar novel series. As soon as there was a sense the numbers hurt sell-in to retailers more than they helped, they wouldn’t be likely to last long.
Last edited:
I would not say that's universally true: it didn't seem to affect children's novel series (e.g. the various Stratemeyer series, particularly The Bobbsey Twins, The Hardy Boys, and Nancy Drew, all of which were in double-digits for decades, including dozens of "lost" titles).
But yes, I suppose it does look "downscale." It is, after all, a hallmark of "book packaging" (whether in the form of children's novels -- Edward Stratemeyer, after all, invented book packaging -- or in the form of "supermarket porn" romance novels). Then again, Star Trek novels, like all media tie-in novels, are an example of book packaging.
But yes, I suppose it does look "downscale." It is, after all, a hallmark of "book packaging" (whether in the form of children's novels -- Edward Stratemeyer, after all, invented book packaging -- or in the form of "supermarket porn" romance novels). Then again, Star Trek novels, like all media tie-in novels, are an example of book packaging.
Last edited:
Imagine if they tried to have numbers for the novelverse books. With all the tangents and side stories, we'd have stuff like #156c-iv. It'd be the Star Trek Fact Files all over again.
Cross Cult actually numbered their relaunch books and then stopped half-way through because of sales. So we got TNG 1-11 which are the books up to The Light Fantastic, Titan 1-7, up to Fallen Gods, DS9 8.01-9.03 up to The Soul Key. ENT and VGR retained their numbering, for whatever reason.
Dayton's In the Name of Honor might have been the "last" numbered novel, but the numbers had been left off some of the previous MMPBs already. The My Brother's Keeper trilogy, for example, is numbered in the official list... but the numbers appear nowhere on the actual books!
Put them in publication order, month and year, by series. Page opposite the title page.
For MMPB versions of hardcovers, use the hardcover publication date from about a year earlier, as tracked on Memory Alpha.
Similar threads
